Dash Incubator: Vote on Appointment of new Proposal Owner

[vazaki3]

..any gaming of the system becomes apparent pretty quick and other Admins will intervene (as you can see with this thread itself Admins tend to want to police each other).

Incubator Governance (appointing or removing Admins, updating Incubator Rules, Voting) - originally shared by all Admins, now falls under the remit of the following Incubator Governance committee: Cloudwheels, Dashameter, Rion, Sam Kirby, Spectaprod

This is not just gaming the system. This is a vulgar coup of five admins against the rest ones!
And this coup was allowed to be proposed (and almost passed ?) due to your flawed incubator rules.

Dash Incubator Rules
Admins are responsible for Governance of the Incubator which is implemented via appointing or removing Admins, or updating these Rules.
An Admin Quorum is required in both cases, which means that >= 50% agree (or <50% don’t object) to Admin appointments / removals or changes to the Rules.

50% agree, it is not similar to 50% dont object! An admin may have heard nothing about an upcoming change, and some others may claim that he does not object! Especially in case the upcoming change refers to the removal of this deaf admin, because he abstains from the money feast of the internal cabal.
An obviously flawed rule, one rule to ring them all!

 

[solarguy]

"Sorry can you verify your claim that there are MNOs here?"

I was responding to your question. Yes, it would be easy to verify that there are Masternodes here. Would you like me to do so?

 

[AndyDark]

"Sorry can you verify your claim that there are MNOs here?"

I was responding to your question. Yes, it would be easy to verify that there are Masternodes here. Would you like me to do so?

no it's fine, i'm sure many of use here are MNO actually. Just making the point that you know partial MNO opinions don't really count it's only when we can take consensus we can based things on it. Anyway no worries.

 

[vazaki3]

@xkcd in mnowatch we have this ---> DASH Proposal Owners (mnowatch.org)

Could we create smth similar for the dash incubator expenses, based on this https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mhXlo4ylqWLLSYN4MGiLWlp7Gq3jrsDt0kB701dwMNU ?

It would be intersting to spot not only those who earned money from incubator, but also those who have been banned from the structure and have been denied access to the honey/money. I am certainly one of them, and I wonder whether I am the only one. In the dash budget system, we know all the rejected ones (sort by "amount paid"). In dash incubator there is not any transparent report regarding the rejected ones (rejected admins, rejected workers, rejected developers etc) so we have to dig a lot to find out the truth.

 

[solarguy]

It is worthwhile to say this out loud.

Based on voting history the ample majority of Masternodes like the idea and the results of the Incubator to date. Would they like it more if Incubator could demonstrate more value/results going forward? Sure, who wouldn't? But that's not the main driver in the current conversation.

My impression of the MN community at the moment is that if Ryan and Andy and the other Incubator participants came out with a joint statement before voting ends, that they will resolve the current impasse internally before the next budget cycle, the current prop would have the best possible chance of passing.

That's just the informed opinion of one Masternode owner. I've been wrong before. Feel free to ignore my advise.

Isn't it worth trying though?

 

[AgnewPickens]

no it's fine, i'm sure many of use here are MNO actually. Just making the point that you know partial MNO opinions don't really count it's only when we can take consensus we can based things on it. Anyway no worries.

In a Treasury where funding depends on a Supermajority of Yes votes, minority opinions matter, and I find your tone
dismissive, voters who have weighed in here would like some clarity and there is very little time left in the cycle to do that.

Continuing this argumentative direction without addressing voter concerns risks the Incubator losing funding this cycle.

 

[Sam Kirby]

"1. Incubator Governance (appointing or removing Admins, updating Incubator Rules, Voting) - originally shared by all Admins, now falls under the remit of the following Incubator Governance committee:

• Cloudwheels
• Dashameter
• Rion
• Sam Kirby
• Spectaprod

2. Proposal Owner - specified under our rules as a temporary role, the following responsabilities are now shared by the Governance committee (above).

