Pre-Proposal: Prevent great Proposals from getting ‘lost’.

i think u are raising too many points here ( if i got this right)
i would stick to " proposals - suggestions/ advice board" for now
we discuss this before that eventually the proposal load will get too much for MN owners to stay on track
we discuss before (is tht why u are talking about) an "advisory board" to mn owners - maybe selected / voted from community who give short / sweet/ fact advice about proposals and a yes/no or even %
i believe this would really help to secure good proposals do not get lost - bad proposals to be filtered out - and keeping MN owners on track with ongoing proposals (downvoted or let run)
MN engagement is key for the budget system to work and the easier and clearer we make this to MNO the more they will vote and engage
(hope i did not derail your thread here :rolleyes:)
 
Is there a way that posts from genuine MNOs can be signed in these forums? For example, someone makes a proposal and an MNO can reply with "I've called their offices and spoke to XYZ...".. and because it's signed, other members might appreciate that person has some skin in the game.
 
tungfa said:
i think u are raising too many points here ( if i got this right)
i would stick to " proposals - suggestions/ advice board" for now
we discuss this before that eventually the proposal load will get too much for MN owners to stay on track
we discuss before (is tht why u are talking about) an "advisory board" to mn owners - maybe selected / voted from community who give short / sweet/ fact advice about proposals and a yes/no or even %
i believe this would really help to secure good proposals do not get lost - bad proposals to be filtered out - and keeping MN owners on track with ongoing proposals (downvoted or let run)
MN engagement is key for the budget system to work and the easier and clearer we make this to MNO the more they will vote and engage
(hope i did not derail your thread here :rolleyes:)
Click to expand...
Hi Tungfa - you summarised it far better than I did. Yes - that is what I have in mind. English is my 2nd language :rolleyes: I think I better rewrite the overview and state it clearer, Thanx Tungfa
 
GrandMasterDash said:
Is there a way that posts from genuine MNOs can be signed in these forums? For example, someone makes a proposal and an MNO can reply with "I've called their offices and spoke to XYZ...".. and because it's signed, other members might appreciate that person has some skin in the game.
Click to expand...

i believe i saw a new ribbon for DF members now with masternodes possibility (check a moo post in forum thread ....)
edit:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/new-forum-feature-masternode-owner-badges.13819/#post-118556
 
Last edited:
I agree in principle with the 3 principles. And i have a fourth principle...

4. The fixed 10% number for yes votes over no assumes a certain percentage of voters overall. If, in the long term, masternodes get lazy due to it all being less new and exciting, the margin could become too high. In that world a supporter of an opposition currency can buy 10 masternodes and have a disproportionately disruptive effect, because each no vote counts for a lot. We need to be bulletproof.

However any changes will have to be very well thought through, as people are suggesting.
 
The same bullshit idea that comes again and again in different forms.
And who is gonna evaluate the evaluators?
Vote the numbers, not the persons. And stop the bullshit.
 
What is your problem Demo? You sound like one of the characters from r/bitcoin Ai... Anyway... If you read the pre-proposal doc (link removed until I have revised it) you would have seen there are 3 tiers. Evaluators are selected, trained and managed by Master Evaluators (who rose through the ranks of Evaluators). Finally the Master Evaluators are managed by a Top Evaluator whose appointment rest with the Master Nodes. All 3 tiers obviously only activated when there are sufficient proposals to warrant all 3 tiers.

I have drawn up a spreadsheet of proposals YTD and it does not look like we need a system like this as yet or even soon, but once the bitcoin troubles have settled down and the markets recovered from the shock, I suspect we might see rapid growth again and the proposals are bound to increase as well.

Now - we can just do nothing and lose good ideas or we can plan ahead. Take the time we have now and plan it thoroughly. I understand that this has been discussed before as Tungfa , more helpfully, said above.

But I will carry on with refining the idea with your help. I have the time and a weird love for procedures and untangling helpful clues out of negative posts.

What you (and Tungfa) just told me is that my pre-proposal sucks - it needs a rewrite - and I agree. This week-end I'll get to it again and send you a draft, so you can bitch me some more :p
 
Last edited:
Kevin Stalker said:
I agree in principle with the 3 principles. And i have a fourth principle...

4. The fixed 10% number for yes votes over no assumes a certain percentage of voters overall. If, in the long term, masternodes get lazy due to it all being less new and exciting, the margin could become too high. In that world a supporter of an opposition currency can buy 10 masternodes and have a disproportionately disruptive effect, because each no vote counts for a lot. We need to be bulletproof.

However any changes will have to be very well thought through, as people are suggesting.
Click to expand...

Thanx Kevin,

The way I invisage the system is that trained and experienced evaluators will suggest 'good' ideas to their bosses/mentors - the Master Evaluators. The ME's will inspect, improve and choose a final list to go to the Top Evaluator. He/she will give it a final check before passing on to the Master Nodes. So the list will have been vetted 3 times by trained and experienced people. If a group of disruptive, opposition currency, Master Nodes start rejecting the listed ideas it will be suspicious from the word go...

In the same vein: In terms of insider trading - If a group of Master Nodes keep on voting for proposals that have not been thought suitable by the Evaluators it will also stand out immediately.

I see the job of the master nodes as going through the proposals on the list with a fine-tooth comb. Checking for errors - things left unsaid - not investigated etc etc. Bringing their knowledge into play - making the proposals better as result. And also keeping all 3 tiers of evaluators on their toes. I would also hope that they will still make time and have a look at other random proposals, making sure that nothing good slips through. Again keeping tabs on the 3 tiers.
 
Last edited:
u know
it comes down to certain standards we should 'enforce / establish'
there are many many ways to do a proposal; submission , everybody is "trying their own style"
some are good, others are great , great and too long , good and too short ....
i belive there should be a standard established which keeps the basics straight on each and every proposal that a MNO actually can fly over and get the facts rights away:

- who (maybe keybase ID)
- what (5 sentences)
- when (timeline)
- how much (i always have to ask or start digging to find prices)
- whats init for us (advantage for Dash Community/project - summary)

and after these facts are ticked off they can launch into their personal style of submission (long , short, detailed or not ,.....)
just my 2Duffs
(as i have a very hard time keeping up - and the more elaborate these proposals are the more i have to vote NO as i do not have the time to 'study' them)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top