Joel Valenzuela, Did the Bitcoin Cash Split Accidentally Solve Crypto Governance?
- Thread starter stan.distortion
- Start date
stan.distortion
Well-known member
A few thoughts.
The very first point, Dash governance makes it much more stable but it doesn't move as fast. Imo that's not a product of Dash governance and we'd actually move a lot slower without it. Ancient decentralised cultures getting wiped out by centralised authorities is the glaring example of that for me, a monarch, dictator, pope etc. could target all its power on a single point many times more quickly than clans, tribes, etc. could gather forces to defend themselves. Instant communications negate that advantage to some degree but they don't eliminate it, a single order from a dictator happens much faster than a decision by a parliament and that in turn happens much faster than a decision between a much larger collection of individuals.
Imo the perceived slowness comes from other aspects. Dash Core is structured more like a regular business than the usual chaotic hivemind environment of other open source projects, maybe that by it's self is able to achieve goals faster but I think it's more likely the regular business method it able to decide and target more distant goals that the chaotic method, it can think bigger and that usually takes longer.
Ryans proposed change, about 8min 30sec, giving unallocated treasury funds to MN owners. I'd commented on a similar suggestion elsewhere and will repeat it here: This is extremely dangerous. It changes the governance decision incentive from what's best for the entire network to what's best for MN owners personally. As things are treasury funds belong to no one, the network awards them to proposal owners but if unspent funds are given to MN owners the incentive changes, now the treasury funds belong to MN owners and they're paying out to proposals from their own pocket, their incentive is to keep it. Rodger Ver makes a very good point on economics, donating 10% to make changes resulting in values rising by 20% isn't charity, it's good business sense but add in risk of failure and those return figures will need to be much higher, unrealistically high imho.
You're dead right about alternative funding mechanisms, we need something to get lots more projects happening. On Lbry someone suggested Town Hall? I've not looked into it, Dash Boost was going in the right direction imo and maybe it's doing something similar? Crowdfunding might be a good idea too and there's no reason there can't be many methods.
Something that's missing imo is the incentive to deliver, proposals have come and gone and several of them have been a complete waste of funds, zero delivery. It's still normal for businesses to get paid half up front and the rest on completion, I think that's what we're missing.
That's about it, the only thing I'll add is free markets are just as much an illusion as a flat earth
"Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" is how things should work but unfortunately they don't, if they did Bill Gates would be a poor man
The very first point, Dash governance makes it much more stable but it doesn't move as fast. Imo that's not a product of Dash governance and we'd actually move a lot slower without it. Ancient decentralised cultures getting wiped out by centralised authorities is the glaring example of that for me, a monarch, dictator, pope etc. could target all its power on a single point many times more quickly than clans, tribes, etc. could gather forces to defend themselves. Instant communications negate that advantage to some degree but they don't eliminate it, a single order from a dictator happens much faster than a decision by a parliament and that in turn happens much faster than a decision between a much larger collection of individuals.
Imo the perceived slowness comes from other aspects. Dash Core is structured more like a regular business than the usual chaotic hivemind environment of other open source projects, maybe that by it's self is able to achieve goals faster but I think it's more likely the regular business method it able to decide and target more distant goals that the chaotic method, it can think bigger and that usually takes longer.
Ryans proposed change, about 8min 30sec, giving unallocated treasury funds to MN owners. I'd commented on a similar suggestion elsewhere and will repeat it here: This is extremely dangerous. It changes the governance decision incentive from what's best for the entire network to what's best for MN owners personally. As things are treasury funds belong to no one, the network awards them to proposal owners but if unspent funds are given to MN owners the incentive changes, now the treasury funds belong to MN owners and they're paying out to proposals from their own pocket, their incentive is to keep it. Rodger Ver makes a very good point on economics, donating 10% to make changes resulting in values rising by 20% isn't charity, it's good business sense but add in risk of failure and those return figures will need to be much higher, unrealistically high imho.
You're dead right about alternative funding mechanisms, we need something to get lots more projects happening. On Lbry someone suggested Town Hall? I've not looked into it, Dash Boost was going in the right direction imo and maybe it's doing something similar? Crowdfunding might be a good idea too and there's no reason there can't be many methods.
Something that's missing imo is the incentive to deliver, proposals have come and gone and several of them have been a complete waste of funds, zero delivery. It's still normal for businesses to get paid half up front and the rest on completion, I think that's what we're missing.
That's about it, the only thing I'll add is free markets are just as much an illusion as a flat earth
"Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" is how things should work but unfortunately they don't, if they did Bill Gates would be a poor man