• Proposal creation & submission
• Holding & moving funds
• Strategic management
• Infrastructure management

These changes allow for greater ownership and accountability of key elements of budget spend, governance and Proposal deliverables which I'll expand on in later sections.
The following extract from the last Proposal shows how we’ve progressed against the internal changes listed as our Q2 top Priority:
-“Create a formal committee consisting of current admins to govern major decision making in the Incubator through explicit, public voting. For example, the committee would vote on rule changes, appointment and removal of admins, network proposal content, admin budget requests, etc).” Complete - see 2.3.1 above
-“Give admins the choice to move into a role with increased responsibility and reward potential. This would involve some admins taking personal ownership over a specific monthly budget and reporting on how the budget was used each quarter. Budget requests come from the incubator general fund and need approval from the committee (e.g. by a simple majority of the voting committee). Admin reports and budget requests are then collected and used to form the main Incubator proposal to the network.” Complete - individual reports to form the basis of the next proposal

-“In exchange for taking on extra responsibility, which should increase the quality of output, these admins are awarded with a commission of up to 20% of their budget. This reward is paid with the tasks they approve, just like the existing 10-15% commission that this would replace. These admins may choose to employ a ‘normal’ admin (who isn’t personally responsible for a budget) for day-to-day tasks, which they would pay from their 20%).” Complete - effective 01 AUG"


In short, at 1 august 2022, five incubator admins will exclude all the rest incubator admins from deciding anything, and they will get 20% reward for doing that.

This is what a dog master named @Sam Kirby (a person who joined this forum Jun 14, 2022) suggests...

Decentralization, my ass!!!!

Thanks for highlighting these points. The withdrawn Proposal highlights a set of changes agreed 4 months before that were communicated in part to the Network in the Q2 Proposal.

These changes were agreed during 'compromise' calls after voting was held on Proposals submitted internally by Rion and I - although my proposal was essentially just this 1 requirment:

1.Break down the many changes listed in Rions proposal and vote on them seperately.

20% commision is not a change I am/was ever in favour of. I prefer a smaller commision and tasks for the extra responsibilities.

A governance committee was a change I accepted and have no issue with at this time.

 

[Sam Kirby]

Thanks for highlighting these points. The withdrawn Proposal highlights a set of changes agreed 4 months before that were communicated in part to the Network in the Q2 Proposal.

These changes were agreed during 'compromise' calls after voting was held on Proposals submitted internally by Rion and I - although my proposal was essentially just this 1 requirment:

1.Break down the many changes listed in Rions proposal and vote on them seperately.

20% commision is not a change I am/was ever in favour of. I prefer a smaller commision and tasks for the extra responsibilities.

A governance committee was a change I accepted and have no issue with at this time.

My internal Proposal (mentioned above) was written because I objected to large far-reaching changes being suggested for voting in one hit. These changes included a single centralised figure with super veto rights - responsible for approving funds that alllow Admins to function. These seemed in contrast to the direction our rules say we should be moving in.

The withdrawn Network Proposal shows the changes we agreed as a compromise to the results of this voting.

 

[AgnewPickens]

Also, note, the Forum has some vocal voters that have weighed in, but for each MNO or delegate that has asked for
some clarity, there are several more reading this thread as lurkers.

 

[vazaki3]

Thanks for highlighting these points. The withdrawn Proposal highlights a set of changes agreed 4 months before that were communicated in part to the Network in the Q2 Proposal.

These changes were agreed during 'compromise' calls after voting was held on Proposals submitted internally by Rion and I - although my proposal was essentially just this 1 requirment:

1.Break down the many changes listed in Rions proposal and vote on them seperately.

20% commision is not a change I am/was ever in favour of. I prefer a smaller commision and tasks for the extra responsibilities.

A governance committee was a change I accepted and have no issue with at this time.

The question is, did the rest admins (@AshFrancis , @Hilawe , @Ivan Shumkov , @Pasta , @QuantumExplorer , @wizlee ) agreed that from now on only 5 admins (Cloudwheels, Dashameter, Rion, Sam Kirby, Spectaprod) will govern incubator?

Did the five of you informed the rest six admins about the changes? Did the rest six admins voluntarily withdraw from their government rights and from their voting rights?

These changes were agreed during 'compromise' calls after voting was held on Proposals submitted internally by Rion.
A governance committee was a change I accepted and have no issue with at this time.

Could you give us the names of the admins that voted in favor of the five-member governance committee? Being able to vote for the changing of the rules (or to vote in order to define the electorate that governs) it is a huge power and I really wonder whether the aforementioned six admins really wanted to give up their power.

 

[vazaki3]

The question is, did the rest admins (@AshFrancis , @Hilawe , @Ivan Shumkov , @Pasta , @QuantumExplorer , @wizlee ) agreed that from now on only 5 admins (Cloudwheels, Dashameter, Rion, Sam Kirby, Spectaprod) will govern incubator?
Did the five of you informed the rest six admins about the changes?
Did the rest six admins voluntarily withdraw from their government rights and from their voting rights?
Could you give us the names of the admins that voted in favor of the five-member governance committee?

It is amazing that nobody dares to answer to simple straightforward questions.
This reveals how sick the enviroment in incubator is.
Sartre : "L'enfer, c'est les autres"

 

[vazaki3]

The Specification Tasks for the "Dash Incubator Restructure Requirements" cost 45 dash. There is an interesting snapshot of a talk at the incubator discord channel, which reveals @AshFrancis's proposal regarding the incubator's governance commitee. AshFrancis did not proposed a static five-member governance commitee as @Sam Kirby did , but rather a dynamic one. (Note that Sam was paid 7 dash for writing the flawed incubator governance commitee specs, compare these 7 dash to the 5.6 dash that have been given from 2017 until today to mnowatch for its development and hosting, and you will easily understand the absurd way the Dash community rates and rewards the tasks, you will also easily understand the reason why very few serious persons add proposals or work for the Dash community. These disproportionate compentations occur simply because voting the numbers is prohibited by the agents)

AshFransis said this:

"Governing board consists of active voting admins in an X day period, votes required > 50%"

AshFrancis's proposal does not irrevocably exclude the inactive admins from participating in the governance committe. The inactive admins can decide anytime to become active ones (by casting a vote somewhere) and thus they can be considered again as active members of the electorate and participate in the decisions of the governance committe . Unfortunately AshFrancis's proposal was not transcribed in the final specs that Sam Kirby wrote.

I also agree that the inactive voters (after X period of time) should temporarily (and as long as they remain inactive) lose their voting rights.

If we take into account the government decisions only from the active-alive masternodes, and if all decisions taken in the past by today non active masternodes are today considered as not valid, then the masternodes are incentivized to remain active and alive into the dash community for a long time.
The masternodes, by knowing that they are long residents of the dash community, they tend to take good decisions and they are not superficial!!!
The above is the path to the good governance. Respect the alive, forget the decisions of the dead.

The above means all the old votes of the inactives should be archived, and they should not be counted in the tally or in the calculation of the voting participation, until they come back. I would like this change to be applied both in incubator and for the masternode voters in the dash budget system. We have approximately 3218 inactive masternode voters. These voters should be excluded (until they show signs of voting activity) when calculating the number of votes required for a proposal to pass. Part of dash's bad luck is caused due to the irrational respect for the dead and for the inactive.

Of course the above idea to archive/exclude the decisions of the inactive voters after X period of time (and restore them in case they become active again) is yet another strict red line set by the agents that no one should cross. The entire world order of the agents is based on decisions made long time ago by the dead, and those decisions are strictly forbidden to be altered by the living. For example, the rules that govern your very physical body have been set by the deads/by your ancenstors, they are still active rules and you cannot alter them. They are called original sin. Another example, the rules that define the political regime of your country have also been set by the deads and cannot be altered. They are called constitution. And an example from our neighborhood, the rules of incubator, still standing although not voted by anyone except the inactive @AndyDark . No one in the Universe is allowed to try a system where old decisions cease automatically upon the death/inactivity of the decider (in case of course the alive/active desire that) because if that system succeeds it could threaten the world order of the agents. In that sense, AshFrancis's proposal has very few odds to be established even among the 11 admins of incubator. Similarly to voting the numbers and all the other red lines I have already described, the agents will not allow for this to happen also.

