Decision Proposal: Increase Proposal System Flexibility & Efficiency

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,720
839
183
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.
Those were just very broad discussions, the specifics are missing there. It does not even mention the proposed blockreward re-allocation change of the DCG Plan,
and it says nothing about a two phases approach. All those specifics were only discussed on dashtalk discord and between certain MNO operators and Ryan Taylor.

Here you can read who from the MNO plan advocated a pre-discussion on the two proposal specifics as well : www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/jgvph2/mno_incentives/

I even brought it up as a question in a quarterly call, for the Q& A section.
Link : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-core-group-q3-quarterly-call-29-10-2020.50832/#post-223896

The answer and my objection to that answer can be read here : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dcg-budget-system-change-discussion-missing-the-specifics.50867/

The specifics of the proposals were simply never pre-discussed on the Dash forums, prior to launch on the network.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: onetime

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
Pre-discussion? Where have you been? We have been discussing this since June...
I think a little mis-understanding. Qwizzie and others are saying that while the general subject was brought up, the specifics of the proposals have not been widely discussed. Places like reddit had some speculation but nothing solid was posted or discussed, rejected or accepted, directly from DCG. I agree with this sentiment, especially given the fundamental changes being put before us.

Dash needs a cheap flexible MNO-only voting system. Not 5 dash, not waiting a whole month to see the results. Would it not be better if DCG and MNOs could submit a multi-choice questionnaire and then repeat to fine-tune their concepts? At the very least, various concepts could of been posted to Dash Nexus where we can discuss them. Yet amidst all this, Ryan claimed there was talks with various stakeholders, including miners. Yep, I can see that part of the discussion took place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onetime

onetime

New Member
Apr 15, 2014
20
17
3
These 2 proposals have been put forward in a "take it or leave it" kind of way.
Yes, that's unfortunate. I wish I could have been included in designing a better optimized proposal option and in negotiating and persuading miners to willingly accept it.

In my opinion the DCG plan is a step in the right direction, and now the priority is getting it implemented in 0.18 if the network votes for it. So I won't try to interfere with that choice.

Next year, after 0.18 is released, I have ideas to discuss with everybody for a proposal to ultimately optimize the block reward for the future. I will try to include everyone in the Dash community in that discussion.

A major change to the fundamentals of governance shouldn't be made with anything other than overwhelming support.
Very good point. Chain Locks has changed our fundamentals, so it makes sense for us to readjust the block reward. Now, for the sake of Dash's image as a reliable, sound store of value for investment, we should aim to implement the perfect optimal block reward and try to make it permanent going forward.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
Yes, that's unfortunate. I wish I could have been included in...
I hope you understand that it's not practical for several hundred MNOs to design by committee a proposal of this nature. We need leadership, and DCG is providing that leadership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onetime

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
258
229
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
I hope you understand that it's not practical for several hundred MNOs to design by committee a proposal of this nature. We need leadership, and DCG is providing that leadership.
Your appeal to authority sickens me, try to embrace the democratic values of decentralisation for once in your life and use your nogging for some critical thinking, you surely need it.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,720
839
183
Quick update : Phase 2 started three days ago and we got a new (unchanged) DCG decision proposal to vote upon --> https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-proposal-change-proposal-system

Unfortunetely Dash Central had some problems (again) that effected the voting and also did not show the latest budget proposal, but that seems to have been fixed today. We did lose three days of voting registration on the new DCG decision proposal and we lost three days of discussion time on the new budget proposal that was not showing on Dash Central. I believe rango is already in contact with someone from DCG to fix things long term for Dash Central, but maybe he could use more help ? I understand these are busy days for DCG, but these problems do negatively effect the governance process as a whole. Particularly in a time of decision proposals being active on our network.

Update : rango told us in the shoutbox of Dash Central that he implemented an autorestart, in case insight crashes again. So hopefully that will put and end to the insight crashes for Dash Central. As was mentioned in this thread before by kot, there is most likely a difference between rango's mentioned 'insight' and DCG maintained 'Insight' blockchain explorer.

