Proposal: Adaptive Proposal Fees

[Pietro Speroni]

I am sorry, working in eDem for several years made me bitter and resentful of process where people are allowed to vote on the scope of their own power. Not one time I have seen it go well. Now I am starting to think that there should be a cast where people either decide how the governance should be, or participate in the governance (either by voting or representing or in whatever way the Cast would decide). The point is, who decided the governance system cannot participate in such governance or they will not take the best decision.

The governance is complex. The median works when you have a unidimensional single peak decision making. When you have several alternatives you can use condorcet... when there is a condorcet winner. When there are only two alternatives straight voting is ok, but beware of situations when the question has several alternatives, but they are posed as a series of boolean questions (how much should the limit be? 5D? 0.1D? 1D? ) But then like before pointed out you don't want to silence minorities. Then you need a consent system where people consent to decisions, unless they have real and good rational reasons why not doing so. This is how sociocracy works. But who decides what is a rational reason? People should only participate when they are rationality based... good luck with that. And while this might work among 5-7 people in face to face it will surely not scale up to the thousands of people online when we don't even know who is voting multiple times because they can afford so. And in all this if you implement the governance system badly (read always, as it always needs improvements) it cannot be upgraded because people will vote to keep the maximum of power and the minimum of work for themselves.

/rant

 

[demo]

And I start to think that governance must be set up rightly from the beginning, so it might only work on a new coin. Because policymakers generally cannot be trusted in taking decisions on policimaking. That is way too meta, and they always end up taking decisions that favours them. So I am now considering selling my masternode and starting a new coin specifically studied with mathematically fair governance in mind. And the rest will follow from it.

I am here to help you with all my efforts, and participate in your new coin.

Consider also tezos as an alternative codebase you may want to use. https://github.com/tezos/tezos

But I warn you. Everyone who tried to vote the numbers, had a very bad chance, faced a huge resistence and encountered unreasonable attacks. And this is not from 2013, it is from the beginning of the times.

Tezos also have similar problems. https://twitter.com/tez0s/status/863030960400379904

We've been inundated with fake followers in what may be a bid to get this account deactivated. No bulk unfollow tool seems to handle 100K+.

Still being targeted by fake follower spam despite Twitter's recent clean up.

Our enemy is very big, but we will crash him one day. Because our friend is bigger.

 

[demo]

https://forum.pivx.org/t/adaptive-proposal-fees/1072

Pivx people commented in a good spirit, and this is a good sign.

The bad sign is that although the Dash people are now commenting in a good spirit for the "vote the numbers" idea (it was not always that way, remember what was happening in that issue just one month before the arrival of @Pietro Speroni ) the big Dash MNO holders (the whales) still have a totally different opinion and voting reaction than the majority of the people they govern.

So I am afraid that, although there is positive reaction of comments in PIVX, we will encounter a similar situation there when the proposal starts to get voted by the PIVX MNOs. But we will not find out for sure, until we try a proposal there.

In the meantime we still have 18 days left here in DASH, so lets watch the voting history carefully.
https://dashvotetracker.com/history.php?ProposalID=271

 

[jimbursch]

And so far I could not hear a single comment of a person presenting a good case why it should not be applied.

This proposal is poorly constructed and even the OP has admitted that it shouldn't be implemented as submitted:

It's partly my fault for giving a specific implementation (client-side console command) when actually the important bit is to vote and extract the median.

 

[Pietro Speroni]

@demo the steps are the people with multiple masternodes. But why does the graph not start at 0 votes yes and 0 votes no? Can we get the complete graph?

@jimbursch the idea is presented well enough. It is much more clear than a lot of other ideas presented. Honestly I cannot imagine 160 people voting no because of those trivialities. Especially considering that they are not commenting and that each proposal costs 5 dash. I am starting to believe there is something more disingenuous going on. Like people not wanting Dash to have a real direct governance system.

@demo people vote with numbers in some participatory budgeting platforms.

Maybe tezos is the way to go. You don't pay 5 dash to present a proposal. You pay with your sweat and time to code it (or pay someone to do it).

 

[demo]

@demo the steps are the people with multiple masternodes. But why does the graph not start at 0 votes yes and 0 votes no? Can we get the complete graph?

No we cannot. The "vote the numbers" idea has been attacked (that way or another) since the beggining of the times, and this is what also happened to @GrandMasterDash's proposal. Some people say it was by chance, but it wasnt.

@demo people vote with numbers in some participatory budgeting platforms.

What are those platforms? Can you give me a link?

Is it this what you mean?
https://pbstanford.org/
http://pboakland.org/page/about
https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/

I was not aware of it, although it is an old idea, it started at porto alegre, brazil, 1989.
it seems very promising.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

This proposal is poorly constructed and even the OP has admitted that it shouldn't be implemented as submitted:

That's not a good reason to reject it because now you clearly understand the intention. It's not me implementing it, nor am I stipulating a rigid implementation, nor am I profiting in any way. And it's certainly not self-interest, for it was, I would just propose a lower fee. All I care is for the better good of dash. It don't matter if I am viewed as abrasive, or if my name is not Evan or Ryan. You are voting the basic idea that MNOs cast a vote for the proposal fee and the median is used.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I am flabbergasted that this proposal isn't passing with unanimity. And so far I could not hear a single comment of a person presenting a good case why it should not be applied. Not even your reason, @demo of the fact that this silence minorities. The only way not to silence minorities it to use a consent system (different from a consensus, btw) but this does not scale up to thousands of people participating. This is simply a problem that has not been solved by human civilization.

I first started thinking about using the median for nation wide referendums in 2013. I think this is a great idea as in the eDemocracy often we end up only voting on boolean proposals. So much creativity gets lost. At least when the problem is unidimensional the solution is both what the majority wants, and within a certain range not fully determined by the person proposing. A truly community decision. Failing the idea of a tool for nations I started thinking that we should have started with a DAO. But now after seeing this sorry state of affairs I think Demo is optimist in proposing it for privx. And I start to think that governance must be set up rightly from the beginning, so it might only work on a new coin. Because policymakers generally cannot be trusted in taking decisions on policimaking. That is way too meta, and they always end up taking decisions that favours them. So I am now considering selling my masternode and starting a new coin specifically studied with mathematically fair governance in mind. And the rest will follow from it.

BTW, I am nudfelsyoshy in Dashcentral. This is what happens when you use random username without realising you will need those usernames to discuss stuff.

I understand your sentiment. However selling masternodes might be a bit premature; such decision might mean you are over-invested (just saying).

As for starting a new coin / fork, don't underestimate how difficult that is. You'd either need a ton of money, or good support and dedication from developers. Sure it's easy to copy-and-paste a coin, but the pillars of a good DAO are not just governance and funding. Having said that, it was the immovability of dash that lead to PIVX...

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

I am flabbergasted that this proposal isn't passing with unanimity.

That's because you don't understand distributed systems while dreaming of democracy.

This proposal suggests to change the core system and parameters under the disguise of being a discussion about what calculations should be used to determine the 'best' averages.

- it's a proposal to change core system and parameters.
The budget voting system should not be used for this, that's what github is for.

- it's a proposal which introduces an obligation for the MNO to vote every month on something essential to the security of the network.
Network security should be under control of the protocol, this is the essence of what creates trust in distributed systems.

 

[Pietro Speroni]

No we cannot. The "vote the numbers" idea has been attacked (that way or another) since the beggining of the times, and this is what also happened to @GrandMasterDash's proposal. Some people say it was by chance, but it wasnt.


What are those platforms? Can you give me a link?

Is it this what you mean?
https://pbstanford.org/
http://pboakland.org/page/about
https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/

I was not aware of it, it seems very promising.

Hello, I designed as a consultant the participatory budgeting for some of Italian towns (Italian link). But at the time we did not vote with numbers. I was not aware of the theorem of the median and I did not trust the average for the reasons explained above. Instead last year I was invited to a presentation to the House of Commons. A sign I thought that the UK was starting to take eDemocracy seriously. Indeed the presentations were quite interesting and Gunnar Grimsson was presenting the work they did in Iceland. I followed that work from the beginning when they developed the software Better Reykyavik starting from White House 2. But I was not aware of the new developments. Better Neighbourhoods. Which is a participatory budgeting system where each person has to allocate the whole amount they have at disposition among the various projects. This brings home the understanding that you cannot have everything, if you allocate money to fix the street then there is less money for the hospitals... and so on.

See this slide for the voting form: https://docs.google.com/presentatio...sumXgWcgfpxPewrY/edit#slide=id.g12d2c70d0_020

this is my understanding based upon Gunnar presentation. I can ask him if it is correct, as I was not directly involved. Most of the other budgeting systems people just vote which project they want supported and then some mathe-magic redistributes the money making sure that no projects that is supported gets less than the money needed.

It should also be noted in this the voting triangle. Something I was involved in the past where people vote in a triangle to clarify how much they (self declare) understand a proposal, and how much they agree or disagree with it. The more you understand it, the more you can agree or disagree. My approval of the Ripple gateway would have very little weight with that system, while my approval of this proposal we are discussing here would have a massive weight considering how technical I am on it.

You can find the presentation of that voting system here

 

[GrandMasterDash]

That's because you don't understand distributed systems while dreaming of democracy.

This proposal suggests to change the core system and parameters under the disguise of being a discussion about what calculations should be used to determine the 'best' averages.

- it's a proposal to change core system and parameters.
The budget voting system should not be used for this, that's what github is for.

- it's a proposal which introduces an obligation for the MNO to vote every month on something essential to the security of the network.
Network security should be under control of the protocol, this is the essence of what creates trust in distributed systems.

Then please explain Evan's proposal to change the block size to 2MB.

 

[demo]

This brings home the understanding that you cannot have everything, if you allocate money to fix the street then there is less money for the hospitals... and so on.

Thats why budgeting voting with numbers requires range slider bars.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

it's a proposal which introduces an obligation for the MNO to vote every month on something essential to the security of the network.
Network security should be under control of the protocol, this is the essence of what creates trust in distributed systems.

Security is not at risk. First of all it's voluntary. And second, in the event of too few votes (less than 2%), the fee would revert to the previous month. Which security threat was you thinking?

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

Then please explain Evan's proposal to change the block size to 2MB.

- MNO are dumb, they can only vote yes if core proposes it.
I'm invested in dash because i used to trust Evan and now trust core, if i didn't i would sell my coins and move on. I don't know you and certainly don't trust you. If you think that's dumb than you argue that everybody invested in dash is dumb, a thought that can only flourish in a trolls mind.

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

Which security threat was you thinking?

The proposal fee is essential to protect the network. $500 to get access to $500,000 is peanuts, i'll vote to raise the fee, if this passes every month.

Until recently we were very good at deflecting troll attacks, Evan made sure to filter out the nonsense and use arguments that made sence to improve dash.

With the budget system came more opportunities for trolls to score, even getting some coins while running the scheme is now a possibility. When money is involved people tend to be more emotional, this is a weakness whitch can be exploited. We saw this play out with the old slack.

Some trolls with 2 or 3 accounts each worked for a couple of months to integrate in the community, map out the strong, influential, emotionaly weak and the members who are just not that smart. They convinced members they should run the 'official' dash slack and take care of new people comming to dash, all the while gradually convincing members that core is bad and should be replaced. This didn't work but the attack was a great succes. They pocketed budget funds and convinced some valuable members to leave dash and go full troll on it. They also played every new person who came to dash for months, while trying to blackmail core.

If you ever wonder why the current slack mods are so fanatical in keeping it newbie friendly, now you know. The wounds are deep for the people who got played.

This is normal for any voting about anything valuable and happens all the time in politics and in dash. That's why you see so many dicussions and proposals to lower the fee. Lower fees makes gaming the system much easier. It will increase the number of proposals, keeps everybody busy discussing worthless proposals and increases the chance one of your trolling proposals passes, because it's cheap to run 5 or 10 schemes at a time.

Proposals should be about projects that add value to dash or it's ecosystem, anything else gets a default 'no' vote from me.

 

[demo]

- MNO are dumb, they can only vote yes if core proposes it.
I'm invested in dash because i used to trust Evan and now trust core, if i didn't i would sell my coins and move on. I don't know you and certainly don't trust you. If you think that's dumb than you argue that everybody invested in dash is dumb, a thought that can only flourish in a trolls mind.

When we say that MNOs are dump, greedy and selfish, we always mean the big MNO operators, the whales, and not the majority of the MNO individuals.
Thats why we need a proof of individuality, thats why we need to let all actors to vote. In order to prove the stupidity of the whales.

 

[Pietro Speroni]

- MNO are dumb, they can only vote yes if core proposes it.
I'm invested in dash because i used to trust Evan and now trust core, if i didn't i would sell my coins and move on.

Thank you, I think you have explained yourself perfectly. Now I understand. We indeed have a very different vision. You trust the main programmer, I (and apparently some others) look for a decentralised non hierarchical system. I believe the two visions are mutually incompatible. Your system has proven many time to work well (although at times it also failed miserably), while our is work in progress. It might succeed, but we don't have a complete working prototype. And although I believe this particularly proposal to be perfectly safe, remaining under a benevolent dictator (or benevolent group) is probably even safer.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

The proposal fee is essential to protect the network. $500 to get access to $500,000 is peanuts, i'll vote to raise the fee, if this passes every month.

Until recently we were very good at deflecting troll attacks, Evan made sure to filter out the nonsense and use arguments that made sence to improve dash.

With the budget system came more opportunities for trolls to score, even getting some coins while running the scheme is now a possibility. When money is involved people tend to be more emotional, this is a weakness whitch can be exploited. We saw this play out with the old slack.

Some trolls with 2 or 3 accounts each worked for a couple of months to integrate in the community, map out the strong, influential, emotionaly weak and the members who are just not that smart. They convinced members they should run the 'official' dash slack and take care of new people comming to dash, all the while gradually convincing members that core is bad and should be replaced. This didn't work but the attack was a great succes. They pocketed budget funds and convinced some valuable members to leave dash and go full troll on it. They also played every new person who came to dash for months, while trying to blackmail core.

If you ever wonder why the current slack mods are so fanatical in keeping it newbie friendly, now you know. The wounds are deep for the people who got played.

This is normal for any voting about anything valuable and happens all the time in politics and in dash. That's why you see so many dicussions and proposals to lower the fee. Lower fees makes gaming the system much easier. It will increase the number of proposals, keeps everybody busy discussing worthless proposals and increases the chance one of your trolling proposals passes, because it's cheap to run 5 or 10 schemes at a time.

Proposals should be about projects that add value to dash or it's ecosystem, anything else gets a default 'no' vote from me.

So, your idea of a security threat is not trusting the majority to find middle ground. Seems you have no trust in other people's vote, except your own. If you can see the merits of 5DPFs (or higher) then why can't anyone else?

 

[demo]

This is normal for any voting about anything valuable and happens all the time in politics and in dash. That's why you see so many dicussions and proposals to lower the fee. Lower fees makes gaming the system much easier. It will increase the number of proposals, keeps everybody busy discussing worthless proposals and increases the chance one of your trolling proposals passes, because it's cheap to run 5 or 10 schemes at a time.

This is a deficiency of the current budget system, which discards all proposals after one month.
Some proposals should be able to enter the system and be voted on a rolling basis, thus avoid to be reposted every month.

And after all, there is the filter capability that can be implemented , for those who do not like to see a huge amount of proposals. Let evan and the core team be your filter master, and let them filter (on your behalf) whatever proposals they judge as stupid. This is legitimate.

What it is not legitimate is to claim that most of the proposals sould be denied to appear, simply because you dont like to do the job of reading them and voting them. Not everyone is like you, and not everyone trust the core team like you do.

You want to transform dash into a nest of core team believers, but some of us are always infidels. In God we trust, in dash core team we do not.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

It's sad to see that proposal fees have become dash's block size debate. All these justifications to keep an unelected 5DPF are effectively saying that dash has no governance system to deal with it. Go ahead @Vedran Yoweri and put your money where your mouth is; submit a proposal to keep 5DPFs. Let's see what happens to dash when it fails.

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

submit a proposal to keep 5DPFs.

I want you to do it. DO IT!

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I want you to do it. DO IT!

Ah, you're all mouth and no trousers, glad we sorted that one.

 

[Pietro Speroni]

All these justifications to keep an unelected 5DPF are effectively saying that dash has no governance system to deal with it

it says it has a governance with limited sovereignty.

 

[demo]

I want you to do it. DO IT!

Guys, I offer now 40% of my whole for Dash fortune, in order for someone to submit a proposal to keep 5DPFs.

 

[camosoul]

Potato(e).

 

[demo]

Potato(e).

When someone wants to transform dash into a nest of core team believers, this is not potato.
This is pure C(G)a(r)bbage.

 

[TroyDASH]

I want you to do it. DO IT!

I would fund it myself just to show how ridiculous your position is.

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

I would fund it myself just to show how ridiculous your position is.

I would prefer arguments, but don't let that stop ya.

 

[TroyDASH]

The proposal fee is essential to protect the network. $500 to get access to $500,000 is peanuts, i'll vote to raise the fee, if this passes every month.

Until recently we were very good at deflecting troll attacks, Evan made sure to filter out the nonsense and use arguments that made sence to improve dash.

With the budget system came more opportunities for trolls to score, even getting some coins while running the scheme is now a possibility. When money is involved people tend to be more emotional, this is a weakness whitch can be exploited. We saw this play out with the old slack.

Some trolls with 2 or 3 accounts each worked for a couple of months to integrate in the community, map out the strong, influential, emotionaly weak and the members who are just not that smart. They convinced members they should run the 'official' dash slack and take care of new people comming to dash, all the while gradually convincing members that core is bad and should be replaced. This didn't work but the attack was a great succes. They pocketed budget funds and convinced some valuable members to leave dash and go full troll on it. They also played every new person who came to dash for months, while trying to blackmail core.

If you ever wonder why the current slack mods are so fanatical in keeping it newbie friendly, now you know. The wounds are deep for the people who got played.

This is normal for any voting about anything valuable and happens all the time in politics and in dash. That's why you see so many dicussions and proposals to lower the fee. Lower fees makes gaming the system much easier. It will increase the number of proposals, keeps everybody busy discussing worthless proposals and increases the chance one of your trolling proposals passes, because it's cheap to run 5 or 10 schemes at a time.

Proposals should be about projects that add value to dash or it's ecosystem, anything else gets a default 'no' vote from me.

This proposal is not about lowering the fee, it's about making the fee adaptive and reflecting the consensus of the Masternodes.

 

[TroyDASH]

- MNO are dumb, they can only vote yes if core proposes it.
I'm invested in dash because i used to trust Evan and now trust core, if i didn't i would sell my coins and move on. I don't know you and certainly don't trust you. If you think that's dumb than you argue that everybody invested in dash is dumb, a thought that can only flourish in a trolls mind.

I trust core as well, but even the core team doesn't have any particular reason why 5 dash is optimal. As far as I know they are open to changing it or making it adaptive. Haven't heard anything negative from the core team about this proposal yet.