01 Decentralised Decision Making: Steps To A Better Solution

DeepBlue

Active Member
Feb 2, 2018
158
116
103
The aim of this post is to formulate an improved Dash Decentralised decision-making process with the goal of improving the quality of making solid decisions whilst maintaining full decentralisation. Several problems with decentralised decision-making will be raised. Each problem may have its own discussion page with the goal to maintain focus of the discussion on each specific issue.

The success of any project is only as good as the decisions it makes
We have seen many times the results of poor governance decision in which large quantities of DASH are spent on dead-end projects that have little to no potential. MNOs with business experience often could see the danger signs and raised concerns however, invariably, their voices have been drowned out by the majority. Many inexperienced MNOs voted for projects simply because it appears to be a "good idea". Voting a project through primarily based on it's a "good idea" is not a sound basis to vote for a project that will succeed. There are many other important factors.

Although MNOs are improving at making decisions, there is a long way to go. Each month poor decisions are still being made leading to loss of valuable resources to the network that could be spent progressing worthwhile projects. There is also the problem of MNOs leaving DASH and taking with them their decision-making experience they gained over the years.

The DIF recently proposed removing the requirement for MNOs to approve their proposed investments. However, removal of approval from the MNO network would lead, once again, to a form of centralised decision-making. The attempt for greater DIF autonomy was not voted through. However many MNOs had voted for DIF autonomy signalling their realisation there is a problem with decentralised decision-making in its current form.

Although the network originally appointed the DIF members, MNOs and can vote them out after 1 year, the problem remains that decisions could be made that are not in the best interests of the network. Agreements could also be made that put unnecessary financial burden on the network. Now that the DIF is a legal entity there could also be legal consequences if the DIF was to operate more autonomously. Right now we have trusted DIF members who are working for free. However, in the future we would most likely have to pay for the DIF member contributions. With financial gains for DIF members this again opens the door to possible corruption as we have seen so many times in history when financial decisions are left to trust alone.

There has to be a better way.

The question that needs to be answered is: "How is it possible to ensure high quality decision-making whilst maintaining full decentralisation?

What we need is to develop a new model of decentralised decision-making that is as good, or preferably better than, centralised decision making. But how?

I have found over the years even the most complex or seemingly impossible problems can be solved by following a simple step by step procedure which I will outline below.

1. Firstly, it is absolutely essential to clearly define the core values of the project or business. All decisions need to be made in line with these core values if a project is to maintain its integrity. These values should be recorded and accessible to everyone who works on the project.
2. Clearly and accurately define each problem that needs to be solved.
3. Whenever possible break down bigger problems into smaller more manageable problems.
4. State what the ideal solution would be to each problem.
5. Brainstorm possible solutions to each part of the problem.
6. Assess, and discuss, each of the possible solutions to define which solution would be the best solution. Give a ranking (by votes) to each solution to determine the best solution.
7. Implement the solution.
8. Track and measure how successful the applied solution was and make improvements to it where necessary.
9. Finally, if another problem arises from any of the applied solutions, feed it back into steps 1 through to 8 until the desired outcome, or something better, is achieved.

I see DASH core values as follows:
1.
DASH must be non corruptible (both now and for the future),
2. Radical transparency (in code and investment),
3. Decentralisation (not possible to exploit Dash by minority group of individuals),
4. Efficiency (both Investment and coding efficiency)
5. Trustlessness (quality decisions can be made without the need to trust any one individual or group).
6. Payment solution - make tech usable by anyone.

Here is a link to a separate forum page for discussion of DASH's core values.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...sion-making-what-are-dashs-core-values.50310/

Step 1: Defining the problem
I will start by listing the problems I see with the DASH governance system however I hope that other MNOs will contribute to this post and put forward other problems they are aware of.

1. MNOs have widely varying levels of business experience ranging from nothing to long term business owners. As a result MNOs collectively have made many poor decisions over the years voting in worthless dead end projects and drowning out the voices of reason from the more experienced MNOs. Tens of millions of USD of our DASH holdings have been inflated away on dead end projects that had little to no potential to create value to DASH. The reality is most of the poor projects were blatantly poor investments and should never have been considered in the first place.

2. MNOs have widely different opinions, interests and ideas on the definition of what a good project is.

3. Voting in projects just because they seem a "good idea". Many MNOs simply vote in projects because they think it's a good idea. Very little detailed assessment of the proposed project is taking place. Then, when the PO makes off with the money, there is no come back. MNOs almost never consider assessments on the proposal owners themselves, their skill sets, their experience, their behaviour and how they interact with the community. These are all important indicators of the reliability of the people running the project. When working in a decentralised environment it is essential there is a harmonious spirit between participants. Caustic and trouble-making proposal owners should not be awarded project funds because they undermine the very fabric of healthy co-operation which is essential to maintain a decentralised community.

4. Lack of focus to project choice. There is little to no focus to the types of projects being funded. This means we are spending our funds on a wide variety of often unrelated projects instead of focusing on projects that fit our target market.

5. Better to spend than not to spend Some MNOs perceive spending the DASH treasury money is better than not spending it even if the project is not that worthwhile. They have not yet made the connection that every spend on treasury funds devalues their own DASH holdings due to the coins being minted.

6. No formalised mechanism to delegate voting keys to experienced MNOs Although MNOs can delegate their voting keys to other MNOs, this has not been happening. Presumably because a clear guidance procedure to delegate voting keys has not been formalised. MNOs may be afraid to delegate their voting keys for a number of reasons e.g. how to do so securely, knowing how to revoke keys, how to keep track of decisions and reasoning of MNOs they have delegated their voting keys to.

7. Last-minute low quality voting Many MNOs leave their voting to the very last minute without going through and properly studying a proposal.

8. Trolls Trolls are consistently infiltrating the Governance system causing division, damage and discrediting worthwhile projects. Many worthwhile projects have been derailed by trolls posing as genuine MNOs. These individuals disguise their actions by occasionally voting positively on some projects in the hope they will not be called out. Unfortunately because of point 7 above many MNOs are influenced by trolling comments.

9. Brain Drain Experienced MNOs, that have learned from the Governance decision making over the years, may leave the DASH project taking with them their experience and leanings.

10. DASH Business Plan, Target Markets and Strategy outside of DCG. DASH does not have a clear business plan that has been publicly published to assist MNOs to decided if a new project would be in line with Dash's target market. As a result unfocused decisions are being made on projects that are unrelated to our target markets.

11. Capture knowledge and learnings. There is no mechanism to capture, improve, and refer to learnings and principals derived from past experience.

12. No Mechanism For Raising Projects Proactively There is no effective means for MNOs to proactively suggest projects to be assessed, discussed and ranked in terms of importance against other proposed projects other than a discussion forum. The discussion forum does not lend itself to enabling ranking of a large number of potential projects to be worked on.

13. Pre-screening Proposal Owners. There is no mechanism to pre-screen proposal owners to ensure they have the skills and experience they claim to have. Without pre-screening of proposal owners we could be hiring people that are not qualified to deliver what they say they can deliver.

14. Business Plans There is no mechanism to ensure that proposal owner (PO) submit a fully worked out business plan as part of the process for applying for funds. A business plan demonstrates a PO is serious and has thought through the main issues with their project. It also screens out POs that are there for the quick money. A business plan provides valuable and detailed information to MNOs saving them time asking for this information separately. Harvard business school undertook a survey and found that a project is 17% more likely to be successful if the PO had worked out a full business plan before starting their project. For DASH projects the success % value is likely to be considerably higher than the Harvard findings because POs frequently have little or no "skin in the game".

15. Format of Discussions to aid decision making. The format of the Governance discussion boards are not conducive to seeing at a glance a summary of the pros and cons of a project.

16. Sock puppet accounts are systematically destroying healthy discussions. Sock puppet accounts protect the true identities of the troll which in turn protects their true reputation. They can fire off trolling comments safe in the knowledge their real identity would not be damaged. Their goal is to undermine sound decision-making because it can appear that many MNOs are agreeing to vote down a worthwhile proposal, when in fact is is just one person with many accounts. They are exploiting a principal of influence called "social proof" in which people are influenced by decisions made by the majority - even if that decision is a poor one.

