Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
There definitely needs to be a cap on proposals. Hopefully, things will be built that generate money, creating a second level self sustaining DAO, managed by those interested int it, and eventually creating a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc... level DAO. These will have nothing to do with the Masternodes, but will work in tandem with the system if need be. What kind of infrastructure do they need in Kenya? We have no idea, but they do. Let them build it. If it needs masternodes to function, there could be a plugin, and we could chare a very nominal fee for any project that plugs into the Masternode system.
Point being, yah, only a few, Evan once suggested capping it at 100, I thought maybe 20, but the more I think of it, the fewer the better. The sooner projects go 2nd tier, the better.
I agree, and if there could somehow be minority voice, say if it's really close, like under 55% yay, maybe it has to be voted on again after a debate? or? I'm not clear on how to make this work yet...
Some projects will possibly need selling of their own, education, etc... But it's a smna;l;er crowd of educated people. MN operators. Not the whole cryptotard community. Maybe some will have to be tabled a few times before they are understood and fully informed decisions are made. Not a big deal, IMNSHO.
Camosoul, we are creating a world currency. Even if we only end up with 1/10 of the world's currency market in years to come, that's HUGE! Do you really think we could in any way possibly resolve all the things people will need? There will be TONS of businesses built off of this, and they will require a connection to the network. Why make it so more innovation can't be built off this structure? Why not make it something that scales? I almost think it has to scale, because I'm sure that if the western world creates things that works for it, it likely won't work for the 3rd world. They have completely different needs that we simply can't comprehend in the west. And the point of all this is to tap into their potential and make it easier and more likely that they join the rest of us in a global economy. No?
edited, didn't like how I started, sounded confrontational.
But I like it when you have the scruff to be confrontational! That's how you get to the meat of the issue! ;-)
I believe the 3rd world will be the ones that run with it, and the 1st world has too much control... They don't need our permission to use DASH. Right this very moment, they can do whatever the hell they want, just like me.
Credit Card Terminals are being ditched for a smart phone with a card swiper... I live in po-dunk BFE and the "Chinese/Country Fusion Buffet" is already doing it. The problem of platform presence is only an issue in established bureaucracy. IS VISA going to allow DASH payments in their processors' firmware? Is Wal Mart going to fight about it? Fuck no! But loqueesha-click-click-afribabe with a 2nd hand smart phone sell her turnips to someone on a platform that the 1st world controllers can't touch?
The means by which that will happen is external to us, and it'll come from the little guy using a platform that can't be controlled by those with the money already. I think you'[re worrying about a non-issue that will work itself out better without our meddling, or help, as you've called it... The best thing we can do is get out of the way.
The 3rd world has an advantage, it can leapfrog the control freaks that the 1st world labors under the boots of...
No matter how much funding we divert from the blockchain, do you think the foundation will ever convince Wal Mart to drop it's credit card terninals for tablets that have more than just Visa and Mastercard in them? Supplanting turds is much harder than skipping them altogether.
Move to Africa, be part of the future! See you there in my Tesla FJ Cruiser.
Crap, did I just create DASH's own version of the "too the moon" meme? "To the Africa!"
From Shaft in Africa:
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not so much about minority ...
I just do not think system in which 55%, 75%, ... of MN ops will decide where 100% of the funds will go - is fair and "democratic" system.
People are tired of this injustice in the ordinary world, in politics. And Cryptocurrency theoretically (programmers have to say how much it is technically feasible) can give us more effective and fairer mechanism when the majority will not be in charge of all 100% of the money (including money of minorities).
In cryptoworld we do not need to choose the "only one president" or "only 2 party" - we can choose let's say 20 real projects, all of which are needed and in a reasonable time will be able to collect 100% of the necessary funds to them.
This sounds very cool. Maybe something like the Bitnation concept. There may be a way to make this work. I'll look into in more.
I still have my doubts of starting any centralized organization dealing with DASH distribution. As soon as there is a 'target' for a government/bankers there will be problems. I see a lot less problems when each contributor to DASH is just getting miner/masternode block rewards.
A friend of mine, who's a self-employed business woman, has an iphone with this card swiper... One day she forgot the swiper, and no big deal, she just drove to a Wallgreen's and bought another one... i thought that was so cool..
alex-ru, How do you prioritize which projects get done? You can just fund them all, there is not enough funding. They need to be prioritized. Voting solves this.
Maybe another way to set the vote % is to have a majority vote(>51%) with a minimal no(<10%) vote. This might be more efficient than trying to get a high majority like 90%+ to vote in x timeframe.
51% yes and 5% no = pass.
70% yes with 29% no = not pass. Too many negative votes.
If the proposal gets kicked out the owner can change it to be more attractive(lower %, or faster timeframe).
Maybe another way to set the vote % is to have a majority vote(>51%) with a minimal no(<10%) vote. This might be more efficient than trying to get a high majority like 90%+ to vote in x timeframe.
51% yes and 5% no = pass.
70% yes with 29% no = not pass. Too many negative votes.
If the proposal gets kicked out the owner can change it to be more attractive(lower %, or faster timeframe).
tl;dr version of the most insightful post in this or any other thread, in case anyone skimming missed it:
DASH can co-exist on that platform. I used to use Stripe, but they're on board with the fraudulent Operation Choke Point bullshit, so I dumped them.
Maybe.
iPhone has Square. I think their merchant fee is a little higher than the old way merchant services.
Sorry, I had to run again Always posting and running. All good points. I'd still like to see a decentralized coin exchange, and think that would be beneficial to more than just DASH, but I don't see any other platform able to create it except DASH's
I agree, I don't want funds spent just because they're there, and I do see a surplus in the future that would be detrimental to the whole ecosystem (by taking them out of circulation) However, I don't see this working unless a % of the funds are removed from the block rewards before anyone gets their hands on it. Donations, even if automatic if a project is voted on, just won't work, IMO, because I think that it'll be harder to get MN owners to vote a reduction in their rewards each time a good project is proposed than if they never saw those funds.
Nice 4 tops song, was just reading earlier about the motor city in National Geographic....... if only I were young again.... (er...reference to Motown, you know.... ah ferget it ;P )
Always posting and running. All good points. I'd still like to see a decentralized coin exchange, and think that would be beneficial to more than just DASH, but I don't see any other platform able to create it except DASH's I agree, I don't want funds spent just because they're there, and I do see a surplus in the future that would be detrimental to the whole ecosystem (by taking them out of circulation) However, I don't see this working unless a % of the funds are removed from the block rewards before anyone gets their hands on it. Donations, even if automatic if a project is voted on, just won't work, IMO, because I think that it'll be harder to get MN owners to vote a reduction in their rewards each time a good project is proposed than if they never saw those funds.
Nice 4 tops song, was just reading earlier about the motor city in National Geographic....... if only I were young again.... (er...reference to Motown, you know.... ah ferget it ;P )
The Masternodes.
I don't yet know all the technical details, but when you look at how InstantX works (lock funds immediately on one side to avoid double spend, release them on the receiving side after 1 confirmation) you get an idea how it could be done.
I haven't had the time to closely read all 16 pages of this thread, but while skimming it I noticed a couple of things.
In particular, I want to reinforce that it is important that the funds released cannot be voted back to the Masternodes, unless the entire SDGB project is a failure and everything is scrapped. The allocated funds should only be used to advance Dash and it's ecosystem otherwise we unnecessarily muddle every vote. I'll explain.
If you give people three choices, a.) pick door 1 and get an increase in value of an amount X in 1 years, b.) pick door 2 and get an increase in value of an amount Y over 2 years and c.) don't execute either and pay yourself $100 today, well then we know what the answer is likely to be. However, because people tend to prioritize short term gains doesn't mean that they aren't capable of making prudent long term choices (like say when the only two options are door 1 and door 2). So in my opinion, it's imperative we eliminate the option that funds can go anywhere other than the advancement of the coin, or we'll likely find this to be a friction point in every vote that misdirects from important conversations.
The final process for a project to go from proposal, through to vote, and on to execution will take iterations to achieve. We should expect to constantly be refining this process leveraging what we learn from the successes and failures that we vote into existence. With that being said, what Evan has proposed is just the first iteration of that process.
