Governance based on decentralized reputation

SnowHater

Active Member
Dec 25, 2015
299
221
113
I think DASH is more than just a currency, it is a decentralized collaborative organization (DCO) with its own currency. What is main metric of organization governance quality? Its progress rate. Progress means stable influence growth in relation to the outside world. Regular people would more likely use DASH in case of phenomenal power growth of its DCO, take USA and US dollar for example. Simplified this power can be measured by overall capitalization and members number.

I believe that in order to achieve effective decentralized governance the voting power of each individual should be tied to his/her contribution to the progress of DCO. How can we measure this contribution? We need some rating (score) here. It can be gained either by authorities (core team) in a centralized manner or by ongoing mutual evaluating each other. The second choice (decentralized reputation) is better for DCO, despite that it is harder to be implemented. Let's fantasize a little about possible components of such decentralized reputation (DR).

- DASH collateral amount (an individual which buys and freezes some DASH rises overall capitalization and takes some risks. At the beginning of DCO growth it is very important component of DR).
- Amount and quality of network services provided (masternode maintaining, mining, etc).
- Amount and quality of software/hardware developed.
- Amount and quality of publications, ads created.
- Amount and quality of exhibitions, presentations participated in.
- Amount and quality of lawyering and lobbing services delivered.
- Amount and quality of partners founded, beneficial contracts made.

- Amount of products bought via DASH. Business revenue via DASH.
- Donation sent minus donation received in DASH.

- Amount of new active members invited (referral program).
- DashTalk reputation (and similar projects).
- Age of contributing (time passed from the date of registration).
- Other.

Guess we have big list here. We can argue about some items in the list or each item weight in integral score formula, but we definitely can come to a consensus about the formula eventually. This formula can be modified/improved trough DGBB (decentralized governance and budget system). Block reward could be distributed to individuals in proportion to their integral score of DR. 10% of it could be delivered directly to DGBB as it is now. With further progress new subsidiary departments (ministries) of DGBB will likely to come. Individual voting weight will be based on different set (or different proportion) of DR components in each department. For example in Law/Lobby department the most powerful DR component would be 'amount and quality of lawyering and lobbing services delivered' and so on.

The main difference between DR and regular cryptocurrencies is that you can't send your DR scores to others, you can't buy or sell it. It is tied strictly to individuals (or IDs). As you can note in the current implementation of DGBB reputation is already used indirectly. Masternodes are more likely vote 'yes' for proposals made by core developers or other people, who has shown their commitment and qualification to the community already.

Interesting projects on this topic from Ethereum:
http://boardroom.to/
http://backfeed.cc/
http://colony.io/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

raganius

cryptoPag.com
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
I wish DASH was back to be a great digital cash with efficient governance serving it's core needs.

I hope the community is not losing it's focus and forgetting what DASH is... I'm afraid in no time, we will be witnessing the pretensions of DASH running the USA presidential elections :(
 

SnowHater

Active Member
Dec 25, 2015
299
221
113
What would be US dollar looked like without US and Fed? Gold doesn't have governance hence its capitalization is quite small if compared with US dollar. What I am trying to say is that a strong currency should be backed up by a powerful organization (community), not only by its features like gold's scarcity or like crypto's technological innovations. With DR system smartest and most active people will be attracted to our community automatically. They will be rewarded on their efforts to build something useful here.

In the system that I suggest core developers will gain even more power in decision making that they have now because they already have huge reputation in the community. So it is unlikely in such system that the community will forget what DASH is. Proper proportion of DR components in integral DR score defines priorities in the DASH progress for each moment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
To be honest, I like the way it's set up now. I think it gets very muddled with too many chefs in the kitchen. I've been trying to follow Bitshares lately, and their infrastructure is so damn complex. Not only that, it really is an old boys club with regards to getting "In" to be one of the workers or "witnesses" which are nodes that are paid. There is no collateral that I know of, just a reputation system. And in the end, you will get people who have different desires for the project. With Dash and the collateral requirement for voting, you can be certain everyone, unless they're infiltrated moles- which wouldn't have much pull anyway-, wants Dash to succeed because that means they'll increase the value of their collateral. So they will make good choices for the ecosystem. It's clear, it's easy to see, it may not be socialistic, but that's not the way I roll anyway. I don't think that works.

