Governance question?
- Thread starter BruceLee
- Start date
lynx
Active member
No required Colatteral (C)
Receives Rewards (R)
No Equipment costs (E)
Can Vote (V)
Users +C -R +E -V
Miners +C +R -E -V
MN -C +R -E +V
2 advantages, 2 disadvantages for each, seems pretty ballanced to me
The end users don't need to vote, they already know why they're using it! They voted the moment they used it. And one of those reasons is utility. And you need to remember, however good you think dash is now, it's going to get a whole better (more utility) in the future.
I really don't see the point of giving end users the ability to vote just-because.
MN operators might be relatively "rich" but it's not like they can actually spend their 1000 dash, they can't, it's locked up and hopefully earning revenue for services rendered. I can imagine a future where there are other node types providing different services... those services might require more or less collateral. If end users want to make money and, therefore, get to vote, they could take those paths as they come online.
Votes = services rendered
I really don't see the point of giving end users the ability to vote just-because.
MN operators might be relatively "rich" but it's not like they can actually spend their 1000 dash, they can't, it's locked up and hopefully earning revenue for services rendered. I can imagine a future where there are other node types providing different services... those services might require more or less collateral. If end users want to make money and, therefore, get to vote, they could take those paths as they come online.
Votes = services rendered
SnowHater
Active member
Decentralized governance is a very new feature. I think that end user has a lot more interest to participate in decentralised voting system than to send money instantly to someone with small fee. I believe there are some cryptos out there that can do the last thing already)
Then, DASH is the wrong place for that, I'm affraid. DASH is Digital Cash. The core purpose of DASH is allowing it's users "to send money instantly to someone with small fee". (I really doubt there are people out there willing to "vote only" for no purpose).
Last edited by a moderator:
You put things perfectly in tune with my view on the issue.
The fact that I use Google regularly does not entitle me to vote for Google's internal decisions.
The fact that I drive a Ferrari on the weekends does not entitle me to vote for Ferrari's internal decisions.
The fact that I drink Absolut daily does not entitle me to vote for Absolute's internal decisions.
and so on... :wink:
woww, backup a little... I'm voting that you don't drink and drive!
SnowHater
Active member
Exactly, and that is the main reason why I don't like Google :smile: and other traditional big corporations.
Don't think the Google, Ferrari, vodka analogy applies in our case.
Lite Nodes would be stakeholders not users. My mom would be a user if I send her some DASH to buy a soda can with or something. That's a user. A Lite Node operator with voting power would be someone pretty much involved in the project with a stake in it.
So instead of calling them users let's call them stakeholders. I may use Gmail and I'm a user and I can also own Google shares. They're not exactly one and the same thing.
Lite Nodes would be stakeholders not users. My mom would be a user if I send her some DASH to buy a soda can with or something. That's a user. A Lite Node operator with voting power would be someone pretty much involved in the project with a stake in it.
So instead of calling them users let's call them stakeholders. I may use Gmail and I'm a user and I can also own Google shares. They're not exactly one and the same thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see where you're coming from, and I can understand how you feel about inclusion of as many people as possible in DASH's decision making. But, still, I don't see the utility of this specific proposal.
As I said before, by participating in a shared Masternode, each stakeholder ALREADY HAS the possibility to participate in a internal node "sub-vote" among each shared node stakeholder (coordinated by the shared node administrator). The result of this "internal sub-vote" is the shared node's vote on the main network.
What we need is ONLY to improve (the security of stakeholders in) shared Masternodes.
I doubt that a 3rd tier of small holders would work because, as I have already asked: : will there be relevant participation of users willing to pay for a stable node (static ip, etc)? For free? Look at bitcoin, there are tons of BTC investors who will not run a BTC full node, even though they know it is important to the network (their investment).
One Masternode has a duty towards the whole network. It has to comply with ever increasing demands of infrastructure, the more the network grows... wil, small node, be as reliable?
As to "voting concerns". I understand that each user his its own specific voting mechanism, as explained above.
As to danger of collusion from the Masternode operators: there's no incentive for that.
But that's my opinion. Let's see what other users think about the idea
Actually splawik21 who runs a node share service sees problems in this area. The demand decreases as DASH price increases because people have to risk more. Votes are not fractional either but binary and that's another problem. https://dashtalk.org/threads/governance-question.7725/#post-79516
lynx
Active member
It (voting) won't be this much of a problem if the shared service has multiple nodes.
PS: As for the risk part, it can probably be resolved with smart contracts...
raganius
The more the price goes up the more ridiculous the claim that DASH has bottom up decentralized governance will sound. The profits for Masternode operators will only increase exponentially and the barrier to entry will get higher and higher. It will become a rich getting richer scenario that many will love to hate. You don't want that.
If we are serious about having a decentralized governance where community is really involved something like Lite Nodes are the way to go. DASH already has full nodes on top of Masternodes btw.
I own some masternodes myself but you need to put things in perspective. This would be very beneficial for DASH.
The more the price goes up the more ridiculous the claim that DASH has bottom up decentralized governance will sound. The profits for Masternode operators will only increase exponentially and the barrier to entry will get higher and higher. It will become a rich getting richer scenario that many will love to hate. You don't want that.
If we are serious about having a decentralized governance where community is really involved something like Lite Nodes are the way to go. DASH already has full nodes on top of Masternodes btw.
I own some masternodes myself but you need to put things in perspective. This would be very beneficial for DASH.
Ok, as I said, I understand your feelings towards how it works. And I might be alone here, but to be honest, I se no problem with the "rich getting richer" idea, especially because, as I have said elsewhere, the cryptocurrencies are not equal wealth distribution devices. I doubt a serious investor will accept to participate in a project that (instead of making him wealthier) will divide his money with everyone around.... For that we already have the State... see my point?
lynx
Active member
If the price really does go up it means the MN operators are doing a good job...
yes. for the benefit of all DASH holders.