04 - Decentralised Decision Making: The DASH Decentralisation Charter (DDC)

DeepBlue

Active Member
Feb 2, 2018
158
116
103
Part 4: This post will discuss the concept of a Dash Decentralisation Charter (DDC) a document that stores Dash project core values, guiding principles, best practises, concepts and vision of the DASH cryptocurrency project. The DDC would be similar to the concept of the "Declaration of Independence" for the USA in which the Founding Fathers wrote out a set of guiding principles on which other decisions were made for the country. This document provided greater consistency in decision-making and was based on core values. The difference with the Dash Decentralisation Charter is that it will be a document that can be updated, modified and added to as required and it will contain working best practises based on passed learning experiences.

The DDC would be a valuable asset to the Dash network governance system that would be continually upgraded and updated to capture collective knowledge as DASH learns and evolves as a cryptocurrency.

One of the main challenges with a decentralised organisation is that many people have widely varying ideas about how things should be and work. This is beneficial in one respect, that there is a rich variety of ideas to call upon. However, at the same time, it can cause serious challenges in coming to a consensus on the best way to move forward. The DASH project needs to become more efficient in the way that it operates so that it is at least on a par with a centralise organization, but preferably exceeds it. In addition, since the DAO is a fluid organisation, meaning, MNOs come in and leave the organization, we need a way to capture the learnings and knowledge from MNOs that have been with the DASH project for a long time and have learned from the mistakes of past governance decisions. If we do not record these learnings and principles we will continually be having to battle out every idea and principle each time someone new comes into the community. What would be better is to work out Dash's values, and learnings, discuss them, debate them, then vote on each principle individually. If the principle received enough votes from the MNOs it would enter the DDC.

The DDC would be a controlled document in a source code management (SCM) system. However updates could only be made by getting enough votes for the principle to be updated. We would therefore need some form of SCM, like Git hub, but edits would only be sanctioned if there were enough votes to do so. This would prevent anyone from going in and changing the document without getting full decentralised agreement from the DAO on the changes to be made.

The DDC would act as a form of "Social set of programs" which the DAO could work to and refer to. The social programs would work in much the same way as software programs have a set of instructions for how a computer undertake actions. We could create a set of social decision-making principles that help guide MNOs and the community for governance decisions.

There would be a mechanism to discuss a principle that we feel ought to be added to the DDC. The principle would be debated upon and then we would have a voting system to decide if the principle should enter the Charter or not. If it receives a majority set of votes the principle would enter the charter for future reference for the MNOs and the DASH community.

At any time if a principle is found to be defective or require an update, or even removed, then the principle in the DDC can be singled out for reconsideration and discussion on what the defect is, and once again voted upon if the update to the principle should enter the charter or not. This is similar to how bugs are found and dealt with in software development. The bug is identified, worked on, code reviewed, and then merged with the parent source code.

If we could develop such a Charter it would help MNOs make better, more consistent decisions, in the governance system to ensure we meet with Dash's core values, goals and vision.

Each principle in the Charter would be a discreet unit principle and be assigned a unique Database ID number and hyperlink. In this way we could refer to a specific principle by ID in the Governance system when discussing a project that is up for funding. e.g. if there is a project that is not focused on what we have agreed are our target markets we could state something like the following. "The Dash DDC ID numbers 3 and 7 state that this project requires a business plan and that it needs to be focused on one of our target markets as defined by ID numbers 10 through to 20." If the MNO has a stronger argument than those already pre-agreed then we could consider updating the principle.

In addition each principle in the DDC would have a hyperlink to both the discussion and the voting results for that principle so that others, could, review at any time the logic of how the MNOs came to create and develop that principle.

It is important to emphasis that the DDC is only a guidance document and not a document written in stone. The DDC will be a fluid document that is updated, refined and improved over time as we learn. Once we have the DDC all good governance decisions would be of value and each bad decision would also be of value since we would learn from both. Unlike now, however, we are losing that experience and knowledge because we have not captured it and recorded.

The DDC would store the entire history of every version of the document for anyone to view at any time. Changes to a DDC principle in the document would only be possible through a vote, if the edit would modify the meaning or significance of the principle. Each change to the DDC would show the user that made the change, and the date and time the change was made. The SCM system would have a DIFF feature to enable a user to see the specific changes made between any version of the document.

A small group of elected MNO would be responsible for the maintenance and edits on the DDC and they can only act based on the results of votes from MNOs if the changes are to update a principle. In this way, the elected DDC team could make small corrections (Typos and formatting or clarifications) etc without having to have votes on small corrections each time. However, no changes could be made to the fundamental principle's meaning without a vote.

I would propose that the votes to determine if a principle will go into the DDC or not would not go through the normal governance system. We would need a custom discussion and voting system specifically created for the DDC. The reason for this is due to the large number of principles that would need to enter the DDC. It would not be cost effective to use the current governance system to develop such a charter. Instead a new type of decentralised voting system would need to be developed where a smaller fee of around $10 USD worth of DASH by the proposer of the new principle needs to be paid. The principle would enter into this specially designed system where it could be discussed, debated and then voted on. If the new principle receives enough votes for approval then it would enter into the DDC.

I would propose that the only people that could vote on the new principle would be MNOs. Therefore the DDC voting system would need to determine if someone has a valid masternode or not - rather like in Dashcentral now. MNOs only should be the ones to work on these principles to keep out trolls and also to ensure that only people with a significant financially interest in the DASH project would be able to decide what principles go into the charter. The rational being that those with the most invested financially are the ones that are most likely to want the best for DASH since they will have the most to gain (or lose).

The DDC would form a systematic means to capture our knowledge and experience as we develop as a project. It would form a valuable asset to help us make more sound consistent decisions and help there to be more harmony in the governance system and the community as a whole.

I would be interested to hear what other MNOs think about the concept of this DDC.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: forro

forro

Member
Apr 13, 2019
94
32
68
I'm on board, it's a great idea. However, just like apathetic citizens who can't be bothered to vote, there are a lot of apathetic MNOs. This may never get traction without developing a set of incentives to participate. They just don't care so far.
 

JonesMW

New Member
Jun 18, 2019
5
0
1
32
Part 4: This post will discuss the concept of a Dash Decentralisation Charter (DDC) a document that stores Dash project core values, guiding principles, best practises, concepts and vision of the DASH cryptocurrency project. The DDC would be similar to the concept of the "Declaration of Independence" for the USA in which the Founding Fathers wrote out a set of guiding principles on which other decisions were made for the country. This document provided greater consistency in decision-making and was based on core values. The difference with the Dash Decentralisation Charter is that it will be a document that can be updated, modified and added to as required and it will contain working best practises based on passed learning experiences.
Yeah, well it is an awesome idea. There are hundreds of resources and websites, which can share with you information about investing in Bitcoin and how to make it's more profitable, but I like this one ( url: https://allcryptolive.com/2020/06/23/how-to-invest-in-cryptocurrency/ ), where author explains exactly what you should do, with all the steps which you have to do.
 
Last edited:

rion

Member
Aug 26, 2016
53
46
58
In this way we could refer to a specific principle by ID in the Governance system when discussing a project that is up for funding. e.g. if there is a project that is not focused on what we have agreed are our target markets we could state something like the following. "The Dash DDC ID numbers 3 and 7 state that this project requires a business plan and that it needs to be focused on one of our target markets as defined by ID numbers 10 through to 20." If the MNO has a stronger argument than those already pre-agreed then we could consider updating the principle.
I like the general idea of a document of Dash's mission statement and core values, as discussed in previous posts, but this seems to be taking it to a more bureaucratic level than I'd be comfortable with. Have you read the book "Bureaucracy" by Ludwig von Mises? If not, I highly recommend it. It basically talks about two ways to manage/run economic and social systems. One is the capitalistic system of profit and loss, the other is bureaucracy, where decisions are made without the benefit of financial profit and loss. Dash sits in an interesting place that can facilitate both capitalistic and socialistic models. It's up to us to decide how to mold it. I'm personally fully convinced that capitalism is the best model, but I haven't completely ruled out some role for social systems so long as they respect natural rights (e.g. some forms of anarcho-syndicalism, etc).

It is important to emphasis that the DDC is only a guidance document and not a document written in stone
The challenge with this is that the less "set in stone" it is, the weaker it is.

Instead a new type of decentralised voting system would need to be developed where a smaller fee of around $10 USD worth of DASH by the proposer of the new principle needs to be paid.
The challenge with this is that MNOs have limited time and attention. If the price is only $10 we might see too many proposals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhkien

EUsouth

Member
Nov 15, 2018
16
1
58
@DeepBlue
You have come with a "book of freedom" under your arm. You are not looking to exchange ideas ... you drop half a dozen linked threads and wait to consolidate that ready-made narrative while some members, perhaps even spontaneous, are jumping on the bandwagon.

In thread 1 I have already told you that if the advancement of DASH, without prejudice to mainstream consensus that logically must be respected, is MODULAR - in terms of respect, meritocracy and creativity, without even financial support - , consensus will not be essential so that alternatives to the direction of the mainstream can evolve tangentially on specific issues ... while accepting some general lines of consensus, of course. In fact, that exactly could avoid that knowledge base formed on the errors made that you say you want to take advantage of ... without paying for them based on blows that attack and damage the entire system.

These "parallel laboratory tests" can save much damage to the system without attacking the general consensus or the common benefit. If you subordinate minority approaches to the general consensus, which seem not to interest you at all, you are only creating unique thinking. (Which, on the other hand, is what becomes clearer each time you add to these already cooked paragraphs without the slightest debate - after a dozen threads and half a dozen pages on each, you will probably already have a couple dozen of "contributors" debating a series of points WITHIN YOUR OWN NARRATIVE ... and there, everything will seem like an exchange of conceptions "wide-ranging" on which to build ... but it will be partial and unreal -).

A dissent around mainstream narratives is censorship, since it refers any debate to which hierarchical instances of the project decide whether or not it should take place. And consensus implies executive unity , not philosophical or thought. Health are free narratives that respect and do not disturb the development of a course legitimized by consensus ... as long as they can advance in parallel at the expense and risk of those who are interested - free men in search of the optimization of a collective project ... which represents a good catalyst -.

I insist, as is already reasoned in the first thread: Neither communication, nor financial independence nor decentralization - fundamental values of DASH officially recognized that do not need to be invented - are reasonably optimized in their DASH structure ... and imo, and in others expressed, yes nuanced and constructively criticized in the first thread. Variations on a structure whose reasoned questioning is ignored will only help to reinforce it in its own limitation. And choosing the color for the walls of your jail cell is not freedom. Nor much less can it optimize a structure whose bases may be already atrophied.

With all due respect: is this an attempt to optimize DASH ... or just the umpteenth attempt to give the appearance of excellence and openness to an evolution of structural theses probably too rigid and probably too erroneous?
 
Last edited:

EUsouth

Member
Nov 15, 2018
16
1
58
I like the general idea of a document of Dash's mission statement and core values, as discussed in previous posts, but this seems to be taking it to a more bureaucratic level than I'd be comfortable with. Have you read the book "Bureaucracy" by Ludwig von Mises? If not, I highly recommend it. It basically talks about two ways to manage/run economic and social systems. One is the capitalistic system of profit and loss, the other is bureaucracy, where decisions are made without the benefit of financial profit and loss. Dash sits in an interesting place that can facilitate both capitalistic and socialistic models. It's up to us to decide how to mold it. I'm personally fully convinced that capitalism is the best model, but I haven't completely ruled out some role for social systems so long as they respect natural rights (e.g. some forms of anarcho-syndicalism, etc).


The challenge with this is that the less "set in stone" it is, the weaker it is.


The challenge with this is that MNOs have limited time and attention. If the price is only $10 we might see too many proposals.

The ideal system for a collective enrichment structure is, without a doubt, the one that ALWAYS optimizes its actions for the benefit of a back-end system. That will strengthen the system and the particular benefits will be given by pure correlation (but it is necessary to define the individual incentives of the members of that collective system and that they are sufficient for that sum of loyalties and wills to produce a solid force that achieves a force greater than the sum of those delivered - Synergy -).

Obviously, the human factor is a potential distortion element. But it is that in practice, capitalist systems are also managed through bureaucratic administrations, one only has to look at the world ... and thus, everything loses the airtight / hermetic character that would express the difference between both theoretical options.
 