17. Ad Hominen attacks : Some MNOs do not know the basic principals of healthy debate and resort to Ad Hominen attacks. Ad Hominen attacks undermine healthy decision making by muddying the waters on the essential topics that need to be discussed. In addition, Ad Hominens can lead to lower participation of contributors who are the target of these attacks. Some people may have great value to bring to the discussion but do not want to be subject to low quality comments directed at their perceived character or motives. Some MNOs do not even know the correct definition of an Ad Hominen attack and continue to justify their damaging behaviour by statements such as "it's important to challenge people's character to uncover their true intentions". Unfortunately, such people are part of the problem. It is only through healthy and constructive debate that quality decisions can be made. If an argument is strong enough then there is no justifiable reason to attack a person's character or perceived motives when addressing specifically their point of view. I believe it may, however, be acceptable for MNOs to call out Ad Hominen attacks provided they have also addressed a valid contribution from the user. Contributors that have poor reasoning ability, weak arguments, or ulterior motives use Ad Hominen attacks in attempt to win over an argument or derail a discussion by discrediting a contributor.

See the following reference that clearly defines Ad Hominen attacks and its damaging consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Also refer to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement

18. Lack of accountability by proposal owners. In any business venture suppliers or contractors are held financially accountable to ensure they deliver what they say they will deliver. Currently DASH has no procedures to pursue any proposal owner who does not deliver what they agreed they would.

19. MNO governance reputation scoring. MNOs cannot earn, in a systematic way, a reputation score that will enable other MNOs to gauge how trustworthy a contributor is likely to be. There is no formalised way to determine how long a MNOs has been with the network, how many worthwhile contributions they have made or how often they resort to Ad Hominem attacks in discussions. We need a way to assign a trust score based on their previous contributions to the DASH project. In addition if a MNO undertakes Ad Hominem attacks there could be a means to record these via an independent and trusted party. If such a trust scoring system could be developed it would enable MNOs, to consider reputation scores when assessing their feedback similar to how vendors on Ebay receive a customer feedback rating with comments backing up the score they give.

20. Tracking projects. Timelines and expected delivery dates need to be published by proposal owners as part of the agreement of receiving funding. Currently we rarely hear from proposal owners and the information we get is minimal. Dashwatch reports go some way to providing a summary of work undertaken but fall short in seeing how the project is progressing in real time.

The above are some of the main problems I see with the DASH governance system. I have thought through all of the above issues and have solutions to some of them.

I encourage other MNOs to list in this post any other issues or problems they see with the governance system so that we can work through these problems.
 
Last edited:

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,827
1,050
1,183
MNOs are self-appointed, not earned. And there's no mechanism for competition over proposals. How can anyone compete for a proposal when groups like DCG become the de-facto standard? How do I know I'm actually getting value for money? Well, no one's going to dump DCG if there's no one to fill their boots.

For anyone with 100 dash or more at a single address for at least 30 days should be entitled to vote for their favorite MNO. The top 100 MNO's are the ones that get to vote on proposals. I suspect it might help with decision making but only marginally. But we don't know if we don't try. Whatever route we take, it's going to take some experimenting.

Alternatively, and this is my preference, we should just let anyone vote who holds 100 dash or more for at least 30 days. That might sound reckless but I don't think it's any less reckless than what we have now. Right now, MNOs come from a wide variety of backgrounds with various objectives. This diversity is a zero-sum game, you're never going to educate them all on how to be a good decision maker. The most important aspect of mass voting is that many thousands of users would become engaged and feel they are actually a part of something special.
 

forro

Member
Apr 13, 2019
93
29
68
Well said. Its clear you have been formulating this for quite some time. I agree in particular with your core values list, and the order in which you listed them. Without meaning to sound condescending, I say great job man.

I'm hoping the simple adjustment of incentives from "free money" to "its coming out of my pocket!" will raise the bar significantly and encourage the development of much of what you list. Even tho it was never free money. Many MNOs never realize that they are diluting their own holdings with every handout.

If it is not enough to rein in spending and increase scrutiny over the following year or so, I hope we can consider making the MNOs bear all the costs of proposals, rather than having miners share the burden.

Incentivizing participation in a more direct fashion will hopefully revive the pre-proposal discussions. Hopefully those discussions will make "know your PO (kypo)" a norm. And when a PO returns for money, there are frank discussions about the PO's track record. Open, detailed budgets. I shudder to think how much some of our POs are paying themselves for a couple marginal integrations and meetups per month. Radical transparency as you say.

Could the DIF be engaged as an auditor for proposals? Could we demand that a PO agree to have their spending audited? Surely an open, honest PO would have no problem with that, and would really eliminate a lot of waste. That will also help them with their reputation.

I recall dash nexus did some of that function, such as milestone tracking, but i'm not sure how legit that really was. A more serious, professional auditing function which reports its findings in detail would really help.

The aim of this post is to formulate an improved Dash Decentralised decision making process with the goal of improving the quality of making solid decisions whilst maintaining decentralisation.
[/QUOTE
 

DeepBlue

Active Member
Feb 2, 2018
158
116
103
Part 04: The Dash Decentralisation Charter (DDC)

I have posted a forum message about the concept of the Dash Decentralisation Charter (DDC) which documents and records our decentralised decision making philosophies, values, principals, best practises, experience and most valuable learnings etc which would act as a guiding set of principals that the Dash project could refer to.

You can read more about the concept of the DDC here:

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...-the-dash-decentralisation-charter-ddc.50379/

The DDC would act rather like the Declaration of independence for the USA by the founding fathers. However the difference is that a decentralised charter will be a fluid document that is constantly refined and updated. Each principal that enters the charter would be voted on by MNOs before it can enter the charter. This also will help with our decision making processes in the Governance system because this document would act as a set of agreed, worked out principals that MNOs can refer to.
 
Last edited:

EUsouth

Member
Nov 15, 2018
16
1
58
@DeepBlue

Congratulations on the splendid approach. It conveys (actually, several of the participants) passion for DASH as the main leitmotif, a rare aspect in the current project. (and, in my opinion, possibly the key to almost all of its serious limitations)

I would like to participate. In fact, I got to the third linked thread, answering several of the moot points as they arose ... and realized I was wasting my time. So I backtracked (in my opinion, the most effective orientation to stated intentions is not there: there, in tackling the nuances and even improving or fixing them, only the trap remains that possibly many well-intentioned and brilliant fans, but ultimately disappointed, have probably been stuck in DASH before this attempt and until the exhaustion ... and not the point of the correct answer, but one doomed to go round and round in infinite circles, even monopolizing and wearing away much of the talent available to DASH while their own structural problems they keep devouring it himself - The current DASH structure does not pursue meritocracy, but rather, as a good parasitic exercise, protects itself against it, since it threatens the status of its beneficiaries...... and this fact is the first enemy of those who want to see DASH shining in its maximum splendor - ).

This is the original point of this "series of threads" ... do you think it is the most suitable to test the optimization you want? @DeepBlue

I see that other threads have posts after the last ones here and perhaps it is because the debate has already become nuanced and this original and maybe more "generic" thread has considered "overcome" - I do not know the dynamics that the half dozen of this usual topic followers - ... In my opinion, getting into nuances could already be reckless and lead to confusion and endless work without having faced the structural evils that must be refocused to reorient / release / optimize DASH and make the project show its full potential, or get closer to it.

Because it is precisely DASH that prevents DASH from getting where it deserves and expressing itself with an infinitely greater capacity than the current one - potential it possesses, and the proof is that it is obvious to almost all its followers, but its results are, on the contrary, not only minor, but often disappointing and far from those high perspectives that are perceived with so much evidence.

In other words, the potential exists objectively ... but the errors are structural in DASH, so there is no progress on the path that the project is able to travel with much greater solvency than most of the rest - which, however, offer very positive results .. starting with a BTC against which, imho , DASH can compete perfectly ... but which is being given too much Golden time and market share.
 
Last edited:

EUsouth

Member
Nov 15, 2018
16
1
58
OK, silence ... but I'll move on. :cool:

The synthesis brings me to a basic 3-point concept:

- Financial Independence.
- Decentralization.
- Resistance to censorship.

All of them deeply minimized/corrupted/both in DASH, imo. But, at the expense of other basic concepts that do not start from these three, the key is not the complaint, but the optimization.

In principle, I think that for any collective synergy initiative, a modular structure is ideal ... for two reasons:

A- Its reorientation and partial evolution does not imply integral resets.

B- That the support of mainstream consensus (of which concrete and powerful groups take advantage of dirty to impose particular interests, censors, etc. in DASH ... to the detriment of the general interests of the project) is not absolutely essential for a creative process constant in search of the optimization of the project (lack of support that, at times, not only does not give its support to positive initiatives, but also marginalizes them ... and that is precisely what we must flee from. Consensus must be a means of enriching the project, not repression - A healthy and productive structure needs parallel channels so that the discrepancy deepens in its theses, without disturbing ... but without stopping - ).

There are really valuable initiatives, even triggers for great leaps in quality, either because of innovations that open up new and better perspectives, or because of tackling stale but long-entrenched points that weigh down the potential of the project ... and this type of action can hardly count on support. at the mainstream level, since they often propose reinterpretations of approaches deeply assimilated by the community almost as inseparable from the project. The response to this type of approach, many times generated by systemic limitations such as analysis lacking criteria (this problem is very common in the face of avant-garde and disruptive perspectives of value within all kinds of groups, since in their initial stages they do not achieve understanding, sometimes not even the necessary attention, of the majorities that are needed at governance levels to be implemented.

However, the positive of a modular structure is that it does not imply giving up the exploration of minority initiatives, which in principle can continue to prosper and optimize the project in the relevant parallel directions without weighing down its nuclear operation ... that is, they allow a satisfied and conservative majority enjoy a system with which they identify while minorities can continue to contribute creativity without being marginalized from the project and consolidate their theories until offering perfectly operational improvements that favor a purely practical analysis and therefore, more grounded to be valued by other users.

After this claim to a solid structure ... but as modular as possible, let's go to the points that, synthesized, could make up the DNA of DASH ... and that, imo, can be clearly improved.


And I finish, with some generic actions aimed at optimizing the essential bases of DASH previously exposed (at the expense, I insist, of their being revoked / expanded & unauthorized, etc)

1. Financial independence.
- Reserves with exposure to BTC that defuse Nakamoto's Cannibalism ... the biggest threat to the financial freedom of the crypto sector.

2. Decentralization
- opening the right to vote to multiple DASH investors ... who create a "casting vote niche" whose purpose can only be the general interest of the project. (There are several means to promote it such as shared Mnodes, etc ... but I leave the general line of action to identify the appropriate process previously at any step). The important thing is that such a voting niche in DASH (micro-holders, unlike whales, cannot aspire to benefits in their particular interest, is ridiculous for the simple proportion of votes ... that private interest in his favor, would never be expressed) would guarantee a constant proportion to any attempt to vote for particular benefits ... it is not a democratic, socialist, or idealistic "political" demand ... it is a purely practical question ... since guaranteeing a few hundred votes always in defense of the general interest of the project would not nullify the power of the whales ... but, accompanied by modest Mnodes owners who also seek the "common good", it would dilute it ... and always in the direction most profitable for the project. In SUMMARY: That voting niche would ensure that each vote in DASH started FROM THE OUTPUT with hundreds of votes defending the interest of the project. And there, the great whales would continue to be decisive - is normal due to their deserved proportional presence in the system - ... but always to benefit DASH, and then, not so much for hypothetical selfish whims - if there were temptations of it and the capacity to impose them-.

3. Resistance to censorship
- Mechanisms to reduce as much as possible the disgusting and interested levels of censorship, arbitrary bans, trolling subsidized agaisnt dissidents ( but loyals to DASH concept ) , information intoxication degenerated into pure propaganda ... existing in DASH on a totally daily basis.
- Creation of channels optimized for aseptic, objective quality information, and as transparent as possible to maintain a perfectly informed community ... that favors the free exchange of information and facilitates all kinds of perspectives on the table and the meritocracy of talent prevails and not self-interested manipulation or the benefit of individual elementes or collective repressive groups ... (DEEP BLUE's contribution in that sense with the Graham´s hierarchy of disagreement is really splendid, a great basis from which to start philosophically)

- Reduction, as far as possible, of the influence of personal actions that condition the integration and contribution of the DASH community, which includes mechanisms to control and sanction moderation in the different comunication channels, a work that often achieves disgusting results and deeply repressive, with censors even subsidized by the DAO itself.


... well, I think that for this post, it is enough to build (rebuild) on top.
 
Last edited:

rion

Member
Aug 26, 2016
51
44
58
Great post. The most important insight in my option was the need to have a clear definition of the core values and mission of the project. Many MNOs have varying ideas regarding what Dash is, why it exists, and what is aims to do/build. This naturally leads to different strategies, and a lack of focus. I think the best we have that most people can agree with is the name of the project itself, and what it stands for: Dash - digital cash.

I think it's important to be very clear about who we are, and who our competitors are. For me, Dash is an economy. We have a currency also called Dash, but as an economy we need much more than the currency we use. We need a robust and efficient labor force which encompasses entrepreneurs, businesses, merchants, and much more. That obviously isn't isn't an exhaustive mission statement statement but it's the heart.

As for core values, I would include some specifics about ethics:
  • Everyone has the right to own property (ownership and property would have to be defined)
  • Everyone has the right to privacy (privacy would have to be defined)
  • Everyone has the right to know exactly how the monetary system works (non fraudulent system)
    • Open source code
    • Transparent money supply
    • Clear protocol for how parameters change
    • etc.
Again, that's not the exhaustive list, just some foundational points. It's built on ethics, but would also include some points about economics and engineering. I like categorizing Dash's core subject matters into those three buckets: ethics, economics, and engineering.
  • Ethics are the core values (the ends themselves).
  • Economics is the science of human action (that we use means to achieve ends),
  • Engineering is the practical nuts and bolts implementation (the means themselves).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhkien

DeepBlue

Active Member
Feb 2, 2018
158
116
103
As for core values, I would include some specifics about ethics:
  • Everyone has the right to own property (ownership and property would have to be defined)
  • Everyone has the right to privacy (privacy would have to be defined)
  • Everyone has the right to know exactly how the monetary system works (non fraudulent system)
    • Open source code
    • Transparent money supply
    • Clear protocol for how parameters change
    • etc.

Regarding Privacy: I agree that privacy should be included as a fundamental right for both individuals and businesses however I also feel total anonymity should not be a right. The reason for this is because the reality is there are criminals, terrorists, paedophiles etc that could use Dash for their illegal activities. Or, perhaps, a hacker might steal your crypto e.g. your masternode, would you not want a way for law enforcement to track them down and recover your funds? Surely we would want a way for law enforcement to track down thieves that have stolen crypto ? With anonymous coins law enforcement would find it nearly impossible to track where your stolen funds have gone and who has them. This would mean it would be nearly impossible to ever derive an identity from the owner of the currency and this would assist serious crimes to go unabated. There should be sufficient privacy so that deriving an identity would require exceptionally powerful resources and special security procedures that could be combined with other information that could derive an identity. However deriving an identity from the holder of crypto would be well beyond the scope of any normal individual or business to do. In this way people could enjoy financial privacy however if necessary security forces could track down an individual holder of crypto if they had access to special software and information that is unavailable to everyone else. The challenge would therefore be how do we determine what the level of privacy would be needed for a safe society to operate?
 
Last edited:

EUsouth

Member
Nov 15, 2018
16
1
58
@DeepBlue



I respond here to the quotes you have made me in other threads.

As I have told you since my first post, I think you have developed too many points, even at the level of details, according to your own vision ... when in my opinion, some errors in DASH are STRUCTURAL.

Then, responding to your specific points in the successive threads and in the nuances that you develop from each of them, would already represent going beyond, and therefore, assuming those structural errors ... which is precisely what I do not see possible in An Attempt to IMPROVE what I consider errors, so it would be a waste of time in my opinion. (Obviously for me, not for you, you will interpret it with the same freedom and criteria that I do according to my personal perception)

On the other hand, since you have not told me anything about the basic errors that I understand and that I expose in this first thread ... any feedback is difficult to reach. Perhaps the way of putting things does not make us coincide. I would understand, anyway, of course.


Congratulations on your attempt ... it seems well intentioned and that is already a positive and worthy of gratitude in DASH.

A greeting.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: AgnewPickens

DeepBlue

Active Member
Feb 2, 2018
158
116
103
Part 06: Decentralized decision making. Why business plans should be compulsory for all projects requesting funding:

 

DeepBlue

Active Member
Feb 2, 2018
158
116
103
Part 07: Decentralized decision making: Reasons why proposal owners should to be vetted before they can be considered for funding.

 

DeepBlue

Active Member
Feb 2, 2018
158
116
103
Part 08: The benefits to the DAO for for proposal owners to provide detailed progress report information through improved reporting tools in DashNexus

 

EUsouth

Member
Nov 15, 2018
16
1
58
@DeepBlue

As I see, you keep trying to get the beneficiaries of an abuse to help you undo it (and its unconscionable benefits).

From within, you will never have his permission for that. Even if you write 20 Bibles. For someone passionate about the enormous potential of DASH, your intention is positive and worthy of appreciation ... but you go round in circles.