There is also Dash Nexus that seems to be stuck --> it does not show any votes on the new decision proposal, mentions an invalid date at the voting deadline and does not show latest budget proposal, so maybe someone can contact Dash Nexus about this and have them sort this out ?

Ironically only dashninja.pl was showing the latest budget proposal and decision proposal correctly (i have a suspicious feeling nowadays few people still know about dashninja.pl but in times like these it does function as a good backup to look at proposals active on the network)
Link : https://www.dashninja.pl/governance.html

There is currently a large mismatch between yes votes on Dashninja.pl and yes votes on Dash Central. Dashninja.pl currently shows 47 yes votes and 71 no votes, while Dash Central currently shows 104 yes votes and 78 no votes.

Update : i verified the DCG decision proposal through a Dash Core wallet in the Console and that matches pretty closely with Dashninja & DMT. So Dash Central is most likely giving an incorrect larger number of yes votes. gobject get 6196f165b4700457f3ca2eeffe007a2863ce8ad12bbe4f24e807c1699fe7e13b in Console currently mentions 47 yes votes and 71 no votes (same as Dashninja & DMT).

Elbereth (owner of Dashninja.pl) also started a pre-discussion about a bug fixing and maintenance budget proposal he is planning to introduce on the network for Dashninja.pl later on : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...ing-maintenance-evolutions.50965/#post-224347

I think having Dash Central, Dash Nexus and Dashninja.pl operate without problems (bugs-free) is important to our governance model and deserves not only the masternode operators support, but also as much DCG support as possible.

We currently have only 10 days of voting left, so lets get the discussions & voting going on this new (unchanged) DCG decision proposal.
 
Last edited:

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
No comment from Rion or Hilawe yet regarding the DCG proposal. I suppose my intuition was correct that these two are more interested in opposing DCG than in anything else. The good thing about being a cynic is that you're so rarely disappointed in people.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: AgnewPickens

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
No comment from Rion or Hilawe yet regarding the DCG proposal. I suppose my intuition was correct that these two are more interested in opposing DCG than in anything else. The good thing about being a cynic is that you're so rarely disappointed in people.
Not sure what you're expecting, everything that needs to be said is out there already.

Imo it is healthy for all proposals, including DCG, to have an opposition. In a court case you have a jury of ordinary men and women (in this case MNOs) and the onus is on the Proposal Owner to make their case. This is quite the challenge because there will often be expert witnesses that must explain complex matters in ordinary terms. Likewise, someone should challenge the assertions of the prosecution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnewPickens

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
Btw, I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy in the vote count between Dash Central and DMT.
 

onetime

New Member
Apr 15, 2014
20
17
3
(copied from DashCentral)

If you have voted NO on the Phase 2 proposal, please reconsider. This is important.

DCG’s proposed changes would definitely improve the economic incentives of Dash. After Chain Locks were introduced, Dash’s fundamental security spending needs have changed. This proposal now is objectively a major step in the right direction toward optimizing block reward allocations to benefit the entire network’s value going forward. Please realize that there is a logical economic solution to this problem. DCG’s proposal moves us toward a lower and more stable inflation rate in circulating supply, which benefits everyone - including miners. And directly cost-incentivizing treasury spending votes according to the MNO’s portion of expected value gained by the entire network creates a better likelihood of high quality voting. (I believe DCG’s proposal isn’t quite optimal or perfect, but it does capture good value to better align voting incentives and reduce unnecessary security spending, and therefore is certainly worth implementing as soon as possible.)

Some of you are concerned that MNOs will overspend or underspend if this proposal passes. If the goal is to maximize benefit to the whole network, which mostly means maximizing the expected resulting price of Dash, then there should be an optimal treasury spending threshold where positive expected value proposals pass and negative expected value proposals do not pass. Properly aligned incentives are the correct answer. Emotional disagreeing opinions or guesses are not a useful way to decide this.

We have only two choices right now, DCG’s proposal or status quo. The DCG proposal is objectively better and needs to get implemented right away. 2021 will be such an import year for Dash. We need the inflating-circulating-supply issue to be addressed as soon as possible. Please vote yes. (Or convince me otherwise.)

Guys, keep in mind that all of us want the best for Dash; we’re on the same team. Of course we each want to contribute ideas and opinions about what to do and why to do it, and everyone’s thoughts are helpful. But please remain rational and don’t become staunchly married to your ideas. Try to stay open-minded, in search of the true answer, and realize that someone who disagrees with your ideas is also trying to help and improve Dash’s value just like you are.

I want to see Dash in the top 5 next year!
 
  • Sad
Reactions: GrandMasterDash

onetime

New Member
Apr 15, 2014
20
17
3
quizzie's concerns about increasing the treasury cap above 10% do not account for the positive value proposition that Dash's treasury now allows.

The network needs to spend its block reward on mining security, masternode services, and treasury budget. When Chain Locks were implemented, that changed our network's spending needs; it freed up some potential room in the budget. It is prudent to now shift rewards to an optimal payout level to maximize the value of Dash: that means maximizing the treasury proposals that deliver more expected value to Dash (+ev) than their cost, as far as possible up to the point that it does not interfere with the continuity of both functionality and security. Every +ev proposal, by definition, is expected to add more value to Dash than its cost to the network. Since Chain Locks provided more room to safely allocate budget to treasury, it is now objectively correct, for the optimal economics of Dash, to do so. This is not a matter of preference or opinion, it is the solution to an optimization problem.

My personal opinion :
More than 10% budget --> More selling of Dash on the market by those projects that receive Dash funding --> More Sell Pressure & Reduced Dash Store of Value (by making masternodes less attractive to invest in). It directly undermines our whole blockreward allocation change.
You are misunderstanding the concept of +ev proposals. If a proposal owner's "selling of Dash on the market" does indeed create more downward pressure on Dash than the expected future upward buying pressure generated by the proposal's efforts, then it would not be a +ev proposal.

We should ideally have as many +ev passing proposals as the overall budget can afford once all of the functionality and security needs are fully met. DCG suggests a 20% treasury cap, and I agree with that amount. If you see it otherwise, please justify why you think it would ever make sense to thwart the judicious use of budget for +ev, value-adding proposals.

If it's because you don't trust MNOs to make good voting decisions, that is not a valid reason to misalign incentives according to your personal preferences rather than have them be optimally aligned for a maximized return of value.


It is important that we implement DCG's proposal right away so that Dash will be as economically competitive as possible in 2021. Big money is entering the crypto space, and Dash's fundamentals need to be figured out and optimized now. If we can reduce the circulating supply inflation to a competitive and stable level, it will help give Dash a better chance of outperforming other cryptos, moving up on the charts and gaining more exposure and recognition and respect, and eventually being a contender for mass adoption as digital cash and as a social payments platform.

If you own one or more masternodes, I'm sure you would love to see the value of Dash rise as much as possible. Let's all look at this objectively with a rational open mind, and let's find the truly best solution to make it happen. Please evaluate my arguments without an emotional prejudice to be disagreeable, but see the economic logic of my arguments. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
(copied from DashCentral)

If you think about it, the way the DAO works now, where MNOs give out funds that don't cost them anything, but which are in fact a tax upon every Dash hodler, it's a bit pompous and a bit corrupt. IT'S NO BETTER THAN HOW THE THE US CONGRESS WORKS.

And this is probably why we end up funding such losers. And why we end up funding them WAY too long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onetime

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
This is like watching bank robbers fight over how they're going to divide their stash!

Meanwhile, I have a concept that needs some work called One Dollar One Vote Governance and I'd appreciate some feedback. I realize, of course, that DCG will not comment or contribute to it, though they always seem keen to "discuss" their own proposals.

The important difference is, the DCG proposal is about self interest written in a few lines of code, whereas a real proposal would try to build bridges and engage with our end users.

Right now, people on the outside looking in, they see a small group of privileged individuals running the show. Whether it's marketing, development, masternodes or integrations, there's almost no incentive for outsiders to contribute for free when they see others getting paid. Compare this to bitcoin where, for example, there is more than one server implementation. Anyone here want to try their hand at building a Go or Rust version of the server? - I thought not. All the servers and tooling here at dash, are almost exclusively born from the treasury. Even if we expand development to 90%, the same underlying problem will exist; the treasury kills outside incentives and innovations.

Take a look at bitcoin and bitcoin cash. On the one side there is Andreas Antonopoulos and the other has Roger Ver. Both very passionate and excellent public speakers. Yes they are big bag holders but there's no bitcoin treasury perpetually paying them off every month. People see this for what it is, passion and independence. Independence means unattached, and we can't even classify Joel and Mark into that bag because they are tainted for being masternode owners, paid every nine days to shill. Who here is going to declare independence yet stand up and defend dash so vigorously, anyone?

The kind of changes we need are going to take real work and actual lines of code. And it's going to take some strength to fight off bad habits by trying sometihng new and radical.
 

AgnewPickens

Administrator
Moderator
Mar 11, 2017
441
163
113
57
We need to kill more. The history of our treasury can be summed up with the following slogan...

Funding products no one needed that never arrived.

And yet you are pushing hard for the DAO treasury allocation proposal to pass.

That makes about as much sense as a dry year and I wore two raincoats.
 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
And yet you are pushing hard for the DAO treasury allocation proposal to pass.
That makes about as much sense as a dry year and I wore two raincoats.
The proposal if implemented will help prevent wasteful spending because it will come out of our pockets.

How many votes do you have? Would you please go on DC and recant and tell everyone how you've seen the light and want the proposal to pass?
 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
It looks like the nerd herd does not want to give up the prerogative of spending other people's money. How weird is that? They could take possession of the same money and then spend it but no. Let's go over their possible reasons for no votes...

1 - They don't understand the proposal.
2 - Voted no because they don't have time or attention span to consider the proposal.
3 - They don't like it because it's from DCG.
4- They don't trust other MNOs to support their pet projects under the plan.
 

onetime

New Member
Apr 15, 2014
20
17
3
1 - They don't understand the proposal.
2 - Voted no because they don't have time or attention span to consider the proposal.
3 - They don't like it because it's from DCG.
4- They don't trust other MNOs to support their pet projects under the plan.

5 - The don't understand how economic value maximization works. :(
6 - They may not realize how critical and urgent this is: Dash needs to be economically optimized as soon as possible in order to have the best chance to grow, advance, and compete during the likely bull run in 2021.
 
Last edited:

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
I have a new theory that is grounded in SCIENCE!


People become risk-averse when they're stressed. This whole proposal is about risk and reward. People are overweighing the potential risks of the plan due to the stress of the pandemic and everything else.

We need to retry this proposal at a later date if it fails, maybe with a minor change so the "no voters" can save face.
 
Last edited:

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,011
1,170
1,183
3 - They don't like it because it's from DCG.
That's a valid reason. Perhaps we can rewrite it as:

7. MNOs are finally gaining some healthy skepticism.

It's not so bad to demand something a bit more ground breaking than a few lines of code. Like a decentralized kickstarter; someone, anyone, can put money into a proposal and if it doesn't reach it's goal, the funders get their money back. It doesn't all have to be about masternodes and miners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnewPickens

vazaki3

Member
Jul 1, 2019
289
92
88
33
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Most decision proposals should not have a voting deadline !!!!

Under which rationale, voting about "Increase Proposal System Flexibility & Efficiency" should have a deadline of 1 month????

 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
OF course Demo you have to make a meta-comment. You can't comment on the actual proposal. That would be beneath you.
 

vazaki3

Member
Jul 1, 2019
289
92
88
33
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
OF course Demo you have to make a meta-comment. You can't comment on the actual proposal. That would be beneath you.
Who is demo? I am vazaki3.
Why be in a hurry, in order to satisfy some people who want us to be in a hurry (mostly for malicious purposes and for their own benefit) ???

Decision proposals should not have a dead line, unless this is absolutely necessary.

There are millions of decision proposals that wait patiently for you to vote for them .
ex. https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-would-you-like-to-be-able-to-vote-with-number.9081/

Please dont fall into the advertising trap of the malicious (and of the rich who have money to spend in order to propose). Dont be in a hurry. Think carefully before voting for decisions, and ALWAYS preserve your right to reconsider and reverse whatever decision is based on your own vote.

(Censored video)
My original video was censored , so here you are an alternative--->





 
Last edited:

onetime

New Member
Apr 15, 2014
20
17
3
(copied from DashCentral)

hipnotic said:
“I already have no confidence in MNO's ability to make good decisions, so increasing the budget would be crazy.”
“If I don't trust the MNO's to spend the current budget wisely, why would I give them more money?”

It’s frustrating that you and others here don’t understand why economic value incentives should be optimized. In your opinion, you think that if we do improve the incentives, then MNOs will react to the change by overspending (or underspending) because they’re all stupid and irrational or whatever. You think YOU know better than everyone else when it comes to deciding what adds value to Dash. And therefore, your solution to the voters’ poor decision-making is to misallocate block rewards (supply inflation) in a way that directly increases relative downward pressure on Dash’s price and would likely prevent some value-adding +ev proposals from being funded.

+Ev proposals are called +ev proposals because they add more value than their cost. => As many +ev proposals as the block reward budget can afford, after fully paying for continuous network security and functionality, should be included and funded. A 20% treasury cap does this.

So then if MNOs were to make bad decisions or mistakes in their assessment of how much value will be added by proposals, their mistakes would hurt their investment’s value. That perfect incentive is what will make MNOs take voting most seriously.

To keep incentives misaligned instead - just because of opinions, emotions, or guesses - is definitely the incorrect thing to do. The correct optimal solution is more likely to maximize Dash’s expected value.

Please have the humility to seek the actual true solution that would maximize Dash’s value. If you own one or more masternodes, you have a large investment in Dash. You should realize that you will benefit more from implementing the best economic solution that adds maximum value to Dash than from basing this decision on personal opinions. I want 2021 to be really amazing for Dash, and I think this change to more optimal incentives needs to happen as soon as possible for Dash to advance and succeed this year. Choose the correct economic solution. Anything else would make/keep things worse.

Happy New Year Dash Community!! :)
 

forro

Member
Apr 13, 2019
94
32
68
(copied from DashCentral)




It’s frustrating that you and others here don’t understand why economic value incentives should be optimized. In your opinion, you think that if we do improve the incentives, then MNOs will react to the change by overspending (or underspending) because they’re all stupid and irrational or whatever. You think YOU know better than everyone else when it comes to deciding what adds value to Dash. And therefore, your solution to the voters’ poor decision-making is to misallocate block rewards (supply inflation) in a way that directly increases relative downward pressure on Dash’s price and would likely prevent some value-adding +ev proposals from being funded.

+Ev proposals are called +ev proposals because they add more value than their cost. => As many +ev proposals as the block reward budget can afford, after fully paying for continuous network security and functionality, should be included and funded. A 20% treasury cap does this.

So then if MNOs were to make bad decisions or mistakes in their assessment of how much value will be added by proposals, their mistakes would hurt their investment’s value. That perfect incentive is what will make MNOs take voting most seriously.

To keep incentives misaligned instead - just because of opinions, emotions, or guesses - is definitely the incorrect thing to do. The correct optimal solution is more likely to maximize Dash’s expected value.

Please have the humility to seek the actual true solution that would maximize Dash’s value. If you own one or more masternodes, you have a large investment in Dash. You should realize that you will benefit more from implementing the best economic solution that adds maximum value to Dash than from basing this decision on personal opinions. I want 2021 to be really amazing for Dash, and I think this change to more optimal incentives needs to happen as soon as possible for Dash to advance and succeed this year. Choose the correct economic solution. Anything else would make/keep things worse.

Happy New Year Dash Community!! :)
Please take a moment to vote in a poll to adjust incentives: