• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Dash Nation Consensus Discussion

@TaoOfSatoshi - what would you like to discuss in particular? I guess all was already written in the topic.
Sure @kot. We were under the impression that the Masternodes had no power over direction of the project, just budget. Now Evan has gone on record saying that Masternodes should indeed have power over the direction of the project.

The consensus we reached may be changing...Its critical that the networks decisions are respected. This is the right way to run a DAO, in my opinion.

I would like it to be posted here as well, as it pertains to our consensus.
 
I believe Evan was talking about general direction in the context of a specific discussion.

It depends on what decision you are talking about and what circumstances are. My opinion is that MNs should vote only on strategic direction of the project with clear questions Yes/No (like block size) + project budgets (and projects need to be well described and managed).

If you want to start this discussion again because of the youtube channel issue - it has no sense. Do you expect masternode owners to be experts in every possible area and vote consciously on every possible question/proposal (PR, marketing, media, software, hardware, legal cases, human resources, project management, organization management, process management, vendor selection and management, finance management, procurement and many others)? Do you know such experts, who could make proper decisions in every possible case? Are they masternode owners?
 
I believe Evan was talking about general direction in the context of a specific discussion.
Evan Duffield via Reddit:
"I think the masternode network should be the main decision making engine we use to gauge our direction"

That comment is not directed to one issue, that is a statement that indicates he believes that the MN operators should be respected when it comes to decisions on direction. Which they should, as they are the largest stakeholders with ever-increasing amounts of money tied up in this project. Like Amanda said, it's time for us to start behaving like the DAO we claim to be in the media.
 
I guess, this is exactly what I wrote: "MNs should vote only on strategic direction of the project". Do you have anything different in mind?
 
I believe Evan was talking about general direction in the context of a specific discussion.

It depends on what decision you are talking about and what circumstances are. My opinion is that MNs should vote only on strategic direction of the project with clear questions Yes/No (like block size) + project budgets (and projects need to be well described and managed).

If you want to start this discussion again because of the youtube channel issue - it has no sense. Do you expect masternode owners to be experts in every possible area and vote consciously on every possible question/proposal (PR, marketing, media, software, hardware, legal cases, human resources, project management, organization management, process management, vendor selection and management, finance management, procurement and many others)? Do you know such experts, who could make proper decisions in every possible case? Are they masternode owners?

I don't expect MN ops to be experts in every area. This is why not every little thing needs to go to the MNs for a vote. But it is important that we establish, when a ground-up initiative happens and is voted on by the MN ops for the specific purpose of weighing in on a particular topic, or something they would like *paid* team members to do/change, what is the response?
 
Very complex topic to consider - I need to think more about it (and promise to return to you with my opinion).

PS. Thanks a lot for the change in the tone of discussion. I like your current style.
 
Thanks @kot. Not trying to step on anyone's toes, I will actively try to stay on point and refrain from personal accusations.

The way I am thinking about it, it can be helpful to distinguish between the different kinds of proposals that get put out there and how they fit into our DGBB model.
There are:

"MN budget" -- when the MN ops vote on a proposal for the purpose of funding a project with certain promised deliverables
vs.
"MN feedback" -- when MN ops are asked to vote on a question for the purpose of gauging support for a hypothetical idea with no immediate deliverables (ex. the blocksize increase, demo's "voting with numbers").
vs.
"MN mandate" -- when MN ops vote on a question instructing a paid individual or group to take a particular action (ex. Amanda's possible proposal about the old YT channel being removed or deactivated)


I think we have done a great job with MN budgets. It's these other two areas that are largely untested with respect to how they fit and what we can reasonably expect to happen.
For the feedback and the mandate, this may involve an instruction which may or may not be technically possible at all. And for a mandate in particular, it may involve instructing an individual to spend time/effort or money, or to use their own property in a certain way.

I think we can agree that the network really can't (and shouldn't) be able to force people to do things or use their property in a certain way. However, when combined with the fact that this is an individual or group that is already paid by the blockchain, part of the purpose for such a proposal is the message/implication that failure to comply may put their funding at risk.

Of course, with the example that led up to this today it is even more complex because the mandate may apply to just one individual in a larger group which is paid all in one lumped-together budget. But we may have such a mandate on our hands now and it will definitely not be the only one that happens over Dash's long lifetime :). What should we reasonably expect from proposal creators and the individuals/groups it is directed to?

It has been mentioned in the other thread, if there is doubt/lack of clarity/or if is only about one part of a larger proposal, then perhaps the mandate should be proposed and voted on specifically to make sure it is a fair vote. Agreed. Then what happens? -- what if the MNs vote on a mandate and there are more yes-votes than no-votes, but the proposal does not make it into the budget? And regardless of whether it actually makes it into the budget, how do we measure whether to expect compliance?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top