A Call for tungfa to Heed the Masternodes' Vote

nmarley

Administrator
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
Jun 28, 2014
369
427
133
As you may recall, task #2 of my recently-passed proposal to make Dash's Youtube channel simply awesome reads:
...
Alas, though he acknowledges that the proposal has passed, tungfa tells me he has no intention of deleting YouTube.com/DarkcoinTV. I have no access to do so myself, either.
There should be no argument here.

Your proposal has passed @amanda_b_johnson so it is your right to do what the masternode's agreed with.
No, no, no. It's scheduled to pass. Until the actual superblock, people can change their votes, or MN operators can theoretically decide to vote "no" and shoot it down at the last minute. It's not yet "passed" though.

1. As a general rule it would be better to consider a budget proposal binding when the proposal voting cycle closes as masternode operators vote at different times during the month and approvals often change or new competing proposals come online, things like that.
My thoughts:

1) I completely disagree with @amanda_b_johnson that this proposal has even passed yet. We are still at the very beginning of the July proposal cycle and I can tell you that those individuals that have not voted yet are probably the MOST LIKELY to have doubts or concerns about her original proposal (thus haven't voted yet). In my mind, a proposal doesn't pass until the voting deadline. Otherwise, we risk situations in which a proposal owner lobbies two whales, submits their proposal, gets the two whales to vote immediately, and "boom!" you have a "passed" proposal. I haven't even fully read the comments on your first proposal, let alone made a decision or voted. What about my vote? And the votes of everyone else that is taking the time to carefully consider your proposal? Are there not enough votes "in the wild" that could swing the voting the other way? What about competing proposals that might otherwise de-fund yours that aren't even submitted yet?
Spot-on.

Votes aren't set in stone until the cycle ends. They can be changed, and proposals can be down-voted by others who haven't voted yet.
 

rustycase

Active Member
Apr 19, 2016
495
118
113
No, no, no. It's scheduled to pass. Until the actual superblock, people can change their votes, or MN operators can theoretically decide to vote "no" and shoot it down at the last minute. It's not yet "passed" though.
Votes aren't set in stone until the cycle ends. They can be changed, and proposals can be down-voted by others who haven't voted yet.
Oops !
This information certainly shines another flashlight out into the DRK ! :)
If so, we shall see.

Wonderful thread ! The community discussing issues concerning future of the de-centralized organization ! I am almost sure MN voters are watching this discussion and will act accordingly.

Best
rc
 
  • Like
Reactions: BolehVPN

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
I am NOT ignoring any Masternote vote, i am trying to have a discussion with you guys what is the best approach
that is all, if i broke some kind of network law here, sorry i am not aware, happy to fix whatever is broken
This is stupid.
You should ignore their vote, if you believe this is the correct thing to be done.
At least ignore them until they are about to decide to fire you or reduce your salary.
Only in that case , if you are in this danger, you have to obey them.

Obeying without being in danger is a stupid act, an act of slave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrandMasterDash

Voluntary

Member
May 14, 2016
109
37
78
Dash Address
XivwUmSu5davqhqc3BX1j4w6dskzNFihQQ
@demo You might be thinking of the best democracy money can buy - only counting the votes that you like. But this is Dash - it's supposed to be accountable and consistent here. btw How many masternodes do you have to vote with?
 

GreyGhost

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 4, 2014
303
556
263
Santa Monica, CA
This is a cross-post from Dash Whale. I love the formatting here :)

"I do feel it is time to leave the old YouTube DarkcoinTV behind us and focus solely on YouTube DashOrg and possibly other Dash YT channels to complete and unify our rebranding to Dash," statement raises two interesting questions somehow hidden beneath the noise this perceived confrontation (@amanda_b_johnson vs. @tungfa) has created:

Now ponder this, these two channels, as Amanda wrote:
  • B) Split view counts (making less for each);
  • C) Split subscribership (making less for each).
That's correct. I proposed two possible solutions offering to keep both channels (Tungfa linked to it). DarkcoinTV can be renamed and be one of "other Dash YT channels..." but aren't those going to, again, "split view counts"?

NOTE: if the "old" DarkcoinTV is renamed and re-directed we keep the benefits of it and support the "new" one. Some of you might not know, but even the https://www.dash.org website uses re-direction from dashpay.io for the same reasons Tungfa proposes to keep the DarkcoinTV, links, subscribers...)

So the conceptual question ensues. Where's the focus? At the same time as this discussion is raging, our official website (a focal point for all branding & marketing efforts that should also embed all our videos) and its development is being delayed for months and months and months...

But a notion of that ... nation... is being pushed, a new website design is being developed in a hurry and it would be up and running shortly while the official website development will have kept on lagging. Don't you think that "nation" website would not also:
  1. split visitors counts (making less for each);
  2. split subscribership (making less for each) and at the same time;
  3. cause confusion for new visitors who might be searching for us.
It is MHO that we should use the same criteria for judging different efforts if the aim is to complete and unify our re-branding to Dash (not as a nation, not as a tribe, not as an independent providence but as a "privacy-centric digital currency with instant transactions").
 
Last edited:

Vedran Yoweri

Active Member
Apr 29, 2015
334
152
113
About the budget system.

It's a beautiful feature which gives Evan, his team and masternode owners the means to know what masternode owners think about stuff.

It is not a political system which give people the 'right' to take stuff from, or tell other people what to do or not.
It gives you a voice in this project, not ownership or control.

@eduffield, @tungfa and the rest of the team are free to do what they want or not. Period.

Funny how people talking about 'freedom' and 'liberty' often only want to take from and tell people what they can or cannot do.
 

halso

Active Member
Apr 27, 2016
439
237
113
Sydney, Australia
Hey guys,

It seems a shame that this wasn't thrashed out behind the scenes.

However, there is a silver lining here. There is an opportunity to resolve this issue using the voting mechanism.

I accept that some members believe the voting system was only intended to fund projects. But we could set a valuable precedent here for solving disputes if everyone agrees to respect the outcome.

For the record i voted YES for the new you tube channel, but NO to de-activating the old account (i would prefer some sort of redirect solution).

However, I think it would be great if everyone respected the final vote.

Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BolehVPN

fernando

Powered by Dash
Foundation Member
May 9, 2014
1,527
2,059
283
Most of what I think have already been said by other before in this thread, but I'll repeat anyway:

-The proposal has not passed yet.
-Proposals are about budgets. If we make them about actions many contradictory proposals can get approved at the same time and things don't make sense anymore.
-Before trying to lynch @tungfa, @amanda_b_johnson should have discussed with him more. The fact that her an Pete were granted access to the channel before the proposal had passed proves that he was open to working together.
-Deletions in general need to be done carefully. In this case it is obvious that there are different views and ideas. @GreyGhost has some great points there. Let's consider everything before doing anything that can't be undone.
-Our governance model is young and it is still changing. We are all learning and I'm sure that what we will have in a couple years will look nothing like what we have now. And this doesn't look like what we had two years ago. Please, take things with a little more calm and enjoy the ride.
-Very few people around the project have contributed more that @tungfa. The eagerness to attack him is something I can't understand.
 

halso

Active Member
Apr 27, 2016
439
237
113
Sydney, Australia
Most of what I think have already been said by other before in this thread, but I'll repeat anyway:

-The proposal has not passed yet.
-Proposals are about budgets. If we make them about actions many contradictory proposals can get approved at the same time and things don't make sense anymore.
-Before trying to lynch @tungfa, @amanda_b_johnson should have discussed with him more. The fact that her an Pete were granted access to the channel before the proposal had passed proves that he was open to working together.
-Deletions in general need to be done carefully. In this case it is obvious that there are different views and ideas. @GreyGhost has some great points there. Let's consider everything before doing anything that can't be undone.
-Our governance model is young and it is still changing. We are all learning and I'm sure that what we will have in a couple years will look nothing like what we have now. And this doesn't look like what we had two years ago. Please, take things with a little more calm and enjoy the ride.
-Very few people around the project have contributed more that @tungfa. The eagerness to attack him is something I can't understand.
I agree @fernando, the standard of debate could have been a lot better.

I would take issue with on one point you made though; the voting mechanism is only for funding projects. That maybe true, but it would still be an extra-ordinary position if a vote was taken and the core development team decided to ignore the result.

I agree that this could lead to competing or contradictory votes. But isn't that democracy?

If we have contradictory votes, shouldn't the most recent vote take precedence?

Yes, it would be messy. But probably better than the alternative.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” (W. Churchill)
 
  • Like
Reactions: fernando

Stealth923

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
352
404
233
About the budget system.

It's a beautiful feature which gives Evan, his team and masternode owners the means to know what masternode owners think about stuff.

It is not a political system which give people the 'right' to take stuff from, or tell other people what to do or not.
It gives you a voice in this project, not ownership or control.

@eduffield, @tungfa and the rest of the team are free to do what they want or not. Period.

Funny how people talking about 'freedom' and 'liberty' often only want to take from and tell people what they can or cannot do.

I agree with this, the budgeting system is purely that..a budget for funding - when you submit a proposal ensure you are proposing something which you have control over and can deliver with no other external dependencies.
 

TechWoman92

New Member
Jun 6, 2016
2
0
1
30
Does anyone else question the intentions of Amanda? Maybe she wants to make the community more dependent on her to run the new channel by getting rid of the old one.

She likely can do a good job with it but what happens if she asks to double her rates when her contract expires? Keeping the old account could be a helpful backup
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
...
Votes aren't set in stone until the cycle ends. They can be changed, and proposals can be down-voted by others who haven't voted yet.
Quick note: those who already voted can change their vote too - they can't do it too often (that was made to protect network from getting spammed by tons of votes, because votes are free of charge) but other than that there is no restrictions on changhing your vote.
 

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
Hello, everyone, thanks for the input.

@Macrochip: thank you for the suggestion. Deactivation is certainly an option not yet put forth. That sounds grand. I'll propose it to the network, as Evan and others have suggested.

To clarify for @Minotaur and @kot: the proposal is not about creating a *new* channel. At this time, two channels exist which are exact replicas of one another in terms of content: youtube.com/darkcointv, and youtube.com/dashorg. They are replicas. Because they are replicas, they are splitting one another's view counts and subscribers, which makes both look worse.

And @Minotaur, I'll take that 5 Dash reimbursement. Please send to Xy1jmkj55JwtAEWjAaHtqH64NJqAfy489c. I'll make the proposal shortly.
Hi Amanda, I just sent you the 5 DASH reimbursement, you can see the transaction here:

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/t...8ce1a382a18a1ccc144ce9ab40b73cc3ef16f9663.htm

I am really looking forward to seeing the Dash Youtube show we all appreciate very much the work you do. I think that in a decentralized organization structure we should all just be a little patient, communicate with each other and use the tools we have at our disposal to resolve any difference in opinions. It is natural to have different opinions about specific topics specially in things like SEO and social media strategy where there may be more than one way to accomplish something. Having said this, the key thing is we have a tool to make a decision faster than other networks and move on, lets say we can all disagree in a friendly way and still decide on a course of action which I think is the real power of a governance system.

Anyway, I am excited about your show I even showed it to my family so they could see there was a cool DASH show on Youtube, so I hope your show is a success and you are able to inform the public about the good work so many people are doing here including you.
 
Last edited:

Ryan Taylor

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jul 3, 2014
550
1,649
263
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
I agree with this, the budgeting system is purely that..a budget for funding - when you submit a proposal ensure you are proposing something which you have control over and can deliver with no other external dependencies.
Strictly speaking, you are correct that the "mnbudget" commands are just that... they are for budgets. That said, we have used the budgeting system on at least a couple of occasions to resolve non-budget decisions, which has proven valuable. But these should be reserved for really strategic, large decisions, in my opinion... not execution level tasks. The most recent example was the block size increase proposal. We also have used it to agree on reallocating the Public Awareness budget to fiat gateways development (but this was still a budget-related decision).

I do think that the mnbudget provides a valuable tool to the core team to obtain input from the community, but that does not absolve a core team member from their responsibility to make hard decisions that might be right, but ultimately unpopular. At the end of the day, this is a democracy, but it's actually more like shareholders than voters. Also, it is more like a representative democracy than a direct one.
Democracy = 1 vote per person
Shareholders = 1 vote per Masternode
Direct democracy = Voters pass laws directly
Representative democracy = Voters elect representatives which work to pass laws

I also believe that the technology itself will enable our shareholders to move down the spectrum from purely representative democracy to some yet-undefined mix of direct vs. representative (which I think we will figure out in time, based on what works). In a traditional corporation, board elections are only once a year and that's pretty much the input you get. However, we can collect input at any point in the year, vote out the core team at any point, get more granular on controlling the strategy and/or budget, etc. It is the technology itself that enables this to happen. But at the end of the day, the core team remains as "representatives" in the sense that many decisions are made by the core team on behalf of the network every day. People will be handed responsibility to execute certain roles, collect input (from the community / experts / etc), become more informed than the masternode owners ever could on it, make a decision, and act.

What I don't want to see happen is that every time a decision doesn't go a community member's way immediately and exactly as they wanted, they resort to "decision proposals" on minor non-strategic decisions. My opinion is that in this case, it didn't warrant a proposal. I strongly believe setting this precedent would be detrimental to the success of the project. I suspect this one could potentially pass, I don't know... we will see. But even if it does, I suspect many others will follow and the masternode owners will quickly grow weary of resolving these minor spats and will vote them down. We need to learn to work together and compromise rather than have a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude and run home to cry to the MN owners every time a two-day-old dispute isn't yet resolved.

EDIT: In fact, the more I contemplate this, the more inappropriate I believe it is for @amanda_b_johnson to involve 1,000+ people (masternode owners) in a two-day old disagreement that she has clearly made little effort to understand or resolve through debate and compromise. Surely she can find a way to resolve this without asking 1,000+ people to resolve it for her... People that are probably generally ill-equipped with the necessary information - like myself - to make these decisions. Or who don't want to consume a bunch of time educating themselves on the issue to make said decision. This probably results in poor decisions being reached and/or consumes an unbelievable amount of time of 1,000 people to educate themselves when a few people could have worked independently to resolve it.

Please, don't take this as criticism of you or your involvement here (I think your work is great and I'm very glad to see you involved) personally. You are far from the only person that desires more "granular" use of the budgeting system than I do. For all I know, I am the outlier with unpopular views. We all will have different views that we express as we define how the system is to be appropriately used for all our benefit. I only mean to criticize the ideas. Either people will agree with me or they won't, a precedent will be established that we try for a while, and it will continue to evolve as the project grows and learns from past experiences. I just strongly believe in a different optimal use of the budgeting system and the role input from the community should play, and in what forms that input is best provided.
 
Last edited:

TheDashGuy

Well-known Member
Dec 16, 2015
1,228
1,010
183
Sorry @tungfa I might have taken this to the next level by accident. Seemed like something else was going on. Ignore me.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
Does anyone else question the intentions of Amanda? Maybe she wants to make the community more dependent on her to run the new channel by getting rid of the old one.

She likely can do a good job with it but what happens if she asks to double her rates when her contract expires? Keeping the old account could be a helpful backup
Please don't question Amanda's good intentions. She has made a very good point, and i hope something will be done to fix this real issue soon. It seems to me, Amanda got everyone's attention on this issue, which is obviously important to her for at least 2 reasons. 1. She understands how youtube and social media work and sees an issue with our conflicting channels and 2. She undoubtedly wants her show to be on a channel that will direct as many people to her show as possible (who wouldn't want improved traffic?) and don't forget 3. all this would be very good for Dash.

So thank you Amanda!

Lets celebrate people that push. I think you all have come up with some great ideas because of this push. How about we give them a go?

I'm keeping my yes votes because I like the push :p It means someone is excited. It means you all talked about it, coming up with pros and cons, and finally, I think you all came up with some good ideas. It doesn't mean it's set in stone, simply by the nature of the request. In the next budget system, debates like this can change in the initial proposal. The proposer can update it with refined information as it develops. This will make the budget system so much more robust. Anyway, good discussion!

P.S. If we do redirects for all of our videos, can we do it the other direction? Can we notify followers to change their subscriptions? Or can we notify them when there is a new video up, even if it's not hosted on the old channel? Can we automatically redirect? I think those are all great ideas :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: fernando and daf

fernando

Powered by Dash
Foundation Member
May 9, 2014
1,527
2,059
283
I agree @fernando, the standard of debate could have been a lot better.

I would take issue with on one point you made though; the voting mechanism is only for funding projects. That maybe true, but it would still be an extra-ordinary position if a vote was taken and the core development team decided to ignore the result.

I agree that this could lead to competing or contradictory votes. But isn't that democracy?

If we have contradictory votes, shouldn't the most recent vote take precedence?

Yes, it would be messy. But probably better than the alternative.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” (W. Churchill)
Yes, it would be a weird situation, but you have a tool at your disposal: stop funding the core team. If even with that we don't listen, then I'm afraid nothing can be done. There is no way to force someone to do or stop doing something. There is no coercion, so in the end we need to talk about things and convince each other. I don't say this to say that we can do whatever we want, I'm just trying to describe the system. And let's not forget that we all want the same, the betterment of Dash, so we should be able to work together towards that.

Re contradictions, there are many ways to solve them and each of them has its own merits. Most recent is one criteria. Biggest approval rate could be another. Or some kind of reputation attached to the user who makes the proposal. Or a combination. Or many other things I'm not seeing atm. The system still needs work, so it is great that we are discussing this because I'm sure we'll come up with good ideas.

Edit: when in doubt, always agree with Churchill ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: flare

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
@demo You might be thinking of the best democracy money can buy - only counting the votes that you like. But this is Dash - it's supposed to be accountable and consistent here. btw How many masternodes do you have to vote with?

DarkoinTV youtube channel is a property that belongs to tungfa. Mastenode owners are not be allowed to vote asking for this property to be confiscated.

This is not democracy. This is not even capitalism. If you vote for another property that do not belongs to you to be confiscated, and if you apply this vote by force (direct or indirect), this is imperialism.

If you dont like DarkoinTv youtube channel and you want this to be deleted, you should BUY it from tungfa.

So a vote is needed, a vote using numbers. How much dash coins masternode owners give to tungfa in order to buy darkoinTV from him. (and then delete it)?

An amount should be voted using numerical voting, and if tungfa agrees with the voted amount, then he will sell this youtube channel to the masternode owners, and then masternode owners will be able to do to that channel whatever they want.

If tungfa does not agree with the proposed amount, then masternode owners should raise the amount of dash, until tungfa agrees. This is the correct thing to be done. Voting in order to confiscate tungfa's property is not a moral thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: raganius

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
DarkoinTV youtube channel is a property that belongs to tungfa. Mastenode owners are not be allowed to vote asking for this property to be confiscated.

If tungfa does not agree with the proposed amount, then masternode owners should raise the amount of dash, until tungfa agrees. This is the correct thing to be done. Voting in order to confiscate tungfa's property is not a moral thing.
No one is suggesting that his property be confiscated. It's not even a question of whether masternodes are "allowed" to do something like that. They can't, period. But considering that he is already being paid from the blockchain as a core team member, the implication of the vote, if approved, is to (1) send a message about what the MN ops would like him to do, and (2) send a message that failure to do it may potentially put his funding at risk (although the reality of this is far from being realized for a number of reasons.) That's all it is. It's an exercise of seeing what our DGBB can or can't do. Although, most likely this will be resolved anyway regardless of what the vote outcome is
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
No one is suggesting that his property be confiscated. It's not even a question of whether masternodes are "allowed" to do something like that. They can't, period.
Of course they can't. So why do they vote for something they can't do?

But considering that he is already being paid from the blockchain as a core team member, the implication of the vote, if approved, is to (1) send a message about what the MN ops would like him to do, and (2) send a message that failure to do it may potentially put his funding at risk (although the reality of this is far from being realized for a number of reasons.)
What do you mean "pottentially put his funding at risk"? Do you mean that you are planning to fire him because he refuses to accept for his property to be confiscated? Or do you mean that dash community in general is in danger in case the channel is preserved, so indirectly he is also in danger as a part of this community? In this second case, there are a lot more important things that put dash community in danger, like the "pork barrel". The pork barrel is supposed to belong to all masternode owners. It is a vast amount of money. Why dont you focus on that instead of focusing on other people's properties? And how can you know for sure that dash community is in danger whenever a second alternative dash youtube channel is preserved? I could claim that dash community is in danger whenever a single youtube account exists, because this is a centralized thing, which is against DAO philosophy. So the more dash youtube channel you have, controlled by different persons, the better it is.


That's all it is. It's an exercise of seeing what our DGBB can or can't do. Although, most likely this will be resolved anyway regardless of what the vote outcome is
It is not an exercise. It is just a stupid vote. So the correct answer to that vote it is not "yes" or "no". It is "I dont like the vote because I am not allowed to decide about other people's properties". Yet another reason to allow "other" as an alternative option in the budget voting.

And of course yet another reason to allow numerical voting, because the correct thing to be done is to offer an amount of dash to tungfa, in order to sell his youtube channel to the masternode owners, so that they can do to the channel whatever they want.
 
Last edited:

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
Of course they can't. So why do they vote for something they can't do?
Your premise is incorrect. We are not voting to confiscate anything. If the proposal passes, no one is going to force anyone to do anything. Because that isn't what this is. It's merely an incentive using what we have at our disposal.


What do you mean "pottentially put his funding at risk"? Do you mean that you are planning to fire him because he refuses to accept for his property to be confiscated?
If is was a stand-alone proposal recipient then it would not be unreasonable for the MNs to send a message about their intention to continue funding them or not depending on whether they comply with a request that is related to the reason they were hired in the first place. Again, the fact that this is a member of a team which is paid as a group, makes it more complicated than that.


Or do you mean that dash community in general is in danger, so indirectly he is also in danger as a part of this community? In this second case, there are a lot more important things that put dash community in danger
No, that is not what I meant.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
If is was a stand-alone proposal recipient then it would not be unreasonable for the MNs to send a message about their intention to continue funding them or not depending on whether they comply with a request that is related to the reason they were hired in the first place. Again, the fact that this is a member of a team which is paid as a group, makes it more complicated than that.
So this vote is a clear warning to tungfa.
"Obey to us, or you are fired."
I see....

But is this youtube channel created whenever tungfa was already a dash employee.
Did you paid him for creating that channel?
 
Last edited:

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
So this vote is a warning to tungfa. Obey to us, or you are fired. I see....

Again, is this youtube channel created whenever tungfa was already an employee.
Did you paid him for creating that channel?
Did I not say it was more complicated than that in this case? Don't put words in my mouth. But in principle, yes I think that is completely legitimate. The MNs have a right to stop funding projects if they are not delivering an acceptable service. I am NOT saying we are close do doing that here.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Did I not say it was more complicated than that in this case? Don't put words in my mouth. But in principle, yes I think that is completely legitimate. The MNs have a right to stop funding projects if they are not delivering an acceptable service. I am NOT saying we are close do doing that here.
If that channel was created before tungfa became a dash employee, then the channel is his own property, and it is immoral to ask that channel from him.
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
If that channel was created before tungfa became a dash employee, then the channel is his own propery, and it is immoral to ask that channel from him.
It would still be his property even if he created it after he became a dash employee. This is not the point. It is immoral to force people to do a certain thing with their property. It is NOT immoral to tell people that if they fail to do a certain thing with their property, then we won't pay them anymore. It is completely different.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
It is NOT immoral to tell people that if they fail to do a certain thing with their property, then we won't pay them anymore.
But if you threaten someone to fire him in case he does not dismiss his property, then you force him to do that thing.

I think the crutial thing is whenever this property has been created. If it was created before he became a dash employee, then you should not threat him to fire him. If it was created after he became an employee, then the creation of the channel was part of his job, and the job of an employee belongs to the employers.

It is NOT immoral to tell people that if they fail to do a certain thing with their property, then we won't pay them anymore.
It depends on what you are asking for. If the employee is in urgent need of money, then it is immoral to take advantage of his need and demand for his property to be used in a way he does not agree with.
 
Last edited:

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
But if you threaten someone to fire him in case he does not dismiss his property, then you force him to do that thing.
It's not force if they can still choose not to do it.

I think the crutial thing is whenever this property has been created. If it was created before he was a dash employee, then you should not threat him to fire him. If it was created after he became an employee, then the creation of the channel was part of his job, and the job of an employee belongs to the employers.
The crucial thing is not when the property was created, it's whether it has to do with the reason the person is being paid. Although technically, the MNs can stop funding a project for any reason, whether reasonable or not. Regardless, if the masternodes were to actually defund a project because it failed to obey a request, then they would have to deal with the consequences of that. If the project was still delivering more value than not, even though it did not obey a request, then the MNs would risk losing that value by trying to de-fund it.