Decision Proposal: Increase Proposal System Flexibility & Efficiency

Ryan Taylor

Well-known Member
Dash Core Team
Foundation Member
Jul 3, 2014
548
1,639
263
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Re-read the quote in context, Ryan. It's very clear from the previous sentence that I was comparing the MNO allocations of our respective plans to the status quo (i.e. 45%). The MNO plan yields 44% for MNOs if we allocate 20% to proposals. The lowest that the DCG plan yields is 48%, which is higher than the status quo, so MNOs are guaranteed to be increasing their yield under your plan.
Thank you for clarifying. It was not apparent - at least to me - that you were comparing to a scenario prior to the passing of the reallocation proposal (even after re-reading). Given that the other proposal introducing the reallocation is already passed and implemented on the network, that comparison wouldn't be relevant for this particular decision. The network is making a choice between status quo (which includes the reallocation proposal) leaving the proposal system unchanged, the "MNO plan", or the "DCG Plan". Between those three choices, DCG's plan does not guarantee the highest payout of the three choices. That was the correction I'm seeking to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onetime

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
Well that was a shitty swing back to the DCG Plan, what happened?

Just so DCG understand, if the DCG Plan eventually passes and is implemented, I will vote Yes on every single proposal, crap or otherwise, just not to feed miners free money. If someone wants to fork dash, count me in.
 

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
865
507
163
Where are you seeing that? Still a few days to go and the MNO plan seems to be a long way behind (needs 700+) but the DCG plan is still a long way from passing (needs 300+). If neither pass that means another vote before implementation, no? I'd imagine either would need considerable tweaking to pass that stage, hard to say for sure as most seem to be voting YES-NO or NO-YES, I'd have expected a lot more YES-YES if there was a major support for the points both proposals have in common.

Someone suggested an alternative on Telegram that sounded a bit clunky to me at first but on reflection it's an ideal stepping stone implementation imo. Keep the 10% budget as-is, unspent coins aren't created but if we go over the 10% it comes out of MN rewards.

He'd suggested limiting that to 10% (20% total) but I don't think a limit would be necessary, if MNs want to give 50% of their reward to some seriously kickass proposal then that's great, they'd be very reluctant to go over that 10% for anything other than seriously kickass proposals and they're not being given the option to vote themselves extra funds. Win win imo.

EDIT, post quote:
Daniel Lerch, [13.11.20 21:21]
Hmmm.... I guess it's probably not a good idea to use Sporks against unexpected voting behavior.
I could imagine leaving the 10 % treasury as it is and give the Masternodes the opportunity to spend another 10 % from their own part of the blockreward if they see a need for more. or something like this.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
I'm okay with the overall budget increasing to either 15% or 20% (even 25% under very specific circumstances). DCG have said they would not be asking 60% of the increased budget size.

But I'm annoyed, under the DCG Plan, that miners would be incentivized to become MNOs. If that's the case, we don't need MNOs at all. It's just plain ridiculous for Ryan to suggest that swings on the miners side are more tolerable than those on the MNO side. And Ryan suggesting that paying miners is just a by-product of the math. *rolls eyes*

Dash has two very distinct network types; miners and masternodes. If dash ever gets a constitution, then the separation of those two networks should in cast in stone. Maybe that's something for the Trust Protectors. The masternode network is the executive arm and I refuse to pay miners when they contribute zero to my decisions. I'd rather have a burn address than pay them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rion

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
62
31
58
Here are both plans in a nutshell:

RT -- Plan is easier to explain without a spreadsheet. Successful proposals get paid out of MNOs and Miners rewards proportionately 60/40 so MNOs don't get too miserly.

RG -- Miners get a fixed reward. All successful proposals get paid out of MNO rewards. Don't worry about MNOs, they will do the right thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrandMasterDash

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
Imagine if masternodes reported the dash price (as oracle) and for every price increase (between superblocks), MNOs would get all the reward.
 

rion

Member
Aug 26, 2016
50
44
58
Well that was a shitty swing back to the DCG Plan, what happened?

Just so DCG understand, if the DCG Plan eventually passes and is implemented, I will vote Yes on every single proposal, crap or otherwise, just not to feed miners free money. If someone wants to fork dash, count me in.
I suspect you are not alone. I think many MNOs will use this reasoning in the future: "Might as well fund more proposals, up to the limit, because otherwise it just get's wasted in heat and electricity from mining, and it really doesn't cost me personally all that much".

Where are you seeing that? Still a few days to go and the MNO plan seems to be a long way behind (needs 700+) but the DCG plan is still a long way from passing (needs 300+). If neither pass that means another vote before implementation, no? I'd imagine either would need considerable tweaking to pass that stage, hard to say for sure as most seem to be voting YES-NO or NO-YES, I'd have expected a lot more YES-YES if there was a major support for the points both proposals have in common.
Not sure where you came up with a 700+ vote spread. It's never been that high. Right now the spread is ~400 votes, but it's effectively ~200 votes because most people vote for one proposal and against the other, giving each MNO two effective votes. So 200 votes for the MNO plan and against the DCG plan would bring it back to even. Or, 100 votes currently voting for DCG could change to vote for MNO (and against DCG) would also bring it back to even. Definitely still possible.

Here are both plans in a nutshell:

RT -- Plan is easier to explain without a spreadsheet. Successful proposals get paid out of MNOs and Miners rewards proportionately 60/40 so MNOs don't get too miserly.

RG -- Miners get a fixed reward. All successful proposals get paid out of MNO rewards. Don't worry about MNOs, they will do the right thing.
Not a bad summary Geert but RT just claimed that his plan is easier to explain, but the MNO plan is just as simple (if not more so): "miners get 36%, MNO's get the rest but can use up to 20% to fund proposals"
 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
62
31
58
Just so DCG understand, if the DCG Plan eventually passes and is implemented, I will vote Yes on every single proposal, crap or otherwise, just not to feed miners free money. If someone wants to fork dash, count me in.
A working definition of "stupid" is "tending toward self destruction." What you are saying is, by that definition, stupid.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
A working definition of "stupid" is "tending toward self destruction." What you are saying is, by that definition, stupid.
Having principles is stupid? Whatever.

By definition, this proposed incentive is having the opposite effect on me, whether you name it stupid or not.
 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
62
31
58
...I will vote Yes on every single proposal, crap or otherwise, just not to feed miners free money...
Screen Shot 2020-11-23 at 10.48.44 AM.png


As you can see from the above table, maxing out the budget would hurt MNOs more than miners, which is why I termed your idea self-destructive as you are an MNO.
 

rion

Member
Aug 26, 2016
50
44
58
It's a fundamental economic law that both parties who enter into a voluntary exchange of things they own for things they wish to own do so because they consider it in their own best interest. The MNO plan more closely resembles this scenario. If MNOs max out the budget it's because it maximizes their expected return. The two most obvious forms of increasing return are:
  1. accumulation - you get more Dash
  2. appreciation - your Dash gains value
Maxing out the budget (at least in the MNO plan) can mean that MNOs are aiming for 2) at the expense of 1). Pretty simple really. This isn't the case with the DCG plan though, because MNOs are spending other people's (miners') money. If the DCG plan passes there is more reason to max out budget. In addition to it being easier to spend other people's money, it's economical to reduce mining allocation, because the added 4% (36% - 32%) isn't adding any value, it's just waste. Why not give it to some contractor that at least has a 1% chance of adding some value to Dash.
 
Last edited:

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
62
31
58
The MNOs actually have more power IMO in the DCG plan. MNOs can control funds normally set aside for miners and redirect them toward some (hopefully) beneficial purpose.
 
