POLL: MN voting participation rate

For a proposals to succeed it should require a minimum participation rate of:

  • 30% of all MNs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50% of all MNs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 60% of all MNs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 70% of all MNs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,989
1,148
1,183
In theory, a small number of MNOs can attain 25% of all potenital votes, thus allowing for the possibility of collusion, skewed results and less diversification Some might say those MNOs have a greater amount at stake, while others might say it opens the doors to possible abuse. It might be said, in the fiat world, large amounts of wealth in the hands of a few people lead to corruption. What do you think?
 

lynx

Active Member
Dec 11, 2015
364
250
133
If MNs don't vote in a proposal, it could mean they don't care if it passes or not, or that the votes counted so far indicate the option they would choose would pass, or that they didn't want to bother with voting at all. Unless an "abstain" vote option is implemented, you can't tell anything from the participation rate. Therefore, I think there should be no minimum participation rate.
 

MangledBlue

Well-known Member
Jun 28, 2014
1,246
678
183
USA
Currently............. 10% to pass

If 4000 MN's - you have to have 400 votes YEA to pass....
....then you have to beat back all the NEA votes to pass

I'm not gonna go into all the math but it works out to be a pretty solid setup in an active community

Those that do not vote have simply ABSTAIN[ed]

We have some dedicated DASH ABSTAIN[er's]


anywho.....



edit-spelling
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,254
797
183
I don't think we need to save the MNOs from themselves. If a small group has 10% of the nodes, votes yes, and none of the rest of the 90% of the network votes at all (in other words they do not object), then I don't see any reason why it shouldn't pass.

Or to put it another way,
Suppose there are 4000 Masternodes. The first proposal has a unanimous 400-0 vote. The second proposal has 600 more votes on each side, to 1000-600. You're saying that we should allow the second, clearly more controversial one to pass, but *not* the first uncontroversial one because of minimum participation?
 
Last edited:

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
I don't think we need to save the MNOs from themselves. If a small group has 10% of the nodes, votes yes, and none of the rest of the 90% of the network votes at all (in other words they do not object), then I don't see any reason why it shouldn't pass.
You have to save the masternodes , because they are enslaved in this 10% without being asked about it. You have to ask the masternodes, what is the percentage they prefer, and fix the percentage according to the wish of the masternodes.

Finally , it is obvious that even if the percentage can be fixed to whatever number, and even if this number is dynamic and can change in the runtime according to the votes of the masternodes, it will never be ok for all types of proposals. Variable participation rate based on the value of the proposal. THIS THE ONLY RATIONAL SOLUTION. Because you need a different participation if there is a proposal that applies taxes to the masternodes, and a different participation if there is a proposal that asks for the forum to change color!

Thus, FOR EVERY PROPOSAL, a DOUBLE VOTE is need.
You should NOT vote (YES/NO/OTHER). You should be allowed to vote (YES/NO/OTHER, minimum participation percentage).

Example: Every masternode, for every proposal, should be allowed to vote like this: (YES, 17%)

The above example assumes that the final minimum participation percentage will be decided according to a fixed selection process.
If your fixed selection process is decided to be the average, and (for a specific proposal) you have the below votes...
(yes, 15%), (no, 20%), (yes, default) <---- for the example lets say "default" is decided (or voted) to be 10%
...then the final minimum participation for the specific proposal is calculated like this:
(15+20+10)/3=15%

Finnaly, if you do not agree with the idea of the fixed-predecided selection processes, then you need a TRIPLE VOTE in order to let the masternodes to decide also the selection processes.

<vote history> <-- why vote history is usefull?
For a proposals to succeed it should require a minimum participation rate of:
30% of all MNs 0 vote(s) 0.0%
40% of all MNs 1 vote(s) 14.3%
50% of all MNs 0 vote(s) 0.0%
60% of all MNs 0 vote(s) 0.0%
70% of all MNs 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Variable participation rate based on the value of the proposal 4 vote(s) 57.1%
There shoudl be no minimum participation 2 vote(s) 28.6%
Undecided 0 vote(s) 0.0%
</vote history>
 
Last edited:

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
<vote history> <-- why vote history is usefull?
For a proposals to succeed it should require a minimum participation rate of:
30% of all MNs 0 vote(s) 0.0%
40% of all MNs 1 vote(s) 11.1%
50% of all MNs 0 vote(s) 0.0%
60% of all MNs 0 vote(s) 0.0%
70% of all MNs 0 vote(s) 0.0%
*Variable participation rate based on the value of the proposal 5 vote(s) 55.6%
There shoudl be no minimum participation 3 vote(s) 33.3%
Undecided 0 vote(s) 0.0%
</vote history>
 
Last edited: