Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

[TanteStefana]

.....

Minotaur eduffield
In general I think the proposal is really good, but I am concerned about the apparent lack of checks and balances. What would happen if a proposal that is really bad for the longterm prospects of the coin but is really good for the short term profit of the MN owners is approved? Let's say a proposal to change the reward split to 85/10/5 (MN/dev funds/miners). Again, maybe I just lack faith in people, but I really worry about selfiness in this system if there are no safeguards. Obviously that example is extreme, but what is the current plan to prevent such abuses?

First of all, this whole thing will need to be hashed out, and there will have to be checks and balances.

And per above, changing the reward would not be something that can go on the table anymore. This will be hard coded into the core of the wallet eventually, and not changed anymore. Nobody would support it unless, somehow, there were a dire need, which is highly unlikely.

Again, per one of your comments, funds that are not spent should never go to the MNs Only back to the miners. We must not allow them to be able to vote themselves money. You could do this by simply making an account with the past year's surplus, pay out 1/210240 th of the account for the following year to each account that finds a block. It doesn't have to mix with the rewards, simply be payed out directly to the miners per block, distributing it fairly.

 

[thelonecrouton]

moli, with due respect, I think your view is very narrow-minded. The core developers have their hands full just fixing any loop hole, smoothing out ease of use and refining what we have created. Who is going to do all the other things we need? We have someone working on the android wallet, voluntarily (unless it costs to download?) The same goes for the ios wallet. Shouldn't they be compensated? Maybe not? It's a question that could be put before the MNs. What about other possible projects that couldn't ever get off the ground due to the main core developers not having enough hours in the day? Like a decentralized exchange? Not only that, if the Masternodes approved a decentralized exchange that would be integrated into the Masternode network, heck, they could earn extra coin providing a side service! (maybe 1% of all exchanges!) Some of those funds could be set aside like those from mining for side ventures as well! What about a tor like network that runs through masternodes, far more effective than TOR, with micro payments to use. Super cheap, but strong enough to stream unlimited information? A secondary network, which could even hook up with Ethereum for a broader market (or other projects I'm not aware of) A decentralized auction/marketplace site? Those are just the obvious projects. I can come up with more:

A secure trustless masternode sharing system
A traveling informational team that promotes and lectures on DASH.
A marketing fund.

It goes on and on, and all these value added services increase the usefulness of DASH and therefore the price, benefiting all investors and users.

So only wanting to care for a core team is extremely small thinking, in my honest opinion

A currency needing 15% of it's supply just to maintain its own development is absurd. But as Vertoe pointed out, DASH is, or can be, a competitor to Paypal, Moneygram, WU, exchanges... all of which are businesses.

Businesses necessarily need to invest in R&D, marketing etc. but before I as a current stakeholder commit and consent to a change in the existing social contract I'd like to see some concrete plans.

When Masternodes were introduced, many people called it a tax on miners. This was erroneous because Masternodes are a core currency component.

What is being proposed here is a (rather large) tax on currency infrastructure providers to provide... what exactly? Development of service platform applications? Fine, but the business aspects need to be self-funding after minimal initial development costs. Businesses are supposed to turn a profit.

I'd like more clarification on where Evan + Team are heading before I'm happy with being told how, at my expense, they intend to fund it.

Please show me the business plan, in other words, before you ask me to pay for it.

I'm very happy to help fund technical innovation. Not so much about spending fortunes on crap like marketing. Marketing types babble about the few great successes in their field (Apple for example) but are strangely reticent about the other 99.9% of expensive marketing campaigns which achieve bugger all except keeping marketing firms employed.

 

[TanteStefana]

I don't think it's so much where Evan and Team are heading, as how we all build this. I think a lot was intentionally left open for hashing out together. But i do think that you hit the nail on the head, this is more a business than just a currency. Just as banks have an infrastructure to provide services and yet, in the USA, are members of the Federal Reserve which prints the money. We would be doing something very similar. Perhaps 15% is indeed too much. Perhaps we should have an infrastructure that reduces the amount over time to 5% or something? But not all projects that will benefit the coin will be profitable (easily charged for) to pay back and start other projects. But yes, we need to hash this out

 

[alex-ru]

just for info:

 

[moli]

moli, with due respect, I think your view is very narrow-minded. The core developers have their hands full just fixing any loop hole, smoothing out ease of use and refining what we have created. Who is going to do all the other things we need? We have someone working on the android wallet, voluntarily (unless it costs to download?) The same goes for the ios wallet. Shouldn't they be compensated? Maybe not? It's a question that could be put before the MNs.

I already said those devs should be paid by their one-time inputs/projects.

What about other possible projects that couldn't ever get off the ground due to the main core developers not having enough hours in the day? Like a decentralized exchange? Not only that, if the Masternodes approved a decentralized exchange that would be integrated into the Masternode network, heck, they could earn extra coin providing a side service! (maybe 1% of all exchanges!) Some of those funds could be set aside like those from mining for side ventures as well! What about a tor like network that runs through masternodes, far more effective than TOR, with micro payments to use. Super cheap, but strong enough to stream unlimited information? A secondary network, which could even hook up with Ethereum for a broader market (or other projects I'm not aware of) A decentralized auction/marketplace site? Those are just the obvious projects. I can come up with more:

Sure, what about them? Like I said if anyone is willing and able to do any of these, they should be paid according to their project. I'm sure you're familiar with the traditional business model: there are regular employees on the payroll and there are part-time freelance on contracts.

A secure trustless masternode sharing system
A traveling informational team that promotes and lectures on DASH.
A marketing fund.

It goes on and on, and all these value added services increase the usefulness of DASH and therefore the price, benefiting all investors and users.

So only wanting to care for a core team is extremely small thinking, in my honest opinion

Who said i would only care for the core team???

I am grateful for the core team because tbh, even with all your dash paid to them, still not as much as they could earn on their own by working for someone else in the real world. A skilled programmer can earn much more than doing this job, and i would rather do our best to keep them now to get this project finished first than putting 20 (just a number) other programmers on the payroll and how far can we stretch? I doubt not very far!

Besides, this project has been done a lot by volunteers because they love the coins. Who can say who should be paid or not? Are we going to pay for one volunteer but not for another?? Or should all volunteers be paid? Sure I'd love to be paid too!!

The thing is i care less about being paid. I've loved helping while learning on this project. I've seen people getting in dash yet having no clue about this coins, people with many questions yet there're some of us who do nothing and (with all due respect) except talking. Call me narrow minded but i'd love to see how you're gonna get this coin to the mainstream if you're just talking..

 

[thelonecrouton]

just for info:

Exactly. All those companies need to spend so much on marketing because their products are crap.

Half of Earth's IT infrastructure runs on linux. Where's the linux marketing budget?

 

[thelonecrouton]

Sure I'd love to be paid too!!

Testers like you should absolutely get something out of this for your time and effort.

 

[moli]

Testers like you should absolutely get something out of this for your time and effort.

You too, Mr. Stuart....

Nah.. I've got a lot of fun... one of the fun things was the fight I had with you... so silly of me but it was fun... lol

 

[TanteStefana]

I just realized that the organization of proposed projects could come about in a different or alternate way. The community could come up with the projects they would like to see built. Such as:

Core development:
1. fix loop holes and attack vectors
2. create a plugin interface to make side chains possible
3. find a way to truncate the blockchain to trim dead end, emptied accounts older than _ years. or however it might be done.
4. maintain the core wallets from highly controllable to easy to use mobile wallets. You can't keep others from making wallets, but we should have an official wallet for all needs.
5. Estimate cost of projects proposed by the community and review bids (because they are the most trusted and knowledgeable people we have)

Marketing:
1. Maintain a presence at all conventions
2. Have a traveling speaking team which makes presentations at colleges, corporate invitations, TV and magazines etc...
3. Have a budget for a new advertisement video once??? every quarter??? get to point where they can be put on TV, etc...
4. The marketing team would employ these people and organizers

Projects that would enhance the platform: These would be chosen by the community, arraigned in order of importance, then sent out to bid.
1. A trustless, decentralized exchange run on the masternode system.
2. A TOR-like network that can provide better privacy and higher traffic loads to it's customers
3. Other value added services

And then they could be set out to bid. The core team would be tasked with reviewing the bids to see if they are reasonable, and award the bids.

The above projects could take some of the income of those projects and distribute them as 1. payments to masternode servers that opt in (and have to maintain a high level server), payments to maintain the code, solve issues and 3. a portion of the income could also be set asside where it could be used to fund sub projects.

thelonecrouton, you're right, the more I look at this, the more I can see that at some point, the big projects that we need will only require a bit of maintenance and future projects should be funded off those branches. For reasons of scalability more than anything else. We simply can't expect Masternode owners to vote on an endless number of projects. The essential projects of under 20 in number could work, but after that, they have to grow out of these branches with new voting infrastructure. The project maintenance should be covered by their income, and those developers could use the funds they get from the project to start something new, without masternode permission as long as they can fund it themselves, or with other projects. ETC...

Those projects that are essential but can't be expected to earn funds would have their maintenance covered by the network.

Would that work?

We may want to fund this with 15% to get things started, but then slowly reduce the "tax" or whatever you want to call it, to the point where we are maintaining the core of the infrastructure and everything else is not our responsibility.

 

[thelonecrouton]

I just realized that the organization of proposed projects could come about in a different or alternate way. The community could come up with the projects they would like to see built. Such as:

Core development:
1. fix loop holes and attack vectors
2. create a plugin interface to make side chains possible
3. find a way to truncate the blockchain to trim dead end, emptied accounts older than _ years. or however it might be done.
4. maintain the core wallets from highly controllable to easy to use mobile wallets. You can't keep others from making wallets, but we should have an official wallet for all needs.
5. Estimate cost of projects proposed by the community and review bids (because they are the most trusted and knowledgeable people we have)

Marketing:
1. Maintain a presence at all conventions
2. Have a traveling speaking team which makes presentations at colleges, corporate invitations, TV and magazines etc...
3. Have a budget for a new advertisement video once??? every quarter??? get to point where they can be put on TV, etc...
4. The marketing team would employ these people and organizers

Projects that would enhance the platform: These would be chosen by the community, arraigned in order of importance, then sent out to bid.
1. A trustless, decentralized exchange run on the masternode system.
2. A TOR-like network that can provide better privacy and higher traffic loads to it's customers
3. Other value added services

And then they could be set out to bid. The core team would be tasked with reviewing the bids to see if they are reasonable, and award the bids.

The above projects could take some of the income of those projects and distribute them as 1. payments to masternode servers that opt in (and have to maintain a high level server), payments to maintain the code, solve issues and 3. a portion of the income could also be set asside where it could be used to fund sub projects.

thelonecrouton, you're right, the more I look at this, the more I can see that at some point, the big projects that we need will only require a bit of maintenance and future projects should be funded off those branches. For reasons of scalability more than anything else. We simply can't expect Masternode owners to vote on an endless number of projects. The essential projects of under 20 in number could work, but after that, they have to grow out of these branches with new voting infrastructure. The project maintenance should be covered by their income, and those developers could use the funds they get from the project to start something new, without masternode permission as long as they can fund it themselves, or with other projects. ETC...

Those projects that are essential but can't be expected to earn funds would have their maintenance covered by the network.

Would that work?

We may want to fund this with 15% to get things started, but then slowly reduce the "tax" or whatever you want to call it, to the point where we are maintaining the core of the infrastructure and everything else is not our responsibility.

Yes, a lot more needs to be fleshed out and agreed upon IMO before any money starts to get taken.

One important point you touched upon: this is going to be a drain on MN ops time, so a well thought out and easy to use in-wallet system would be a great start. I don't want to be messing about with website logins and having to hit up the CLI for every vote, I'd like an in-wallet summary and a Yes and No button to click.

Hopefully there will be an initial vote not just on whether to implement this scheme, but if so what % / model etc. is employed.

 

[tungfa]

great discussion
i am happy we are having it and that was exactly the point of posting it to the community.

I am not saying i agree with all the posts, but keep it coming as the community opinions and suggestions are what it is all about in the moment.

 

[TanteStefana]

I get the feeling that that's what we're expected to do here, LOL

 

[Solarminer]

....you're right, the more I look at this, the more I can see that at some point, the big projects that we need will only require a bit of maintenance and future projects should be funded off those branches. For reasons of scalability more than anything else. We simply can't expect Masternode owners to vote on an endless number of projects. The essential projects of under 20 in number could work, but after that, they have to grow out of these branches with new voting infrastructure. The project maintenance should be covered by their income, and those developers could use the funds they get from the project to start something new, without masternode permission as long as they can fund it themselves, or with other projects. ETC...

I like your line of thinking here. Fund projects that have ongoing income to fund more projects.

Also I see that a lot of projects in this space(Mobile wallets, merchant services, hardware wallets) will be crowd-funded or use some sort of outside capital. Look at all the funding going into Bitcoin. The queston is, how to get that funding? And how does DASH position itself to be in the right place at the right time?

 

[tungfa]

I like your line of thinking here. Fund projects that have ongoing income to fund more projects.

Also I see that a lot of projects in this space(Mobile wallets, merchant services, hardware wallets) will be crowd-funded or use some sort of outside capital. Look at all the funding going into Bitcoin. The queston is, how to get that funding? And how does DASH position itself to be in the right place at the right time?

outside funding will only bring you regulations, look at BTC , Ripple and whoever

with the idea posted we are talking about staying independent and none regulated (governments , banks, ... whatever) and that is what it is all about .
fundraising in our own community is done in my opinion, i did enough fundraisers here (for K Atlas, Video,...) and they worked, but we are past that by now.
we need a steady flow of funding , we are past crowdfunding for single projects, this is about the big picture

 

[TanteStefana]

Well, Bitcoin has more of an outside community willing to help, we're considered a nasty alt-coin to many still. That's why we need this. And I'd prefer that the DASH would have official wallets for every OS so, though anyone could make a "better" version, anyone who feels safer using the official wallet can.


I have an idea:

Those of us who feel we could come up with a solution, and have an angle to hash out, should start a thread. Call it "My Plan" or whatever name you want to give it and we can all visit the threads and see what we come up with. Taking the structures presented to the best conclusion we can. They should each be fundamentally different, though they may share aspects of the same thing, and when finished (maybe the first post consolidates the workable ideas and creates a proposal) Then we can see which one works best for us?

We could put them under
Development Tech Discussion

I'm going to start with what I wrote above. I'll call it the Core, Marketing and Contract out proposal or CMCO setup, LOL. I'll post it and probably disappear because I have a busy day tomorrow that I should get to bed for ;P

 

[TanteStefana]

Ok, I started my thread here: https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-s...lockchain-structure-proposal-cmco-model.4716/ I have not yet put my list of what I perceive as faults with this proposal.

We could use a proposal that sticks closer to what Evan proposes, IE, 15% across the board, what do you do with those funds over time?

Is it a possibility to fund on an as-need basis?

Please, if you like this idea, step up to the plate and come up with an alternative funding setup. Try to think like a programmer, as this is the foundational rules for the autonomous entity to abide.

Hope you like the idea

 

[JesseLivermore]

What a brilliant idea Evan and team have stumbled upon.
-A major online computer hardware seller like Newegg could create a proposal whereby they'll accept Dash as payment and offer 2% discount if paid in Dash in return for a big fat upfront 50k Dash deposit from this system.... I'd vote for that.
-An investment ETF-sponsoring firm creates a proposal to start the process for bringing DASH to Wall Street in ETF form in return for a 75k Dash deposit from the system... I'd vote for that.
-A proposal to create a Dash-mining warehouse full of x11 ASIC miners for 100k Dash with a goal of mining as much Dash as possible to an unspendable account and hoarding it... It's kind of nefarious but I might vote for that.
-A proposal to buy just a 10-second Dash Superbowl ad for 100k Dash....kind of Doge'ish but I might vote for that.
-A proposal to create a DAC based in Africa or Mexico which will solely exist to spread knowledge of Dash and put Western Union out of biz? I'd totally vote for that.
Possibilities are endless.
JL

 

[TanteStefana]

OK Jesse, what's the real problem with the proposal. Are you saying you don't trust the Masternode Network to vote in the best interest of the coin? They could be restricted to voting only on proposals approved by the community. Would that help?

 

[JesseLivermore]

OK Jesse, what's the real problem with the proposal. Are you saying you don't trust the Masternode Network to vote in the best interest of the coin? They could be restricted to voting only on proposals approved by the community. Would that help?

I'm saying this is a brilliant idea but I'm not even going to pretend like I know the best use of these funds because like I said the possibilities are endless.


Edit: just thought up another one, a proposal for $1 million worth of Dash to buy up the majority voting shares of a penny stock, then replace management with Dash leadership and create proposal to continuously fund that public corporation with 100k Dash every year... Voila Dash is publicly traded through a company whose sole assets are Dash. This opens the door to coveted investment funds going into crypto. Before you know it hedge funds and private equity firms will be running their own cryptocurrencies to emulate Dash.
JL

 

[moli]

I'm saying this is a brilliant idea but I'm not even going to pretend like I know the best use of these funds because like I said the possibilities are endless.


Edit: just thought up another one, a proposal for $1 million worth of Dash to buy up the majority voting shares of a penny stock, then replace management with Dash leadership and create proposal to continuously fund that public corporation with 100k Dash every year... Voila Dash is publicly traded through a company whose sole assets are Dash. This opens the door to coveted investment funds going into crypto. Before you know it hedge funds and private equity firms will be running their own cryptocurrencies to emulate Dash.
JL

LOL.....

 

[AnarchicCluster]

Edit: just thought up another one, a proposal for $1 million worth of Dash to buy up the majority voting shares of a penny stock, then replace management with Dash leadership and create proposal to continuously fund that public corporation with 100k Dash every year... Voila Dash is publicly traded through a company whose sole assets are Dash. This opens the door to coveted investment funds going into crypto. Before you know it hedge funds and private equity firms will be running their own cryptocurrencies to emulate Dash.
JL

This here borderlines with a genious. The only downside I see is being hugely exposed to financial regulation.

 

[balu]

This here borderlines with a genious. The only downside I see is being hugely exposed to financial regulation.

And what about the end result being a completely centralized corporation? Yeah, would be awesome.

 

[camosoul]

"wisdom of the crowd"

Woah, hold on there Icarus...

I've never observed any group of 5 people or more do anything even marginally intelligent... Ever. Not even once.

This proposal lacks one thing... Opt Out. What if an MN operator doesn't care? The previously published schedule may have been the basis for running the node(s). Now that portion is going to a dev pool, like it or not?

There seems to be no way to vote no on anything, if this is the case... The money is going to be sent to a project no matter what, so why bother voting at all? False choice. If there is no option to keep that percentage and abstain from the vote, it may as well be a tax... You either vote yes and get what you want, or you vote no and, you still lose the money and the yes votes, even if there's only one of them, still get what they want... No votes don't actually count because the funding is still taken.

Shit, that's worse than government currencies... The money is taken either way, so the vote is placebo. All projects will be performed no matter what since there is no real impact of voting no.

You have to be able to take the money away (keep it to yourself), or it's a sham. Without the option to defund, I may as well send my privkeys to the IRS... This doesn't work at all like it was described...

 

[Minotaur]

"wisdom of the crowd"

Woah, hold on there Icarus...

I've never observed any group of 5 people or more do anything even marginally intelligent... Ever. Not even once.

This proposal lacks one thing... Opt Out. What if an MN operator doesn't care? The previously published schedule may have been the basis for running the node(s). Now that portion is going to a dev pool, like it or not?

There seems to be no way to vote no on anything, if this is the case... The money is going to be sent to a project no matter what, so why bother voting at all? False choice. If there is no option to keep that percentage and abstain from the vote, it may as well be a tax... You either vote yes and get what you want, or you vote no and, you still lose the money and the yes votes, even if there's only one of them, still get what they want... No votes don't actually count because the funding is still taken.

Shit, that's worse than government currencies... The money is taken either way, so the vote is placebo. All projects will be performed no matter what since there is no real impact of voting no.

You have to be able to take the money away (keep it to yourself), or it's a sham. Without the option to defund, I may as well send my privkeys to the IRS... This doesn't work at all like it was described...

Not true at all, if you vote no to a project it will not get done. If an initiative that is initially funded is not going as expected then funding is retired and it stops. The basic principle is the masternodes as a group decide where to invest the money to develop the ecosystem as a group and it does not go to an individual like with foundations. Yes you do have to reinvest into the ecosystem, but that creates value that is good for everyone. How is it OK for miners to share with Masternodes and not OK for everyone to support the network? What is the alternative? To become a Litecoin or a Dogecoin with no value created and doomed to fail, the price comes from the innovation, added value features and adoption and that requires funding.

 

[alex-ru]

"wisdom of the crowd"
The money is going to be sent to a project no matter what, so why bother voting at all? False choice.

It would be so if we have only miners and ordinary users who may sell coins in a second.

But with Masternode operators situation is absolutely different! Because they care not about these 15% (You didn't ever own it - it is not a "tax"! You just can manage it - it is like having a "voting share"!), but they care about 100% they own long-term. Everybody cares about future of their money.

I think best voting system would be:

1. Nobody else (even majority) can't decide where "your" 15% will be spent. Only you can decide - exactly 100% your decision (it will be "Proof of Honesty" - nobody will feel as "unhappy voter").
2. But you can't spend it on anything you want (to eliminates affiliated project as a way of cashing in your amount).
3. You can only 2 options:

3a. Spend it only for some TOP projects, accepted by majority;
3b. Hold funds for future projects (Better projects accepted by majority in future).
​

 

[camosoul]

Not true at all, if you vote no to a project it will not get done. If an initiative that is initially funded is not going as expected then funding is retired and it stops. The basic principle is the masternodes as a group decide where to invest the money to develop the ecosystem as a group and it does not go to an individual like with foundations. Yes you do have to reinvest into the ecosystem, but that creates value that is good for everyone. How is it OK for miners to share with Masternodes and not OK for everyone to support the network? What is the alternative? To become a Litecoin or a Dogecoin with no value created and doomed to fail, the price comes from the innovation, added value features and adoption and that requires funding.

My point is that the money is gone either way... It's like a tax. The money is taken no matter what. What if every proposal is voted down? Money still in "escrow?" It's just gone? There is no real "no" vote here... What if there's nothing to spend it on? What if the decimal point moves 4 places to the right an 1% is more than needed?? This is worse than dealing with a government... If there's nothing to spend it on, why doesn't it come back to those from whom it was taken?

100% of the block reward goes to people who made a contribution to the function of the coin. MNs and Miners. I agree that Devs are left out of that, and they deserve something. But we're basically going to mine 40% into their "escrow" no matter if there's a job for them to do or not? No matter the exchange rate? When I decide not to fund a kickstarter project, guess what; kickstarter doesn't just take my money anyway... That's what government does. That's a tax forced upon you whether you like it or not. The money is taken by force and even if there's no need, they make some shit up to waste it on... Why bother voting no "on" a proposal if the funds are gone anyway? May as well vote yes cuz you're paying either way...

The vote doesn't actually do anything... I agree a plan SIMILAR to this is a good idea, but compulsory extortion no matter how you vote proves this is a false choice... Voting "no" doesn't actually defund anything, so why bother to vote "no?" This goes too far and ends up negating itself. So maybe no projects get funded. Nothing to pay a dev to do... But the money is still sitting taken and sitting in a supposed "escrow" waiting for some pork project? What if there's nothing left to do? This is a problem we already see in government. There's this budget that will exist no matter what, so better come up with some bullshit way to waste it and justify their existence. The option to do nothing needs to be on the table. The only realistic way to achieve that is to allow a no vote to result in retention of the funds by the node. Maybe there are interesting projects on the table, but none of more value than simply keeping the money? Not everyone sees it the same way.

A forced contribution to a giant collective pork barrel no matter how you vote, negates the concept of voting no. Why does the pork barrel keep growing with every block when there's nothing to spend it on? We need a "do nothing, keep the money" contingency, not a dev who steps in to re-write it when that bridge comes to pass.

I like most of this idea, but it's a bridge too far as tabled.

This also ignores the fact that time passes... Funds could build up. What if 49% vote no on a proposal, the 51% aren't enough to fund it, but guess what, there will be another block, and that 51% who want it just keeps building up until they can afford it.

If there's nothing to spend it on, why is it being taken anyway? If the exchange rate varies wildly, does not the percentage need to change, or does the "escrow" become a giant pork barrel? This smells really bad. Money not needed should go back where it came from or you risk all the same problems that government already shows us will happen...

Devs and Foundation-type activities need to be funded, no doubt. I'm not arguing against that. I want it! But behaving exactly as failed governance we already have... I think the up sides of this were considered, without thinking about the down sides. It's not a real "no" vote if you still have to pay for it either way. If I don't want a Beanie Baby, guess what? I don't buy it, and I KEEP MY MONEY. The concept of declining a thing, and also not paying for that thing, are inseparable. If you're going to be forced to pay for a thing no matter what, then, uh, it's a false choice. You're paying for the thing no matter what, so where's the vote, really? What if there's no need to pay for anything because there's nothing to do? What if the exchange rate goes to the moon and there's way more money than needed? Just invent bullshit projects to waste it on? A bunch of make-work jobs to pork up do-nothing devs and do-nothing projects? Why is the money still disappearing anyway? Who controls the giant pork barrel it is needlessly being pumped into? If you take a bunch of money and have no use for it, give it back. Or better, don't take it in the first place.

100% of the block rewards shold go to people who are DOING something to support the network. Devs are not a constant, but they do deserve something when they do something. Taking a percentage for them, whether they do anything or not, is horrendous. Why not just mine right into a random strangers' wallet for no reason?

 

[Minotaur]

My point is that the money is gone either way... It's like a tax. The money is taken no matter what. What if every proposal is voted down? Money still in "escrow?" It's just gone? There is no real "no" vote here... What if there's nothing to spend it on? What if the decimal point moves 4 places to the right an 1% is more than needed?? This is worse than dealing with a government... If there's nothing to spend it on, why doesn't it come back to those from whom it was taken?

100% of the block reward goes to people who made a contribution to the function of the coin. MNs and Miners. I agree that Devs are left out of that, and they deserve something. But we're basically going to mine 40% into their "escrow" no matter if there's a job for them to do or not? No matter the exchange rate? When I decide not to fund a kickstarter project, guess what; kickstarter doesn't just take my money anyway... That's what government does. That's a tax forced upon you whether you like it or not. The money is taken by force and even if there's no need, they make some shit up to waste it on... Why bother voting no "on" a proposal if the funds are gone anyway? May as well vote yes cuz you're paying either way...

The vote doesn't actually do anything... I agree a plan SIMILAR to this is a good idea, but compulsory extortion no matter how you vote proves this is a false choice... Voting "no" doesn't actually defund anything, so why bother to vote "no?" This goes too far and ends up negating itself. So maybe no projects get funded. Nothing to pay a dev to do... But the money is still sitting taken and sitting in a supposed "escrow" waiting for some pork project? What if there's nothing left to do? This is a problem we already see in government. There's this budget that will exist no matter what, so better come up with some bullshit way to waste it and justify their existence. The option to do nothing needs to be on the table. The only realistic way to achieve that is to allow a no vote to result in retention of the funds by the node. Maybe there are interesting projects on the table, but none of more value than simply keeping the money? Not everyone sees it the same way.

A forced contribution to a giant collective pork barrel no matter how you vote, negates the concept of voting no.

I like most of this idea, but it's a bridge too far as tabled.

The model of the coin would just change, it is not taking away from masternode operators, future rewards beyond 45% would go to support the ecosystem, masternodes are right now making 42.5% of the reward. Operators as a group would be tasked to execute the development funding in a decentralized and active way.

Miners were making 100% of the reward before masternodes were introduced. They don't get an option to decide they keep it, in fact when enforcement is off, everyone goes crazy. What is the difference? If it is as you say, then enforcement should be off period and miners get to decide if they share with masternodes. It just does not work that way, in this currency the rewards are divided to ensure the long term survival of the coin, and there are three pillars right now that have been identified as important: miners, development/promotion and masternodes. That balance would result in the most value produced for the most important group in the ecosytem: the end users. Value needs to be produced it is not just about sharing percentages, people need to benefit and find value from using our ecosystem as a currency not as an investment, so that the investment can also be a successful one, is not the other way around.

The model would change so no one would be taking anything "away" from masternodes just as nothing was taken "away" from miners. As a masternode operator you would need to decide if 45% direct reward, plus voting right on reinvesting 15% into your own project is a good proposition or not. Would it bring you equity and value? Would it serve well your end user? Just like miners everyone gets to decide whether that is a good business proposition or not. I think this model would serve me better than the previous one. About the mechanics of execution, we need together to find the best methodology, we could keep a reserve, and make adjustments. But the budget right now would be modest and not even at the level of a small business. If later on the coin explodes in value, then it means it is working and everyone in the ecosystem is being rewarded: users and investors.

 

[balu]

One thing was not clear to me. Let's say there are 5 projects that can be funded. Funding is done by masternodes voting every cycle.

I am interested in funding project A, but only 20 more masternodes are interested in funding project A. The vast majority is interested in funding project B, which needs a HUGE budget, and cannot be funded in one cycle. How is this handled?

To rephrase it: Can each masternode vote for a specific project with its share of the earnings, or would it be more like an election where the project with most votes win?
The difference might seem subtle at first, but in reality it could have an enormous effect on the end result of votings.

 

[camosoul]

The model of the coin would just change, it is not taking away from masternode operators, future rewards beyond 45% would go to support the ecosystem, masternodes are right now making 42.5% of the reward. Operators as a group would be tasked to execute the the development funding in a decentralized and active way.

Miners were making 100% of the reward before masternodes were introduced. They don't get an option to decide they keep it, in fact when enforcement is off, everyone goes crazy. What is the difference? If it is as you say, then enforcement should be off period and miners get to decide if they share with masternodes. It just does not work that way, in this currency the rewards are divided to ensure the long term survival of the coin, and there are three pillars right not that have been identified as important: miners, development/promotion and masternodes. That balance would result in the most value produced for the most important group in the ecosytem: the end users. Value needs to be produced it is not just about sharing percentages, people need to benefit and find value from using our ecosystem as a currency not as an investment, so that the investment can also be a successful one is not the other way around.

The model would change so no one would be taking anything "away" from masternodes just as nothing was taken away from "miners". As a masternode operator you would need to decide if 45% direct reward, plus voting right on reinvesting 15% into your own project is a good proposition or not. Would it bring you equity and value? Would it serve well your end user? Just like miners everyone gets to decide whether that is a good business proposition or not. I think this model would serve me better than the previous one. About the mechanics of execution, we need together to find the best methodology, we could keep a reserve, and make adjustments. But the budget right now would be modest and not even at the level of a small business. If later on the coin explodes in value, then it means it is working and everyone in the ecosystem is being rewarded: users and investors.

You're missing my point.

I'm not complaining about money hose shrinkage.

100% belongs to contributors. Devs and Foundation work are not constants. They deserve a percent when they do something. When they don't why do they still get the same percentage? The option to divide the excrow up and send it back to the nodes/miners when THEY DECIDE THAT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO DO WITH IT, needs to be on the table or we end up with a giant pork barrel that belongs to no one? Really? There's no such thing as "extra" money, somebody will have to make themselves look busy to waste it...

As tabled, this creates an open-ended money pit. Am I supposed to believe no one is skimming off of this? Why would you want to create a giant pork barrel if you didn't intend to grab it for yourself?

Lets put it another way...

When I unplug my miner, I don't keep on getting a piece of the pie. It goes back to the other miners.

If I take down my masternode, I don't keep getting MN payments.

If a Dev stops deving, or the MNs vote for no projects, why do they keep getting a piece of the pie?

It needs to go back where it came from, just like when I stop mining or take down my MN.

You can't leave it open ended, or it begs the question; who's getting all that pork?

If MNs vote to not do anthing, the funds need to be divied up and returned proportionately, or else we're just making a jackpot for pork project do-nothing devs... We need the option to send it back where it came from when there's nothing of value to do or else it gets abused, wasted, stolen, etc...

 

[crowning]

One thing was not clear to me. Let's say there are 5 projects that can be funded. Funding is done by masternodes voting every cycle.

I am interested in funding project A, but only 20 more masternodes are interested in funding project A. The vast majority is interested in funding project B, which needs a HUGE budget, and cannot be funded in one cycle. How is this handled?

To rephrase it: Can each masternode vote for a specific project with its share of the earnings, or would it be more like an election where the project with most votes win?
The difference might seem subtle at first, but in reality it could have an enormous effect on the end result of votings.

All projects with more than 50% yays are ordered by their absolute numbers of yays and then funded from top to down until there's no budget left any more.

If, at one time, the percentage of a project drops below 50% (you can change your vote whenever you want) it'll not be funded any more.
This doesn't necessarily mean the people involved would stop working on it (personally I wouldn't stop, but I'm not here for the money anyway), they just won't get DASH for it any more.