DeepBlue

Active Member
Feb 2, 2018
158
116
103
You have come with a "book of freedom" under your arm. You are not looking to exchange ideas ... you drop half a dozen linked threads and wait to consolidate that ready-made narrative while some members, perhaps even spontaneous, are jumping on the bandwagon.
Hello, I have no "book of freedom" or a ready-made narrative. I am simply putting forward possible solutions to the problems which I have listed in the first posting of the problems and issues we are facing with our current decentralized decision making process which you can view here:

Problems with the current Dash decentralized decision making process


All my threads are responding to each one of the problems identified in the above post. I have no preset agenda.

I find your comment somewhat surprising. I'm getting heat for contributing positively for possible solutions!

Are you saying then that we should not address any problems with the current decentralized decision making process or make any suggestions for improvements?

Reading one of your other replies to one of my posts it seems that you think Evan Duffield's original suggestion is good enough and does not need to be improved in any way. If that is the case then why do we have all the issues I've mentioned in my first post? If we don't improve and deal with these issues they will keep turning up. They are deficiencies that need to be fixed. If we don't evolve and fix them then we will get left behind by other projects that do. Is that what you want?

The above thread outline the issues we are having and I also stated in all my posts that I welcome feedback from other MNOs on their suggestions and contributions and ideas. I have no agenda other than finding solutions to the problem areas we have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EUsouth

DeepBlue

Active Member
Feb 2, 2018
158
116
103
I like the general idea of a document of Dash's mission statement and core values, as discussed in previous posts, but this seems to be taking it to a more bureaucratic level than I'd be comfortable with. Have you read the book "Bureaucracy" by Ludwig von Mises? If not, I highly recommend it. It basically talks about two ways to manage/run economic and social systems. One is the capitalistic system of profit and loss, the other is bureaucracy, where decisions are made without the benefit of financial profit and loss. Dash sits in an interesting place that can facilitate both capitalistic and socialistic models. It's up to us to decide how to mold it. I'm personally fully convinced that capitalism is the best model, but I haven't completely ruled out some role for social systems so long as they respect natural rights (e.g. some forms of anarcho-syndicalism, etc).
I would like to clarify a point where I feel there may be an misunderstanding that arose from using the deceleration of independence analogy. The Dash Decentralization Charter DDC would not be a set of bureaucratic rules, but rather a record of learnings and guiding principals which we learn over the years. One of the first clauses in the document should be perhaps the following:

"The DDC document purpose is as a record of guiding principals and should never be taken as a set of bureaucratic rules that must be followed or enforced"

The learnings from the DDC will act as a set of guiding principals that can be referred to rather than Bureaucratic laws. There is a big difference between the two. Bureaucracy is often backed by laws or consequences if they are not followed. Laws make the rules obligatory to follow and rules have consequences if they are not followed. The Dash Decentralization Charter should never be used to enforce any action. It simply is a set of principals that can be referred to help us make better decisions based on learnings from the past or from other well know decision making principals that are tried and tested through time. The DDC would also help us have more consistency in the decisions we make.

In addition the DDC would be a constant work in progress and we will have the ability to update, modify or change the guiding principals in the DDC at any time through a MNO vote.

I envisage we would need a new type of decision voting system that currently does not yet exist. Using the Governance system to make a decision is not efficient and it is not designed for that purpose. One of my future posts on decentralized decision making would cover a suggestion for such a new voting system that can be used to make DAO decisions such as what goes into the DDC.

In my own business we use protocol documents to undertake processes. The documents itemise exact steps to take to have a particular outcome. If a defect is found e.g. an error arises the document is updated or patched. All these documents are held in a source code control system. In this way we become more and more efficient with time as the documents improve. Whenever an issue arises now we find 9 times out of 10 that someone skipped a step in the protocol.

I feel it is important we capture and record our leanings from past experience and continue to work with the DDC to help us make better decisions. It is not a document that enforces anything. It is simply a document to capture our knowledge from our experiences in the past and to make suggestions about how we can deal with different circumstances.

The DDC can add weight to an argument because the principal will be backed by evidence and case studies this can help MNO more easily see the logic and reasons behind a course of action or a decision.
 
Last edited: