Pre-Proposal: 50-50-Voting

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,379
1,434
1,183
The Problem

Dash governance is on a clear path to voting centralization. For two years the overall masternode count has been falling while the number of masternodes controlled by centralized entities - such as Binance and CrowdNode - has increased. See: https://mnowatch.org/Types/index.html?1= and https://crowdnode.io/

To date, there is no clear evidence of voter abuse from centralized entities. However, despite past behavior or the level of transparency, these are trusted and vulnerable to manipulation.

The Solution

Every month, the collective of all live and successful Proposal Owners shall be awarded 50% of all voting power. The voting power of each Proposal Owner shall be proportional to the dash they were awarded.

Voting power for Masternode owners shall receive the remaining 50%. Note, this does NOT change the voting thresholds for being funded i.e. proposals will still need to attain 10% of the masternode network count.

Under this system, a successful attack on Dash’s voting system would require the attacker to be a live Proposal Owner AND an active masternode whale whom can be identified via MNOwatch.

Personal Notes

It has always been said that large amounts of collateral (1000 dash) incentivizes better decision making aka “skin in the game”. However, history has shown this not to be entirely true e.g. consistent low voter turnout.

Let’s give a voice and empower the very people that work for us. You never know, voting from Proposal Owners might trigger a larger response from masternode owners and this would be a good thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
Reactions: xkcd

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
504
474
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
Stop with this FUD already! Firstly, Binance have no history of voting in the DAO, secondly Crowdnode posts votes according to how its users voted in the API or UI. Crowdnode is a massive help with decentralising Dash because because it allows partial masternode ownership. Not only that, but the default action of any Crowdnode depositor is to delegate their vote to the crowd and we know that about 25%-33% of the community vote, so by delegating votes Crowdnode is actually increasing participation in the DAO, which is helping to counter act the voter apathy of full node MNOs.


Your plan is stupid, I would never give a PO a vote, this is a conflict of interests. The way we spend the coinbase reward is a very serious thing and it should be hard for a proposal to pass, that's the intention because we should only spend money on things that abso-fucking-lutely require it. We piss way too much money down the drain and have little to show for past misadventures, personally, I'd love to see a month or two go by where nothing gets funded, especially now in this bear market.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,379
1,434
1,183
@xkcd The only FUD is your incessant rebuttal and active promotions of CrowdNode, not just here but all over social media. You know full well that a large proportion of CrowdNode customers are using a trusted voting system, or else show me the multisig for hundreds of users per node. Calling it stupid perhaps shows how threatened you are by such a plan.

Your imagined "conflict of interest" is, in fact, an incentive, a thank you, for actively participating in the running of this dash business. Not that much different to other employee run businesses, such as John Lewis:

"Because they have high employment standards, involve staff and give everyone a stake, employee owned businesses are better at recruiting and retaining talented, committed staff."
This method of governance provides Sybil attack protection. Even if DCG, or any other Proposal Owner takes all the treasury, they would still need to obtain a lot of masternode votes to push through potentially hostile plans. But I can understand how threatened some people might be losing some voting power. Your attitude reminds me of some long gone historic fight against women not being able to vote. At 1 dash per proposal, I could really send your BP high.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: xkcd

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
504
474
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
@xkcd The only FUD is your incessant rebuttal and active promotions of CrowdNode, not just here but all over social media. You know full well that a large proportion of CrowdNode customers are using a trusted voting system, or else show me the multisig for hundreds of users per node. Calling it stupid perhaps shows how threatened you are by such a plan.

Your imagined "conflict of interest" is, in fact, an incentive, a thank you, for actively participating in the running of this dash business. Not that much different to other employee run businesses, such as John Lewis:



This method of governance provides Sybil attack protection. Even if DCG, or any other Proposal Owner takes all the treasury, they would still need to obtain a lot of masternode votes to push through potentially hostile plans. But I can understand how threatened some people might be losing some voting power. Your attitude reminds me of some long gone historic fight against women not being able to vote. At 1 dash per proposal, I could really send your BP high.
Absolute lunacy in your post, according to you we may as well give the bum in the street a vote! Fortunately, no stakeholder in Dash is going to agree to give 50% of the votes to the very same people trying to raise Dash it's stupid on multiple levels, just sit down and think it over.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,379
1,434
1,183
I guess it must be quite difficult to justify "stupid on multiple levels".
 
  • Haha
Reactions: xkcd

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,379
1,434
1,183
The final proposal will include a clause that Proposal Owners can not vote on their own proposals. The consensus mechanism can easily enforce this.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: xkcd

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
959
585
163
Looks like a meritocracy web of trust kind of thing. Wouldn't work for the Dash DAO because everything revolves around the collateral but something similar would be ideal for DAO's along the lines of Incubator and the DMH but needs dynamic rather than fixed allocation because the 'fair' value would be constantly moving as things get done.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,379
1,434
1,183

@QuantumExplorer


I'm curious. You say the collateral options for HPMNs will be either 4x or 10x greater than a regular MN. So does it still work if we make HPMNs 1000 dash and MNs 4x or 10x smaller? e.g. 250 dash or 100 dash.

If it does still work, why isn't this a voting option?
If it does not work, why not?