One rule to ring them all!

 

[vazaki3]

Rion's proposal passed the last minute, due to the 220 votes that have been casted by weejohnny.

 

[qwizzie]

Rion's proposal passed the last minute, due to the 220 votes that have been casted by weejohnny.

With only 3 hours to go before budget proposals voting closes, weejohnny is a wee bit late with voting this cycle.
Maybe weejohnny can vote a wee bit more early next cycle ?

 

[vazaki3]

With only 3 hours to go before budget proposals voting closes, weejohnny is a wee bit late with voting this cycle.
Maybe weejohnny can vote a wee bit more early next cycle ?

He did voted early in this cycle. Mouseover to see the tooltip and click at his IP_HASH= 299144620837994073223044015375074058627769282716 at the collumn ( HIST:IP_HASH ) in the report that reveals his last vote, and you will discover that he initially voted in this cycle at 2022-07-10 , 14 days before.

The below is weejohnny's initial vote for this cycle, at 2022-07-10 15:12:23 :

YES_VOTES	NO_VOTES
BrazilQ42022 CrowdNode-jun2022-aug2022 DashElSalvador DCG-COMP-JUL-SEPT22 DCG-Infra-Aug-Sept-2022	DashNext2022-2

...and he changed his vote 2022-07-24 13:42:31 to this:

YES_VOTES	NO_VOTES
BrazilQ42022 CrowdNode-jun2022-aug2022 DashElSalvador dash-incubator-2022-q3 DCG-COMP-JUL-SEPT22 DCG-Infra-Aug-Sept-2022 DCG-Sup-Fund-July22	DashNext2022-2

You may also discover the history of the votes of weejohhny, in this report , as long as he keeps the same set of IPs. Because weejohhny changed his IPS. Once upon times many of his IPs resided in Russia, thats why I initially named him the Tsar , but this is not yet proved and @xkcd should investigate it more.



You have all this info in front of you and you have tip mnowatch.org only 5.6 Dash , since 2017! While at the same time the dash community, the mnos and the incubator are giving thousands of Dash to other failed projects. I really wonder, why @xkcd and myself still support the dash community? Is it maybe because the agents that are ruling the Universe are similar to the agents that are ruling the Dash community, so it is a good and safe practice to attack them here?

 

[xkcd]

We can also see Weejohnny's votes come through on this table.

DASH Proposal Analysis for 2022-07-24 13:40:02

Dash DAO voting analysis

mnowatch.org

and here.

DASH Proposal Analysis for 2022-07-10 15:10:02

Dash DAO voting analysis

mnowatch.org

Reports impacted by whale votes are labelled on the MNOwatch homepage and connect to us using the onion link for improved privacy.

 

[solarguy]

Informative. What would be a reasonable reward for running such an informative service?

 

[AgnewPickens]

He did voted early in this cycle. Mouseover to see the tooltip and click at his IP_HASH= 299144620837994073223044015375074058627769282716 at the collumn ( HIST:IP_HASH ) in the report that reveals his last vote, and you will discover that he initially voted at 2022-07-10 , 14 days before.

The below is weejohnny's initial vote for this cycle, at 2022-07-10 15:12:23 :

YES_VOTES	NO_VOTES
BrazilQ42022 CrowdNode-jun2022-aug2022 DashElSalvador DCG-COMP-JUL-SEPT22 DCG-Infra-Aug-Sept-2022	DashNext2022-2

...and he changed his vote 2022-07-24 13:42:31 to this:

YES_VOTES	NO_VOTES
BrazilQ42022 CrowdNode-jun2022-aug2022 DashElSalvador dash-incubator-2022-q3 DCG-COMP-JUL-SEPT22 DCG-Infra-Aug-Sept-2022 DCG-Sup-Fund-July22	DashNext2022-2

You may also discover the history of the votes of weejohhny, as long as he keeps the same set of IPs, in this report.

You have all this info in front of you and you have tip mnowatch.org only 5.6 Dash , since 2017! While at the same time the dash community, the mnos and the incubator are giving thousands of Dash to other failed projects. I really wonder, why @xkcd and myself still support the dash community? Is it maybe because the agents that are ruling the Universe are similar to the agents that are ruling the Dash community, so it is a good and safe practice to attack them here?

As far as if it is safe here, yes, you will not be banned for your opinions on the Forum again, like you were under previous Admins.

 

[vazaki3]

Informative. What would be a reasonable reward for running such an informative service?

Lets vote the numbers!
Furthermore we should also be allowed to vote the numbers by using sliders , because a reward for a task is reasonable if it is correlated and compared (within the context of a budget) to the rewards given for other dissimilar tasks (also correlated and compared to the rewards given for similar tasks, but funding similar tasks although good for the competition can also be considered as a waste of money of the budget)

 

[solarguy]

Your method to "vote the numbers" deserves further study. Until it becomes adopted and used, it is not unreasonable to ask the people doing the work what they think it is worth.

There are many methods to arrive at a value, and it is wise to use more than one method anyway.

 

[vazaki3]

Your method to "vote the numbers" deserves further study. Until it becomes adopted and used, it is not unreasonable to ask the people doing the work what they think it is worth.

There are many methods to arrive at a value, and it is wise to use more than one method anyway.

If you ask a single person how much he thinks his work worths, then this person votes the numbers. Then you as a sponsor also vote the numbers, there is a compromise, a method to extract the result, an average, and the compensation of the worker is defined.

But here in Dash, there is not only you and me, we are not alone. We have 5000 masternodes (not allowed by the agents to vote the numbers). So after I will consult @xkcd we may vote the numbers the two of us, we will propose a subjective reward (because a reasonable reward occurs only when many people vote the numbers) and we will ask a yes from the masternodes (the masternodes are censored by the agents and can only respond yes or no). Note that we have not until now proposed something into the dash budget system, because the incomes of mnowatch were until recently below the 5 dash that are required as a proposal fee in order to propose. We hope that this will be resolved with the upcoming v18 release.

On the other hand we cannot ask a reward from the 11 admins of the incubator, at least I cannot ask it, because I am initially banned there by @AndyDark . So if you think mnowatch deserves a reward and incubator should pay us, maybe @xkcd should be involved in this.

Finnaly, there is also the tip, but this is a private initiative.
Tips for Hosting mnowatch: Xhf1d5nmRreWC3YkvQXWswFbPdpGyU6rRB . Tips for Developing mnowatch: Xy7bXZd5BE8XrtHNUvUd6WfHhai8fozfxy

Defining what is a reasonable or a subjective reward is an ontopic theme because it also refers to the incubator's reward methods.
But the specific rewards of mnowatch are off topic into this thread, so lets stop the mnowatch specific discussion or move it elsewhere.

 

[AndyDark]

Hi everyone

Time is up..

Results:
Yes votes: 4
No votes: 5
Abstains: 2

Quorum required was 6/11, so without recusals and only 4/11 yes votes, the vote didn't pass.

thanks
Andy

 

[AgnewPickens]

Hi everyone

Time is up..

Results:
Yes votes: 4
No votes: 5
Abstains: 2

Quorum required was 6/11, so without recusals and only 4/11 yes votes, the vote didn't pass.

thanks
Andy

As the OP, would you like the thread locked now, or are you good? I have unstickied the thread.

 

[AndyDark]

As the OP, would you like the thread locked now, or are you good? I have unstickied the thread.

Hey Agnew it's cool I don't think we need to lock it, thanks.

 

[vazaki3]

Rion's proposal passed the last minute, due to the 220 votes that have been casted by weejohnny.

Weejohnny is out of the game now.
Why his votes for dash incubator still count?
The one who is supposed to have voting rights, is the one who runs a masternode. Not the one who just keeps a collateral.
I think the one who keeps a collateral but shut down his masternodes should have the right for his votes to be stored and wait for a possible return, but his votes should not be counted.

Vote here.

 

[vazaki3]

Rion's proposal passed the last minute, due to the 220 votes that have been casted by weejohnny.

Rion's proposal passed the last minute due to the 82 votes that have been casted by spirit.