Last edited:

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
The MNOs actually have more power IMO in the DCG plan. MNOs can control funds normally set aside for miners and redirect it toward some (hopefully) beneficial purpose.
Huh? - I'm lost. Unspent is split between miners and MNOs, isn't it? If the half that goes to me is my incentive, why is the other half not an incentive? As Ryan put it, the share going to the miners is "just a consequence of the math". Maybe my half is also just a consequence of the math. Bottom line, with the MNO Plan you can blame me entirely for making bad decisions, and with the DCG Plan I can say, "why should I bother when my vote counts so little anyway.. and then you go and take my reward and give it to a security guard at the door". This isn't Robin Hood you know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rion

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
62
31
58
Huh? - I'm lost...
I am talking about the DELTA. Any increase in spending forces miner rewards lower. There is a dynamic element to this that you seem to be missing. We are sharing rewards with miners in any event. The issue is should miners be forced to contribute more when the DAO needs to spend over 10% or should they not? What is your opinion?
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
I am talking about the DELTA. Any increase in spending forces miner rewards lower. There is a dynamic element to this that you seem to be missing. We are sharing rewards with miners in any event. The issue is should miners be forced to contribute more when the DAO needs to spend over 10% or should they not? What is your opinion?
In an ideal world I wouldn't put forward either of these proposals, but to answer your question, miners should be paid to the secure the chain with sufficient leg room and that's all. Rion has already explained the economics of mining very well. And from a technical point of view, I want to see the two very different network types (masternodes and miners) to maintain distance.. that too is a security issue. Incentivizing miners to be more than mining, where is that going to lead us?
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,608
764
183
The voting and proposal process consists of two phases:

Phase 1 - the two proposal options are evaluated against each other
Phase 2 - the favored option from Phase 1 is evaluated against our current system


In Phase 1 (this phase) you are asked to vote for which option you prefer. Regardless of degree, the option with the most net yes votes will proceed to the next phase. DCG will implement the Phase 2 upgrade option if it exceeds the normal 10% criterion of 10% net yes votes in Phase 2. In the unlikely event the higher ranked proposal exceeds the 10% net yes votes during Phase 1, Phase 2 would not be necessary.
Both decision proposals failed to reach the treshold of 10% by a considerable margin, so what is next ? I would have preferred if neither decision proposal managed to pass the 10% treshold (as is the case today), that it was simply over and done with, without a phase 2.

Since we do have a phase 2 and the DCG plan had more net yes votes then the MNO Plan, i guess the DCG plan will get evaluated to our current system ?
Does that mean another DCG Plan Decision Proposal, that we will need to vote over ? The exact same DCG Plan Decision Proposal ? Or a revised DCG Plan Decision Proposal ?

Only one Decision Proposal ? Or possibly two Decision Proposals ? (Current System versus DCG Plan ?)
I am not looking forward to doing the discussions all over again on a DCG Plan, that did not even reach the 10% treshold.
 
Last edited:

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
62
31
58
DCG or the DIT will run the DCG proposal again, and if it passes we will implement the plan described therein. If if does not pass, we continue with the current system.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
In theory, even if DCG go ahead with Phase 2, we can still put together a competing proposal.

Can we have a more challenging proposal, that DCG must implement a dash price oracle? That would pave the way for rewards based on price performance. I know oracles aren't easy but we already have hundreds of incentivized MNOs to feed prices.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,608
764
183
In theory, even if DCG go ahead with Phase 2, we can still put together a competing proposal.

Can we have a more challenging proposal, that DCG must implement a dash price oracle? That would pave the way for rewards based on price performance. I know oracles aren't easy but we already have hundreds of incentivized MNOs to feed prices.
What do you mean with a dash price oracle ?
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
What do you mean with a dash price oracle ?
A mechanism to determine the actual price of dash in a decentralized manner. If we can all agree from the various sources that the median price of dash is $91.30 (or 0.0053 BTC, or 20.75 oz of gold etc), then on the next superblock payout I will get more dash reward if the price is higher.

Oracles aren't easy because there are obvious incentives to lie about the price, but given we have hundreds of independent MNOs globally, surely it's achievable. Either that or use an existing oracle like Chainlink et al.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stan.distortion

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
865
507
163
I like the idea of oracles but imo they're not something that should be included in the foundation layer of governance. If InstantSend fails we fall back to regular transactions, oracles could be good as an advanced feature but governance should be able to fall back to a basic functionality. I'd love to see any amount of advanced features in governance but imo they're better suited to a layer above, maybe a Platform feature rather than a MN feature.

Hopefully the DCG proposal will be open to significant discussion (on more than just Discord) and possible changes before being put forward to a vote on implementation. These 2 proposals have been put forward in a "take it or leave it" kind of way, comments and suggestions seem to have fallen on deaf ears on both sides. That's understandable in this case, chopping and changing two competing live proposals wouldn't have been practical but if the DCG proposal is put forward as-is I don't think it will pass by a significant margin, a major change to the fundementals of governance shouldn't be made with anything other than overwhelming support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onetime and qwizzie

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
62
31
58
Hopefully the DCG proposal will be open to significant discussion...
We have already discussed this for months on multiple fora. We have explored every facet of it ad nauseam. I don't understand how you could not have gotten the memo...

We have had a run-off election of the two proposals, and now the winning proposal (DCG) will be put before the DAO and voted on again to determine if it will be implemented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onetime

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
I like the idea of oracles but imo they're not something that should be included in the foundation layer of governance. If InstantSend fails we fall back to regular transactions, oracles could be good as an advanced feature but governance should be able to fall back to a basic functionality. I'd love to see any amount of advanced features in governance but imo they're better suited to a layer above, maybe a Platform feature rather than a MN feature.

Hopefully the DCG proposal will be open to significant discussion (on more than just Discord) and possible changes before being put forward to a vote on implementation. These 2 proposals have been put forward in a "take it or leave it" kind of way, comments and suggestions seem to have fallen on deaf ears on both sides. That's understandable in this case, chopping and changing two competing live proposals wouldn't have been practical but if the DCG proposal is put forward as-is I don't think it will pass by a significant margin, a major change to the fundementals of governance shouldn't be made with anything other than overwhelming support.
I understand and I'd rather chase core values than price alone. I'm simply trying to address what both of these proposals are trying to achieve, and that is to incentivize better decision making. The voting process would remain exactly the same but we get to leverage what we already have, a global network of masternode owners, and every single one of them knows what the price of dash is right now.

Dash already has a pricing mechanism which is used in various projects, including the official mobile wallet. What I'm suggesting is an extension, further decentralization. A reliable price feed is important not just to ourselves but to all our users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stan.distortion

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,608
764
183
We have already discussed this for months on multiple fora. We have explored every facet of it ad nauseam. I don't understand how you could not have gotten the memo...

We have had a run-off election of the two proposals, and now the winning proposal (DCG) will be put before the DAO and voted on again to determine if it will be implemented.
and where was this two phases approach discussed ?

On Dash.org/forum ? No
On DashPay Reddit ? No
on Dash Nation Discord ? No

It was only discussed on the dashtalk discord and then dumped on the network.
The unwillingness to discuss the specifics of both decision proposals before launching them as proposals on the Dash network, will remain a weak point for both decision proposals.
 
Last edited:

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
62
31
58
and where was this two phases approach discussed ?
Originally there was not going to be two phases. Originally there was just going to be the DCG proposal to consider, but several MNOs got together and cobbled together an alternate plan. Are you going to criticize DCG for graciously accommodating this group?
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,608
764
183
Originally there was not going to be two phases. Originally there was just going to be the DCG proposal to consider, but several MNOs got together and cobbled together an alternate plan. Are you going to criticize DCG for graciously accommodating this group?
I am criticizing DCG (Ryan Taylor) for not listening to several people who recommended doing a pre-discussion on the specifics of each decision proposal on all Dash forums, before launching the decision proposals on the network. Those people that recommended doing a pre-discussion on the specifics on all Dash forums, included certain people that worked on the MNO Plan. I am also criticizing those people from the MNO Plan, that found it unnecessary to do a pre-discussion.

If there was a pre-discussion about the specifics about each decision proposal, we would not have been surprised by this whole 2 phases approach and would also have had a far better picture of what the MNO Plan would entail. I did not know the MNO Plan also focused on extending the budget to 20%, i actually thought the MNO plan advocated a 10% budget and would just focus on the leftover budget (thereby forming an alternative to the DCG Plan).

A pre-discussion on the specifics of each decision proposal would have provided clarity early on and would have served as a means to informing the Dash community, what exactly was to be discussed and voted upon.
 
Last edited:

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
62
31
58
Pre-discussion? Where have you been? We have been discussing this since June...


And we have had almost a month's worth of discussions here since both proposals were created.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onetime