A friend of mine recently built Topchart (link below) as a way for him to leverage crowds to see what features he should deliver for start up projects he works on. I figured we could use it here and see what projects the community would want to have funded within Dash. Keep in mind he built it a couple of weeks ago and released it last week so it's still very raw, but it can help us organize and see what projects people think are important for us to fund and build, and we can quantify how important they are (which I'm excited to see). If it's useful, maybe we can even embed a version of this into Dashtalk. Just an idea.
http://www.topchart.io/projects/dash
-EM
In particular, I want to reinforce that it is important that the funds released cannot be voted back to the Masternodes, unless the entire SDGB project is a failure and everything is scrapped. The allocated funds should only be used to advance Dash and it's ecosystem otherwise we unnecessarily muddle every vote. I'll explain.
If you give people three choices, a.) pick door 1 and get an increase in value of an amount X in 1 years, b.) pick door 2 and get an increase in value of an amount Y over 2 years and c.) don't execute either and pay yourself $100 today, well then we know what the answer is likely to be. However, because people tend to prioritize short term gains doesn't mean that they aren't capable of making prudent long term choices (like say when the only two options are door 1 and door 2). So in my opinion, it's imperative we eliminate the option that funds can go anywhere other than the advancement of the coin, or we'll likely find this to be a friction point in every vote that misdirects from important conversations.
The final process for a project to go from proposal, through to vote, and on to execution will take iterations to achieve. We should expect to constantly be refining this process leveraging what we learn from the successes and failures that we vote into existence. With that being said, what Evan has proposed is just the first iteration of that process.
A friend of mine recently built Topchart (link below) as a way for him to leverage crowds to see what features he should deliver for start up projects he works on. I figured we could use it here and see what projects the community would want to have funded within Dash. Keep in mind he built it a couple of weeks ago and released it last week so it's still very raw, but it can help us organize and see what projects people think are important for us to fund and build, and we can quantify how important they are (which I'm excited to see). If it's useful, maybe we can even embed a version of this into Dashtalk. Just an idea.
http://www.topchart.io/projects/dash
-EM
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as I understand this entire talk, one way or another Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance will be incorporated into Dash. So I have a question: Is there any any rough timeframe for this to happen??
Aaaghhrrr, I wanted to let this go but this contrived bullshit makes me sick.
Call a fucking spade a spade. You want to slurp money off every infrastructure provider whether any of us want it or not, and whether there even exists a credible value adding project for it to be spent on or not. And we're never getting any of it back.
Because MN ops are all too stupid and short sighted to approve any value adding project at all. You know best!
It's all for our own good, right?
Where have we heard that before? Ah yes, every bankrupt and corrupt government and central planning committee, ever.
Taking from people without their consent is theft, plain and simple.
Funding should be approved first, then diverted. This one simple change of approach would turn this from the worst thing possible for DASH into something that could help make DASH unstoppable.
Taking it regardless leads to ruin, every single time. You are all going to get fleeced if you don't insist right now on NOT automatically funnelling money into the pockets of freeloaders who know that they'll be able to railroad cash into their own projects because nobody can be bothered voting nay as your vote is effectively toothless.
Last edited by a moderator:
No. This argument is the one that is contrived. And in every single one of your posts you seem to ramp up the ad hominem attacks. That is really not necessary.
Look, unless the masternodes vote for the freeloaders then they won't get one single duff. And since you seem to think that MNs owners are smart enough to vote for only for good projects then they MUST be smart enough not to vote for money to go to freeloaders, right? Seems obvious.
Furthermore, any unused money is held by the network in escrow and no one person -- not Evan, not Masternode, not Fernando... nobody -- Let me be clear, no one single person can spend that money. Only the masternodes can decide which projects(if any) to fund with the remaining money.
So where do the freeloaders come in? They don't.
Here you had me...
...and here you lost me.
Let's assume with "corrupt government" you mean the typical Western democracy.
How does (in a nutshell) modern (ahem) democracies work in most cases? There are democratic elections every couple of years, and after that, we live in a totalitarian (better: authoritarian. But totalitarian sounds much more dramatic
) state till the next elections happen...the voters have NO vote during that time, the government can decide whatever they want.In our model here, the voters can disagree whenever they feel it's necessary or against their interests. For each single decision the "Government" proposes. Every time. In almost real-time.
It sounds like a small difference, but in fact the difference is HUGE.
But we can't vote NO to begin with. Money gets taken anyway and we have no say about it. And because every voter knows that this 15% is going to end up spent anyway, hardly anyone is going to bother voting nay to any given project, making it very easy for the project proposers and their buddies to fund whatever they want.Here you had me...
...and here you lost me.
Let's assume with "corrupt government" you mean the typical Western democracy.
How does (in a nutshell) modern (ahem) democracies work in most cases? There are democratic elections every couple of years, and after that, we live in a totalitarian (better: authoritarian. But totalitarian sounds much more dramatic
In our model here, the voters can disagree whenever they feel it's necessary or against their interests. For each single decision the "Government" proposes. Every time. In almost real-time.
It sounds like a small difference, but in fact the difference is HUGE.
Surely the onus should be on those wishing to spend collective money to convince enough of us to vote yay in the first place? It's a simple but critical distinction.
The argument that "we need an ever-replenishing uncapped stockpile to get stuff done quickly" is bogus. Approval by vote would still take time. 15% of the daily supply is ~$1400/day at current price. How may projects are going to need more than that upfront? Those that do can be catered for by a capped reserve.
Last edited by a moderator:
I completely don't agree with it.
All MN ops:
1. Have enough brains to earn at least 3000$. And they are interested to multiply it.
2. Have enough vision and plans to freeze their money in this project long-term.
3. Some of them can have some unique competences, knowledge in specialized areas, or specialized markets, local markets - none of us (even current development team).
They ("minority") must have some possibility to affect the project also. This is the source of additional effectiveness decentralization can give us.
Just imagine: some theoretical 100 chineese MN ops know some unique approach to Chinese market. But for some reason they can't convince majority of MN ops to finance it. Why there is no possibility for them to finance corresponding efforts with their part of (RD&Marketing) budget - this is the source of decentralized competence. And we have to use it.
But it is necessary to provide some mechanism of protection from cashing fund through affiliated projects
Last edited by a moderator:
And that's exactly the GOOD thing about it.
If everyone could decide whether money is "taken away" or not we would be exactly where we are now, a couple of enthusiasts donate and 99% of the rest is doing nothing,
I could also say that the project-trolls and their buddies could block whatever they want. That's the beauty about it, mobilize enough people and you'll get what you want.
I agree that there will always be people with the mindset "my money is taken away anyway, so I don't care". But those would vote neither yay nor nay, so it will still be up to you to convince enough voters to say nay.
That's not how it works. Enough yes votes and the money is diverted from everyone, not just those who voted yes.
This doesn't answer the question of why money should be siphoned off regardless of whether it's deemed needed or not. Only taking what the consensus deems needful is a simpler, cleaner and safer approach.
Since Ed Moncado is proposing hypothetical scenarios, here's one of mine:
Imagine for a moment that instead of crouton-the-abrasive-asshole saying this, Evan posted the following: "Before any money is taken collectively from infrastructure providers, those wishing to spend that money must present a credible enough case to convince x% of voters that it's in their interests, and in the interests of DASH as a whole." I suspect there would be landslide agreement.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to add my views on the subject, after all the news and opinions that I have read here. I'm really glad to see these debates. It's very important and healthy: a sign that we have the potential to find the best solution after all.
First of all, I've read some comments of people referring to an entity, the "freeriders", and I found it to be a little vague... What is, or who are the "freeriders"?
IMO, the miners are no "freeriders", because we are bringing a very important service to the network, and our "remuneration" is not a favour, it is due and necessary (lest no miners remain);
The same with the the masternoders. We are no "freeriders" because we are bringing another important service to the network, and our "remuneration" is not at all a favour, it is also due and also necessary;
The investors, as well, are no "freeriders", because we are bringing our fiat money inside the game;
All the volunteers (there are great people here volunteering for DASH, including the DEV team), we are also no "freeriders", because we have been donating our time and efforts to the DASH community;
All those entities above must be respected, and the fact that a person is not "donating" money directly (through a Masternode or to an address or to a specific project) does not turn this person automatically into a "freerider" (if I have correctly captured the meaning of this entity). So, I've started by disregarding all arguments that tried to make me feel guilty for eventually not being a direct money donator.
As I see here, in our community there are no "freeriders" (yet). Everyone is contributing with what they can. And all of us, we want DASH to be the best.
As some of you here may know, I live in one of the most corruptcultures countries in the world. You cannot leave money laying around easily here because it will surelly be robbed. There are not many libertarians around, people want to have advantages, but does not want to work for it. In such environment, it's not hard to become skeptical, and careful. That's why I see the opinions brought by thelonecrouton and camosoul to be VERY important to be taken into account.
We must not leave this hatch of easy money open, because that's how the real "freeriders" will arrive.
I LOVED the Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain idea, and I know that THIS will bring a new paradigm to the world. I'm really proud to be here and I believe we will do our best. But let's start small, and flexible. And make adjustments always when necessary as we go. That's all I can suggest right now.
In a P2P system what is good for the network must always be good for each single peer.
Well, that's how I see things... and, please, let's not hate each other just because of our own opinions.
I love you guys, we are making history here!
First of all, I've read some comments of people referring to an entity, the "freeriders", and I found it to be a little vague... What is, or who are the "freeriders"?
IMO, the miners are no "freeriders", because we are bringing a very important service to the network, and our "remuneration" is not a favour, it is due and necessary (lest no miners remain);
The same with the the masternoders. We are no "freeriders" because we are bringing another important service to the network, and our "remuneration" is not at all a favour, it is also due and also necessary;
The investors, as well, are no "freeriders", because we are bringing our fiat money inside the game;
All the volunteers (there are great people here volunteering for DASH, including the DEV team), we are also no "freeriders", because we have been donating our time and efforts to the DASH community;
All those entities above must be respected, and the fact that a person is not "donating" money directly (through a Masternode or to an address or to a specific project) does not turn this person automatically into a "freerider" (if I have correctly captured the meaning of this entity). So, I've started by disregarding all arguments that tried to make me feel guilty for eventually not being a direct money donator.
As I see here, in our community there are no "freeriders" (yet). Everyone is contributing with what they can. And all of us, we want DASH to be the best.
As some of you here may know, I live in one of the most corrupt
We must not leave this hatch of easy money open, because that's how the real "freeriders" will arrive.
I LOVED the Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain idea, and I know that THIS will bring a new paradigm to the world. I'm really proud to be here and I believe we will do our best. But let's start small, and flexible. And make adjustments always when necessary as we go. That's all I can suggest right now.
In a P2P system what is good for the network must always be good for each single peer.
Well, that's how I see things... and, please, let's not hate each other just because of our own opinions.
I love you guys, we are making history here!
Last edited by a moderator:
We speak about Research-Development-Marketing ("RDM") here.
So everybody who don't spend their money or time for RDM now - are RDM-freeriders.
I think >80% of DASH holders now are RDM-freeriders (but in Bitcoin >90%
) and it has to be changed somehow.After reaching 0% RDM-freeriders Dash will be 10 times more effective than Bitcoin!
Last edited by a moderator:
I fully agree, Evan WILL always have the eduffield bonus on his side...we can't change this.
But do you know what my VERY first though was when Evan sent me this paper 8 days ago for review?
My first thought was : "WOW, this guy is giving away a lot of his power voluntarily!".
Until now in every crypto-currency the option always was "follow the developer(s) or fork your own coin" (actually that was one of the reasons XCoin/Darkcoin/Dash got started).
Now you have to convince the people that your proposal is good for Dash. Easier to do for Evan than for you and me, yes, but if he crosses a certain line enough people will start to say NO. I'm pretty sure the Darkcoin / Dash re-branding would have been a VERY close case.
Everyone who spends money on mining hardware and mines is supporting DASH (albeit crappily via centralised pools :tongueWe speak about Research-Development-Marketing ("RDM") here.
So everybody who don't spend their money or time for RDM now - are RDM-freeriders.
I think >80% of DASH holders now are RDM-freeriders (but in Bitcoin >90%
and being directly rewarded, everyone who spends money on owning a Masternode is supporting DASH and being directly rewarded, every non-infrastructure investor is out for their own interests and traders do what traders do, these groups should not be directly paid from the block reward.Currently there are no freeriders - where do you get "80%" from? - but a lot of people who do vital work that aren't being directly compensated at all - Flare, Udjin, Crowning etc. and the testnet regulars and PR folk. You're right, this should be fixed, but I see no free lunches being handed out currently and I'd like to see that continue.
I'd like funding to be justified before infrastructure providers get skimmed from, that's all.
Last edited by a moderator: