Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,266
1,130
1,183
Not true. If so, you would point out that the 15% allocation model (that you refer to as mandatory donation model) has an extremely large pro which is that it is more aligned with the long term goals of Dash akin to a publicly traded company has a budget committee. Having people constantly vote to give up money will ultimately fail as people will tend to vote to give up less and keep more for themselves.
We still have a budget committe. We just don't give them a pork barrel to abuse.

No one stops voting to make their slice of the pie go to the Africa...

"Shit, I have too much money, how do I piss on this fortune I have..."
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,861
1,854
1,283
I see your point, and it has merit.

But I think that merit is outweighed by the complications that come with it.

We can get very close to the same merits without those complications. Key of these is the problem of refunding and pork barreling... There's no real answer to those, and they're not small things.

Lets say the imaginary benefits are real.

We get a little more speed. We get an abuse-able pork barrel and a divisive refund policy that someone can always find fault with...

If we do it my way, we get slightly less speed, and none of the problems.

This speed scenario is actually imaginary tho...

Even if the benefit were real, it still isn't worth it.
But how do you see the pork barrel being abusable? I mean, if the Masternodes don't agree to spend it because nothing merits the funding, then nobody can get their hands on it. And if it's coded in that excess funds at the end of the year, after savings, goes into a new account that distributes the funds by putting 1/#ofblocksperyear into each block for the following year, well then, it appropriately gets redistributed back from whence it came. If masternodes/miners change, that's just their choice. I think it would have minimal blockchain bloat, it's easy to code, and keeps the funds from building up. It comes back to the question: "will masternodes waste it or put it back into the system?"

Nobody else can touch it except for a successful Masternode vote. And they can't vote it to take back just for themselves, and not even in a big chunk, no easy snatching can happen.

Also, if a return happens, lets say 1% of the funds go back into the system for the following year, I'd bet we'd get 1% more masternodes and 1% more miners, and nobody would be any richer anyway. However, the funds would go back into the system giving liquidity to the system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,266
1,130
1,183
But how do you see the pork barrel being abusable? I mean, if the Masternodes don't agree to spend it because nothing merits the funding, then nobody can get their hands on it. And if it's coded in that excess funds at the end of the year, after savings, goes into a new account that distributes the funds by putting 1/#ofblocksperyear into each block for the following year, well then, it appropriately gets redistributed back from whence it came. If masternodes/miners change, that's just their choice. I think it would have minimal blockchain bloat, it's easy to code, and keeps the funds from building up. It comes back to the question: "will masternodes waste it or put it back into the system?"
Then the argument becomes one of simply "Why the hell are we making this so complicated when we could just unplug it like a miner?"

Also, that payback structure doesn't match how it was taken.

It's a tax refund. Do you really want the IRS model in DASH? How about not taking it in the first place? How many paychecks have you had in your life? Think about it...

You're talking bout doing this on a YEARLY scale? Speed, I thought, was your argument? Wha...?

You been out there with the hippies too long... :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

masternode

New Member
Mar 9, 2015
39
68
18
Are you for real? Here on Earth you'll find that the voting parties in government all-you-can-slurp schemes do indeed have a financial stake in the outcome. :rolleyes:
You think those financial incentives are the same as those held by top management in publicly traded companies? They are dramatically different which will result in a completely different dynamic.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,266
1,130
1,183
But how do you see the pork barrel being abusable? I mean, if the Masternodes don't agree to spend it because nothing merits the funding, then nobody can get their hands on it.
This damn near answers itself. MN operators are the budget committee, they now have to be overly cautious of accusations of porking a project simply becasue pork is available. They'll be more prone to say no so that public outcry doesn't tank value...
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,266
1,130
1,183
You think those financial incentives are the same as those held by top management in publicly traded companies? They are dramatically different which will result in a completely different dynamic.
Yeah, they are different. The government ones are no strings, no consequences.
 

masternode

New Member
Mar 9, 2015
39
68
18
Then the argument becomes one of simply "Why the hell are we making this so complicated when we could just unplug it like a miner?"

Also, that payback structure doesn't match how it was taken.

It's a tax refund. Do you really want the IRS model in DASH? How about not taking it in the first place? How many paychecks have you had in your life? Think about it...

You're talking bout doing this on a YEARLY scale? Speed, I thought, was your argument? Wha...?

You been out there with the hippies too long... :p
The payback structure would exactly match how it was taken. You vote for 15% allocation to the program. If the overall SDGB program fails then you vote to end it. It inherently takes a longer view, and avoids constant no votes on projects because people want to give up less.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,266
1,130
1,183
because people want to give up less.
This argument has already been shown false and empty. Stop holding it up. It's proven dead. You may as well say "Evan pre-mined" over and over again.

Maybe, if a project gets constant no votes, it's because that project sucks?

If every employee at wal mart got to vote on how much they got paid, all the minimum wage assholes would vote to pay themselves 3x as much, bankrupt the company, and still be dirt poor becasue they make bad decision, always.

Bad decision makers don't come to be MN operators. That's why only MN operators get a vote. It's not up to every damn idiot who can't understand why life is so hard when it;s their own damn fault... It's up to the competent who prove their competence by being un-dumb enough to run an MN or 30... I'm not all that smart, I'm just un-stupid.

Like I try to tell people who pay rent; "You can't accelerate doing dumb shit until you finally come out ahead of the dumb shit. You just end up digging the hole deeper. You can't spend your way out of debt. You just have to stop doing dumb shit. Whatever it takes."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
921
163
If greed[by masternodes not approving funds] will not allow us to invest in the development - there will appear other more reasonable projects that implement this model and will implement it effectively - so the best people and so on will go there.

Therefore Dash community should reject greed and reinforce their ambitions by real actions and decisions.
Alex-ru,
I think you are worried about the wrong greedy party. Masternode owners will vote for valuable to DASH projects. They will not steal other members funds. They are investors and owners of the future value of DASH.

If DASH was force funneled/mandatory donated/taxed into a pot, how well do you think it would be spent? We are talking over the years and new people coming into the mix, the value of dash going up, now the pot is $1million/mo. Foundation says no more voting. Raise the tax to 20%. Travel is now a priority. Trips to Hawaii for all the members for conference xyz. Now lets open offices in 10 cities and sell T-shirts and hot dogs. I get that there are reasons to have funds available. Create a project(foundation cash or whatever) for needed funding and it gets voted on. I would hope the project is actually to do something or for something useful though.

My biggest issue is how to store excess funds from a mandatory donation model. No matter how you do it, it will be exposed to theft, loss, or misuse. Plus you have a wasted expense to manage and protect the funds. If I say Bitcoin, do you think of any problems with MtGox, Bitstamp, BFL. If it has happened so frequently in bitcoin, it could happen with DASH. Crypto value is so easy to transfer, this aspect should not be underestimated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,861
1,854
1,283
I really don't see a reason to give those funds back to masternodes or miners "who were there" because the fact that taking 15% out in the first place, reduced the number of masternodes and miners. When you put it back in each block reward, you will increase the masternodes and the miners, with each one getting the same rewards they previously got. The pressure of income (ROI) is what prompts people to create Masternodes or mine, and they create them quickly when they see it's an acceptable return. We have been seeing the same number of coins as a reward for quite a while despite the fact that the reward has been going up 2.5% each month.

Anyway, i really think that's the best way to go:

set 15% now, as per Evan's proposal.
Set a top limit to any excess funds to be reserved in savings, and return the rest through block rewards.
re-evaluate the 15% every * years to see if it merits being reduced. reducing it would help masternode owners and miners plan for the future (mine more/set up more masternodes)

Hell, and we haven't even scratched the surface here of how to manage / pay projects or even the voting requirements (percent of participation) and probably a dozen other issues, LOL. Isn't this fun?

Camosoul quote: "You been out there with the hippies too long... :p" LOL, You know I absolutely adore you, right? But I think you're not seeing what I'm trying to say. I totally agree, spending must be curtailed if not in everyone's best interest, and no pork barrel projects. I totally agree!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaoOfSatoshi

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
You think those financial incentives are the same as those held by top management in publicly traded companies? They are dramatically different which will result in a completely different dynamic.
DASH is not a publicly traded company, and top management are renowned for their enormous self-awarded bonuses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli

5kmi

Member
Jul 21, 2014
41
19
58
@ masternode: It's abusable the same way that the whole (current) crypto ecosystem is abusable, a "dev" can come up with a seemingly genius plan that would provide a great service to our ecosystem, but the plan would of course require an upfront payment to get things rolling. The awesome plan wins the vote, dev gets paid and then we hear a lot of excuses, maybe requests for more funds, or nothing at all. Sound familiar?

And if you think SolarMiner's breakdown is biased, add some text that will make it more objective. Everything anyone posts on this forum is available for modification...
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
You completely miss the point.
I really don't think so.

The need to justify block reward diversion before it happens is simple prudence. It avoids a whole host of problems that mandatory taxation brings, which have been detailed at length and to which you have not presented any counter-argument except, "MN ops are too stupid to be trusted with a meaningful vote, so we're taking the money anyway."
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,861
1,854
1,283
Alex-ru,
I think you are worried about the wrong greedy party. Masternode owners will vote for valuable to DASH projects. They will not steal other members funds. They are investors and owners of the future value of DASH.

If DASH was force funneled/mandatory donated/taxed into a pot, how well do you think it would be spent? We are talking over the years and new people coming into the mix, the value of dash going up, now the pot is $1million/mo. Foundation says no more voting. Raise the tax to 20%. Travel is now a priority. Trips to Hawaii for all the members for conference xyz. Now lets open offices in 10 cities and sell T-shirts and hot dogs. I get that there are reasons to have funds available. Create a project(foundation cash or whatever) for needed funding and it gets voted on. I would hope the project is actually to do something or for something useful though.

My biggest issue is how to store excess funds from a mandatory donation model. No matter how you do it, it will be exposed to theft, loss, or misuse. Plus you have a wasted expense to manage and protect the funds. If I say Bitcoin, do you think of any problems with MtGox, Bitstamp, BFL. If it has happened so frequently in bitcoin, it could happen with DASH. Crypto value is so easy to transfer, this aspect should not be underestimated.
Actually, if you're worried about funds on the blockchain, the model could just as easily be monthly. Any monthly excess goes back to the block rewards for the following month.?? I just thought yearly would have less "waves" of uncertainty and fluctuation in numbers of miners and mansternodes.
 

alex-ru

Grizzled Member
Dash Support Group
Jul 14, 2014
2,371
3,241
1,183
My biggest issue is how to store excess funds from a mandatory donation model. No matter how you do it, it will be exposed to theft, loss, or misuse. Plus you have a wasted expense to manage and protect the funds.
Don't worry, MN consensus could manage them:

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.
 

masternode

New Member
Mar 9, 2015
39
68
18
@ masternode: It's abusable the same way that the whole (current) crypto ecosystem is abusable, a "dev" can come up with a seemingly genius plan that would provide a great service to our ecosystem, but the plan would of course require an upfront payment to get things rolling. The awesome plan wins the vote, dev gets paid and then we hear a lot of excuses, maybe requests for more funds, or nothing at all. Sound familiar?

And if you think SolarMiner's breakdown is biased, add some text that will make it more objective. Everything anyone posts on this forum is available for modification...
The same dangers exist with funding startups. Yet somehow they manage to work. It really comes down to people and execution. A good example is people in crypto will even fund anon devs. This simply doesn't happen in the real world. It's definitely not an issue with the process as it's proven to work.

Not to mention, as a group vote those projects simply wouldn't get funded, yet when presented to the crypto ecosystem they still find individuals willing to take those risks.
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,761
2,616
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
@ masternode: It's abusable the same way that the whole (current) crypto ecosystem is abusable, a "dev" can come up with a seemingly genius plan that would provide a great service to our ecosystem, but the plan would of course require an upfront payment to get things rolling. The awesome plan wins the vote, dev gets paid and then we hear a lot of excuses, maybe requests for more funds, or nothing at all. Sound familiar?

And if you think SolarMiner's breakdown is biased, add some text that will make it more objective. Everything anyone posts on this forum is available for modification...
This is most definitely a concern. This fund should avoid any lump sum up front payments to anonymous devs with no track record. People requiring this make me nervous. For these types, payment for work done, or GTFO. I understand sometimes a pre-payment is needed for some applications, but a maximum pre-payment amount needs to be set for those instances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solarminer

5kmi

Member
Jul 21, 2014
41
19
58
And what percentage of startups "manage to work?" Can we see some data to back that up?
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
The same dangers exist with funding startups. Yet somehow they manage to work.
Most startups fail.

It really comes down to people and execution. A good example is people in crypto will even fund anon devs. This simply doesn't happen in the real world. It's definitely not an issue with the process as it's proven to work.

Not to mention, as a group vote those projects simply wouldn't get funded, yet when presented to the crypto ecosystem they still find individuals willing to take those risks.
This sounds a lot like, "I think I can get away with it as you're a bunch of gullible suckers."
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli

5kmi

Member
Jul 21, 2014
41
19
58
This is most definitely a concern. This fund should avoid any lump sum up front payments to anonymous devs with no track record. People requiring this make me nervous. For these types, payment for work done, or GTFO. I understand sometimes a pre-payment is needed for some applications, but a maximum pre-payment amount needs to be set for those instances.
... And the best way to avoid any lump sum payments is to not have a fund to pay them out from!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solarminer

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,861
1,854
1,283
One more thing I want to say is that I don't think full funding to any project should be given to anyone. I think the proposals should have milestones and those milestones should have an agreed payment amount attached to them. Then, I think the core developers or a core paid management team should have the responsibility to determine if the milestones were reached and release the funds to the developer (basic contract administration)

I think that masternodes voting each time to actually have THEIR funds removed to a project will put a heavy weight toward saying no to projects. Mostly because they'll feel the loss. They will be stingy, and slow to respond. If the % is taken from the begining, you can have much more objectivity toward the value of each project. That's why I don't think this structure will work well, if at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaoOfSatoshi

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
921
163
Not true. If so, you would point out that the 15% allocation model (that you refer to as mandatory donation model) has an extremely large pro which is that it is more aligned with the long term goals of Dash akin to a publicly traded company has a budget committee. Having people constantly vote to give up money will ultimately fail as people will tend to vote to give up less and keep more for themselves.
The long term I am thinking about is what happens in 20 years. There is no need for development and we still have this 15% donation going to projects(or probably elaborate hosted events) that are not useful. Yeah, I get that this could be adjusted with a vote. But lowering a donation is just not going to happen - I believe there are the best intentions, but just like lowering taxes....it doesn't happen.

I believe the idealogy of DASH is for a decentralized control system. Pooling funds into a central wallet is asking for trouble. There are ways to make a multisig wallet with some masternode voting key. By why make it so complicated. It just hurts thinking about all the effort that will need to go into this. And then the day when the one guy loses his hard drive and the master wallet can't be opened because it needs 1 more signer.

I would offer a better way with the vote in per project model to do this is to give/take the reward funds from the miners so the masternodes don't have an incentive to keep them. I still disagree with this and would rather the masternodes making the decisions live with the consequences. Here is why.

Masternode owners are investors. Investors want appreciation just like they want continuous income. The difference in block rewards is not much compared to their holdings. 15% of block rewards is about 0.2 DASH/day(~$20/mo) compared to a $3,200 investment. It would make more sense to increase the value of DASH they are holding for a small $20/mo. A masternode already fluctuates more than this amount in a day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akhavr

darkwing

Active Member
Apr 8, 2014
149
110
103
This isn't a comment on either route.

What I most like about the idea of all this is that
"Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain"
isn't in investopedia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strix and moli

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,861
1,854
1,283
Solarminer, there are other ways of dealing with that.

But it will be, darkwing, it will!
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,761
2,616
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
Choose a model, vote, implement, and evaluate.

This type of thing has never been done before, we're arguing based on our prior experiences.

Throw that out the window, as what we are debating is a completely different beast. I would submit that no one in this thread has the clairvoyance to see the results of either side's thinking, which both have merit.

Both sides draw up proposals, we vote, implement and evaluate on a trial basis.

If we choose the fund option, and camosoul is right it turns into a pork barrel, then we re-evaluate at the end of the term.

If we choose the no-funding option and Masternode owners do just look after number one, then we reevaluate at the end of the term.

We all know what the successful implementation of this groundbreaking program would mean for Dash, and by extention the world, so we will need real-world trials to help us mold it over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strix and darkwing

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,266
1,130
1,183
Hell, and we haven't even scratched the surface here of how to manage / pay projects or even the voting requirements (percent of participation) and probably a dozen other issues, LOL. Isn't this fun?

Camosoul quote: "You been out there with the hippies too long... :p" LOL, You know I absolutely adore you, right? But I think you're not seeing what I'm trying to say. I totally agree, spending must be curtailed if not in everyone's best interest, and no pork barrel projects. I totally agree!
I think that the best way is to emulate that which already exists. Absolute precision, front-end control. Crypto does it this way because crypto is full of people who do do everything they can to git moar any way they can. And even when they can't git moar from a coin, they're willing to sabotage it at no apparent gain simply because it makes others more valuable when one is sabotaged.

I do see your perspective. I just see the reality that even the tiniest little thing can be used, and the people of crypto WILL not hesitate to do damage any way they can. Don't give them any foothold, ever. Not even a tiny crack. The people at the top of DASH won't always be there. It's not so much about thwarting the problem people, as not giving them bait in the first place. If we can't trust politicians, how can the only people in the word worse than politicians be trusted?

If we were in fact dealing with malleable people, I wouldn't be so hardcore about this. But we're not. We're dealing with cryptotards. Give no quarter. Take no prisoners. Never forgive. Never forget. Never relax. Never sleep. Never trust. Not. Even. Once. It's that important.

It's not about "us," it's about the ever present "them." Always lurking, looking for the tiniest chink in the armor, even if it gains them nothing. This is crypto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaoOfSatoshi

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,266
1,130
1,183
The need to justify block reward diversion before it happens is simple prudence. It avoids a whole host of problems that mandatory taxation brings, which have been detailed at length and to which you have not presented any counter-argument except, "MN ops are too stupid to be trusted with a meaningful vote, so we're taking the money anyway."
MWAH!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5kmi