Anyway, Bitshares, I'm afraid, may collapse but I hope not because I like what they're doing.
 

SnowHater

Active Member
Dec 25, 2015
299
221
113
...And in the end, you will get people who have different desires for the project.
I think it is normal. What is the whole point of the governance if you can't find a consensus inside the community?

It's clear, it's easy to see, it may not be socialistic, but that's not the way I roll anyway. I don't think that works.
It is not about being socialistic rather than trying to attract new employees (or incentivize old ones) in our 'company' not just shareholders. These employees can actually earn their money and reputation by doing something useful for us not just invest and wait. Without such employees we unlikely see customers (regular users) as well.

What is your question?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bridgewater

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Dec 14, 2014
183
164
203
We already have money, which represents all of those things already. That's what allowed shareholders/masternode operators the power to be just that. Voting power should absolutely not be tied to arbitrarily-valued contributions. Like Tante said, that's socialism.

For example, the boss of the company could be seen to work "less" than his employees, so his vote should be equal or even less than the employees' vote, huh? Only an employee would say that, because he cannot comprehend the "work" that the boss actually does with that brief instant of consideration between golf swings. Especially not the effort/reputation/hard savings/collaboration/etc etc etc that allowed the boss to amass the money necessary to start the business that employs people.

Make no mistake: the employees you speak of are paid by the bosses (shareholders). Once they earn enough money and actually take some risks such as holding onto their Dash, like their bosses have done, then they can eventually have a vote. You should read the chapter in Atlas Shrugged that explains the grand social experiment at the Twentieth Century Motor company, where every single employee had equal voting power to rate the value of everyone else's contributions. It is very insightful.

The governance is only 10 percent of the annual inflation, which will decrease over time. I guess this year that is around $400,000 worth, given $5/Dash. Any way you slice it, that $400,000 of work potential is never going to be as powerful as the $33 million market cap of investment capital, or even the $3.6 million potential worth of annual work provided by the PoW and PoSe. One man's dollar is not worth more than another. That's the key. If you have ideas and reputation and ability, then you will get more dollars. Plain and simple.
 

SnowHater

Active Member
Dec 25, 2015
299
221
113
We already have money, which represents all of those things already. That's what allowed shareholders/masternode operators the power to be just that. Voting power should absolutely not be tied to arbitrarily-valued contributions. Like Tante said, that's socialism.
These are not arbitrarily-valued contributions, these are community-valued contributions.

For example, the boss of the company could be seen to work "less" than his employees, so his vote should be equal or even less than the employees' vote, huh?
The weight of boss vote is defined by the whole community which includes investors, other bosses, employees and customers (users). Moreover the weight of evaluation of each member can be proportional to his/her own reputation. So it is not socialism at all.

Make no mistake: the employees you speak of are paid by the bosses (shareholders). Once they earn enough money and actually take some risks such as holding onto their Dash, like their bosses have done, then they can eventually have a vote. You should read the chapter in Atlas Shrugged that explains the grand social experiment at the Twentieth Century Motor company, where every single employee had equal voting power to rate the value of everyone else's contributions. It is very insightful.
Again, that is not the system I'm talking about. Your voting and evaluating power is proportional to your current reputation, it is not equal for everyone.

So, I guess the devil of the details here is in actual math algorithm of reputation distribution and issuance in decentralized way. We should prevent complete monarchy or tyranny as well as full socialism. And I think it is important to develop a good algorithm here. The problem is I'm not good at mathematics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
Oh, I don't really recommend it, as it's a freakishly boring, hammer her point through the floor, constant preaching kind of book. It's supposed to be a "love story" But maybe it's one of those things you have to read?? I dunno. Like Nathanial Hawthorn's "Scarlet Letter" I just want to punch everyone reading that kind of stuff, LOL
 

SnowHater

Active Member
Dec 25, 2015
299
221
113
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: UdjinM6

SnowHater

Active Member
Dec 25, 2015
299
221
113
Nevertheless I'll definitely invest some of my money in TheDAO. I do not see a meritocracy as a socialism though.

A quote from the article:

"The next step in The DAO’s evolution could and should include a more meritocratic governance model, which would ideally have a considerable weaker link between invested capital and decision-making power, shifting its distribution of influence significantly towards The DAO’s contributors, based on the value they’ve added to the organisation in form of improvements and their past successful decisions."
 
Last edited:

Bridgewater

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Dec 14, 2014
183
164
203
I do not see a meritocracy as a socialism though.
Attempting to decouple money from merit is at least anti-capitalistic. Socialism is the assumed motivator, but there could be others. There's also totalitarianism, anarchy or the complete demise of human civilization as end-goals. It all boils down to people trying "fix" a system that is already quite fair and isn't fundamentally broken (capitalism), instead of working and contributing within it.

One might argue that we are guilty of doing just that with the whole crypto movement (claiming the system is broken and trying to get people to use our system instead of contributing to the current one). The difference is that most everyone in crypto agrees that fiat is in fact broken and is not fair, as it is no longer conducive to free-market capitalism. That's why Dash is here, to create the ideal Digital Cash with which a real capitalistic economy can flourish.
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
With regard to voting power, it is still worth considering what that means. Currently, masternode voting power means the power to decide how the budget block reward is allocated, which is not necessarily the same thing as governance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raganius

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Nice ideas, but I agree with @raganius that the priority of the Dash project is digital cash.

You are allowed to agree with whoever you want. The problem is not what you believe, the problem is that you and the core team imposes their opinions to the others.

PLEASE STOP PROHIBITTING VOTING WITH NUMBERS, in order for the masternode owners to be able to define the priorities they want into the Dash project.

A simple yes/no vote is not enough at all. Let Dash governance evolve.

You shoud consider dash as an economy, and not as a simple digital cash.

Economy is the goal, and digital cash is the medium. Look at the forest, not the tree.
 
Last edited:

tungfa

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,902
6,739
1,283
You are allowed to agree with whoever you want. The problem is not what you believe, the problem is that you and the core team imposes their opinions to the others.

PLEASE STOP PROHIBITTING VOTING WITH NUMBERS, in order for the masternode owners to be able to define the priorities they want into the Dash project.

A simple yes/no vote is not enough at all. Let Dash governance evolve.

You shoud consider dash as an economy, and not as a simple digital cash.

Economy is the goal, and digital cash is the medium. Look at the forest, not the tree.
yes , WE HEARD YOU
you said this many time in multiple threads already
 
  • Like
Reactions: raganius

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
yes , WE HEARD YOU
you said this many time in multiple threads already
I wonder if you really heard me.
I didnt get any kind of answer, or any argument against it or in favor of it.
It is like I didnt said it. Nobody seems to care about this enormous omittance.
You dont seem to care about this prohibition of voting, decided initially by the core team.

So what do you think about it, am I right or am I wrong?
 
Last edited:

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
There is no "prohibition" on voting. If you want to put something to a vote, you can. Your question goes more to the point of what that voting means. Technically, the masternode vote does not mean anything other than who receives funds from the blockchain. It remains to be seen exactly how much influence the masternodes have, if any, on coders/protocol updates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raganius

tungfa

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,902
6,739
1,283
I wonder if you really heard me.
I didnt get any kind of answer, or any argument against it or in favor of it.
It is like I didnt said it. Nobody seems to care about this enormous omittance.
You dont seem to care about this prohibition of voting, decided initially by the core team.

So what do you think about it, am I right or am I wrong?
you have to understand that there is a lot of posting in multiple pages and chats , if I would argue any point I not agree with I would get zero work done and be here 24/7 arguing myself (and u propably) to death

no I do not agree
voting by numbers is not nessacery , that is way over the top , remember this is digital cash , votes are just for budgets , we are not trying to run a country here , even though it sounds like that these days as the governance part has such a strong angle these days
that should balance out soon when 12.1 kicks into action
 
  • Like
Reactions: itscrazybro

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
no I do not agree
voting by numbers is not nessacery , that is way over the top , remember this is digital cash , votes are just for budgets , we are not trying to run a country here , even though it sounds like that these days as the governance part has such a strong angle these days
that should balance out soon when 12.1 kicks into action
Exactly because votes are for bugjets, this is a HUGE reason why voting should be done with numbers. Percentage numbers in particular.
 

Otaci

Member
Mar 5, 2016
46
49
58
Projects cost a certain amount. In my experience with IT projects, getting 80% of the funds does not mean you achieve 80% of the business benefit. Either fund the project or don't. If you think a project costs too much, discuss it, and if you still think so, vote no.