Separate names with a comma.
Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!
Discussion in 'Pre + Budget Proposal Discussions' started by yidakee, Jun 1, 2016.
Yeah, this is the fundamental reasoning behind this.
Great idea, but funding it by our blockchain is not.
Put up the money yourself and or organize a crowdfund thing. If people like what you do they will donate. Hell, even i would if it's tiny and cool enough.
Whoa there buddy calm your investor ass down. Noone is hurting your investment here with this idea, if anything the funds are going to be used to grow that investment, but hey, what do I know.
Same here. That's why it's a bad idea.
The two critical issues with this idea are:
Storing Dash is a problem. It is exposed to theft(internal=wallet signers, or external=gov) or loss. Mainly I think it forces whoever signs the fund wallet to report income and submit income statements.
Allocating stored funds needs to unrestricted and only via voting. So having a multisig wallet is exposed vetos or just spending how "controllers" feel is "right".
Right - by "manager" I just meant whoever or whatever group of people are holding and in control of the coins.
The most important piece is how is the "community" is defined, who gets to vote,...etc, so that way masternode ops can know what to look for as to whether the people controlling the coins are doing what they said they would do.
One of the drawbacks with the current proposals is that they are slow, and smaller proposals are not encouraged by the protocol. Having the community be able to decide what to do with a little remainder can be nice, but again it's all about how the decisions are made after the main proposal is funded.
The reason this is a bad idea is the reason why our budget system is so good.
Looks legit to me
This is a similar concept to what I have been harping about since we first started burning coins. My idea was to collect the coins into masternode's (we have already burned 3 or 4 with coins left behind) and then have those masternode's be owned and controlled by the foundation and then keep building the funds to help support the foundation and rewards from the foundation mn's could be put back into infrastructure costs such as code signing certificates, ssl certificates, dash hosting requirement's etc.
I wanted to see these fund's used in a way similar to that. I realize a lot of people counter this argument by saying that by having us not generate the coins we are improving everyone's interest in Dash but nobody seems to be concerned that any long term project needs to have funds in the kitty for when things happen. We want to have an app in the iTunes store but who's going to pay for it? Why wouldn't you want the foundation to have funds to do stuff like this. We haven't had a proper code signing certificate ever and when I suggested we buy one the response was that's way to expensive. Having foundation controlled mn's could have already helped in many ways.
You really do want an skynet I see.. lol
Nope I want to see the Dash project live on forever. So our kid's kid's still get to benefit from all the foundation our generation has laid.
You sir are spot on.
This is a financial revolution isn't it? Shouldn't the guy with the bigger guns win? In this case the better technology? So shouldn't we aim for the moon?
Implement all the things!!
Legit. There's my cred goin'. Thanks.
I would like a savings acct for these funds where every monthly deposit can only be voted to be spend on some proposed 'good cause' after 10 years every two months.
But knowing humans it would need to be build in to the system. Don't know if that could be done securely enough though. Should not be a priority right now me thinks.
This is an absolutely terrifically good idea
Storing Dash is not a problem. It's as much of a problem as anyone has with their personal wallets. These would never be exposed to the network. Report income? hum? Why? Do you report income on your Dash? I dont, I'm not required, even if I were gov would have no clue where to start looking.
You are absolutely right in theory, exchanges get hacked etc. But this would be simple offline, extremely low risk, multi-sig address for the sake of transparency and added security (If I were to manage these fund and I get hit by a bus for example).
Come on now Solar, this would represent no threat at all to anyone.
Instead of implementiing all this multisig peculiar stuff, why dont you just change the 10% budget percentage?
It is obvious that the decided 10% budget percentage, this hardcoded number, does not fit to the needs of the current community.
And this happens to every hardcoded number that has no theory behind it.
This 10% must be voted. Must be voted all the time,in order to be able to change dynamically and fit into the community needs, and must be voted using numbers of course. I dont care whose task should be the voting of that number. But someone, some group of people, or even everybody, must have the power to change-vote this (and any other hardcoded) number.
That is all I have to say. You did a mistake by defining a hardcoded number 10% without a theory, and now you want to fix that mistake by doing more mistakes. Please keep the Kiss (keep it simple, stupid) principle. So the 10% percentage number of the budget has to change, and some people must have the task to change that number, by voting it.
I feel sorry to disagree, but
I remember when we (the community) first discussed the budget and how it would be constructed. After a wondeful exchange of ideas, arguments finally decided that a "Pork Barrel" is a terrible idea. That final decision molded the way our budget works from then on.
When @demo found this new "hole on the governance rules", I indeed was surprised, because it is something very new (I am sure, for most here).
Personally, I oppose, and I see no difference from this "accumulation idea" to the original @demo rules, and put both in the same category of ideas that seem dangerous for DASH's future for reasons thoroughly discussed already, which I don't feel like repeating all over again... an attentive search on old posts will be enough to find info, and to know if indeed these are bad proposals.
(but that's only my honest opinion... I can be wrong, and I definitelly do not have a final voice, anyway. I hope the community of Masternodes are as wise as they are expected to be. After all, they will not want to cause damage to their own investment. But if they do, they will be the worst losers, because if there's no safe and practical use for the "faulty" money the hold, they will be left alone bagholding it - that's the beauty of "money free market").
Users that have access to this "safe offline wallet" will be considered owners of funds that are paying people. Gov'ts will tax that as income. It doesn't matter if it makes any sense now - it is possible to track the wallet getting paid from the blockchain. Maybe someone makes a mistake to give away the identity of the wallet owners - or maybe they just read dashtalk.org. How do you have confidence in the owners of the wallet if they are anonymous - who would vote for that? And if they do identify themselves - well then the target is known. This is not a 1 month deal - think 2 years, 5 years, 10, years out. I would categorize this fund as an extreme government takeover/taxation threat. The threat is to the owners of the fund.
Another issue is the that if funds are stored without a purpose - they will eventually get used for the personal boat fund. We are talking huge amounts of money when this system is mature. And burning the funds increases the value of Dash and is advantages to all the holders. Evan already tried to use extra funds by making catchall proposals - that was voted down in a day if I remember. Just giving an example of a similar situation and how the masternodes reacted.
Okay maybe he's not a troll?
Or maybe those funds will eventually get used for the universal dividend. After all, I discovered those funds, so they belong to my universal dividend idea.
Seriously now, does anyone has any idea on how big those funds could be today?
Why not just have an expiry on collecting them? Perhaps a 1 year trial?
I can't disagree with a lot of the comments regarding "pork barrel" on the other hand it never hurt's to try nobody said their couldn't be maximum's or something of the sort to keep the value's from getting out of hand.
I agree, the budget should be spent in its entirety. This is particularly true given our early stage of development, and the competition we face.
But isn't this a sign that not enough projects are being proposed?
Perhaps the community should be encouraged to put forward more worthwhile projects.
I would rather see more proposals coming through for a vote (both good and bad), than a catch all account to map up the remaining dash. It creates horrible incentives and an administrative headache. Could lead to unnecessary infighting among the community.
More project proposals with clearly defined objectives is the way to go i reckon.
You may have a point here, but determining this number by voting currently has no theory behind it either (why should we expect voters to be experts on this, and to be primarily motivated to vote in the long term interest of the network), nor is it a good idea to rashly make radical changes to something that is stable. But I digress.
I already answered to your above argument.
If you think not everyone is an expert, then let a group of experts to decide. Or let a single person to decide-vote.
Do whatever you want, define the electorate however you wish, but in all cases and whatever you do, there is always one thing you must do. You must allow this number to change, because it is a hardcoded number, with no theory behind.
The rule is absolute.
hardcoded numbers without a theory behind, must be voted.
In the case we have in front of us a stable "pork barrel", is your above argument considered as a good one?
IF un-allocated funds exist, it is an indication the levy was too high.
(and I am dissappointed to see the reduction in mining payout, resembling QE by the fed. Mods should have been hard coded.)
Any such remainder after voting should be directed to the priority item of the voting session as determined by whichever item received the most votes on the roster.
It should be hard coded into the algorythm.
Sure, DAO aproaches skynet ! Yet we mouth-breathing key-pressers shall claim the PoW/PoS MN voting scheme keeps the critical control upon the machine ???
Why not giving back to the miners the remainder amount? Or give it to the core team? Or give it to the Managers? Or officialy give it to Evan himself so that we dont wonder anymore about where this amount goes? Or maybe give it to the masternode owners ? Or maybe create a jackpot, so that the following monthly budgets to become bigger and bigger (as long as a big budget allows more complex and expensive proposals to be proposed) ? Or why not give the remainder to a charity, like the universal dividend?
Rustycase's opinion is absurd. Give the remainder amount of the budget to the proposal that received the most votes in this month, seems a very bad idea to me. What if we have very few proposals this month and the first proposal is a real simple one? Does it deserves such a big amount of dash to be given to it? I dont think so. We dont spend our money, just because we dont know what to do them. The right attitude is to spend the money only if the expense is worth the received services and products.
Any way, as long as we talk about an amount of money, the correct decision is not to decide a single place where this amount should go. The right decision is to create a never ending poll (in order to respect future generations and new comers) having as options all the above mentioned potential receivers of this remainder amount ( even including rustycase's absurd opinion), and vote with numbers.