Governance question?
- Thread starter BruceLee
- Start date
Sure, why not. Proposals can easily be created here https://www.dashwhale.org/budget/create or directly from wallet. I'd like to see some more feedback first, though
I think this is too much solution for problems that don't yet exist. First and foremost we should be solving real world problems.. and at this stage, the internal mechanics are not a problem. I can imagine third tier nodes in the future that provide specific services and maybe they should have voting rights. For example, at the moment, I think liquidity providers get a bad deal; AFAIK they actually lose money and have no voting rights at all. And I suppose liquidity providers could power various escrow services. And this is what I say, it's all much further down the road.
GrandMasterDash
I wouldn't call it a problem per say but more like something that could be improved. The more price goes up the more it will become a problem though.
Ideally, it's better to be proactive than reactive. Prevention is better than the cure as they say. Why wait until it becomes a problem.
I think this move would also increase DASH adoption a lot to be honest.
I wouldn't call it a problem per say but more like something that could be improved. The more price goes up the more it will become a problem though.
Ideally, it's better to be proactive than reactive. Prevention is better than the cure as they say. Why wait until it becomes a problem.
I think this move would also increase DASH adoption a lot to be honest.
SnowHater
Active member
Yes, because it gets people feel as they do something important when they voting on a proposal or vote against it. They feel that they can actually influence on the development process unlike in bitcoin community. Moreover it is very funny, its like online game, and it is very naturally attracts interest of new users. So if this feature is available only for early adopters or very rich people that is very dissappointing for newcomers. This is my personal point of view as a newcomer).
Yes. I don't believe money should limit the involvement. Having more money doesn't make one more qualified to have a say.
For example, wages in the banking industry are much higher than in other sectors. This doesn't mean other people doing other type of work are less smart just that coincidentally that type of work happens to pay better.
lynx
Active member
See see your point. At some point in the future someone could have $100.000 worth of Dash, but no right to vote. But I don't want developers to waste time on a problem that we might have in the future instead of focusing on the functionality that will actually make that thousand dollar Dash a reality.
And for the OP, think that by increasing the MN collateral requirement, single MN operators would be effectively relinquishing control instead of gaining control.
With this in mind, can someone tell me the role of liquidity providers when Evolution comes out? If liquidity providers benefit the system then maybe that's our starting point.. by extending votes to LPNs.
lynx
Active member
I didn't say it wouldn't be useful, I said I don't want to allocate development time on it at this time.
I started to write here about my Darksend experience, but deleted it, since I feel it would just derail the topic. Let's just say I need Dash to work like cash more than I need it to work like a corporation.
LP's won't have a role, they are just a stopgap.
lynx
Dash doesn't work like a corporation and won't work like a corporation. Not sure where you got this idea.
The idea behind the decentralized budget/voting system is to help create the decentralized corporation which is anything but a classic corporation model. In a corporation you have a CEO who calls the shots or a managing director. DASH decision making is bottom up instead of top down. HUGE difference.
Dash doesn't work like a corporation and won't work like a corporation. Not sure where you got this idea.
The idea behind the decentralized budget/voting system is to help create the decentralized corporation which is anything but a classic corporation model. In a corporation you have a CEO who calls the shots or a managing director. DASH decision making is bottom up instead of top down. HUGE difference.
lynx
Active member
InTheWoods
It does work like a corporation. The MN operators are the board of directors. They can overrule or replace CEO's and do all kinds of neat corporation stuff.
It does work like a corporation. The MN operators are the board of directors. They can overrule or replace CEO's and do all kinds of neat corporation stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
SnowHater
Active member
So which time would be perfect for it in your opinion? Maybe we need to calculate approximate efforts of developers to implement that feature via time and money they would spend on it? Do we have some features-request-list of the community to developers?
lynx
Active member
Well, yes. If it's just a line of code on Evolution, I say do it. But if it would delay more useful features for more than a week, I think it can wait.
IMO we need users more than we need investors. When you buy a mousetrap, you want the most cost-effective, efficient trap, not the crappy one that promises you you can have a say in the design of a future mousetrap.
Not really since in a corporation the CEO calls all the shots. If the board doesn't approve with the direction the company's taking they can replace the CEO.
DASH uses the decentralized bottom up decision making process where all the decisions are made by the community not by the CEO which is the only one that calls the shots. In the standard corporation the CEO does not asks the board to vote on the decisions. So it's a very different model.
lynx
Active member
You have a point there.
All the board of director does is vote on decisions and tell the CEO what goals he needs to achieve. But never mind. Just pretend I said Organization instead of Corporation if it troubles you.
Doesn't trouble me one bit. What makes you think that? DASH is structured as a decentralized corporation. It's just that the way DASH works is very different to a standard corporation. In a standard corporation the CEO has a lot of power to take decisions unilaterally. He doesn't need to consult the board. If the board is unhappy they just replace the CEO and pick a new one that has a vision more aligned with theirs.
Also, you can't compare Masternode operators to a board which is formed of a handful of people. There are over 3500 masternodes and probably few hundred people who can cast the votes if not more.
Ideally you'd like to get more participants to have a say which is the idea behind the decentralized autonomous corporation. This is what the extra low requirement node tier would do, give more people a say in the DASH development process.
Last edited by a moderator: