Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

[tungfa]

" NOTHING ELSE TO DO WITH IT,"
come on man. you have any idea how much there is to do here !
this is a long term plan, not for 1 wallet, or 1 iPhone app ... long term, coders are freaking expensive these days (since crypto) so to compete in this market we have to think of next year not tomorrow !

 

[balu]

Thanks for the clarification. While at first glance I'd oppose such a solution, I know (or hope) nothing is decided for good yet, so I'd gladly participate in the debate about this later.

 

[ichigo13]

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...

Who is stopping MN owners voting No all the time so that the money comes back to them even if there are good projects to be funded?

 

[camosoul]

Who is stopping MN owners voting No all the time so that the money comes back to them even if there are good projects to be funded?

Nothing. That's the point. If the MN operators can't place that option, then it's all funded all the time... Pork do-nothing projects can't be stopped. A piece of the pie is being pork barreled with no contribution... I don't keep getting MN payments when I take down my MN. Miners don't get paid when they turn off their miners. If there's nothing useful for a Dev to do, why do they still get paid? If "The Foundation" Is blowing funds on First Class tickets to Thailand to bone 14 year old hookers, how do we stop it? There has to be a "nothing useful, put the money back where it came from" option to make this a closed-ended system or else it'll be abused like any other giant pile of useless money...

This is supposed to be Proof of Service, not Dev welfare pork bullshit... We already have that, it's called government.

Some MN operators might vote no blindly all the time. But most are smart enough to realize that some projects are worth it. I thought that "Wisdom of the hoarde" was cited, yet it is immediately negated... Hmm...

This is very much like a shareholders' meting where nobody is allowed to say no...

I get the feeling nobody here has ever handled real money in real life... If there's a giant pile of cash, someone will make up bullshit jobs to spend it into their own pocket...

 

[alex-ru]

This is supposed to be Proof of Service, not Dev welfare pork bullshit... We already have that, it's called government.

Right. Anyway it's hard to make ideal system from the first try. We can adjust parameters and change scheme several times in future - to make it most effective. Just don't change % often - it will force investors to be nervous...

 

[GreyGhost]

If "The Foundation" Is blowing funds on First Class tickets to Thailand to bone 14 year old hookers, how do we stop it?

You, me, or all of us stop mining, close our MNs, sell our DASH and let them enjoy Thailand.

What is overlooked in this conversation thus far is this: when I invest in a stock of a company or in a share of a start-up, or even in the government bonds I GIVE them the money, hand it to them to USE as they wish (development, whore-mongering...) IMMEDIATELY and I do that in exchange for the hope of the FUTURE profit.

Here, our fiat money gets converted into DASH, we place it into a Masternode and we KEEP IT. Developers work BUT, unlike a corporation or a start-up, they CAN NOT touch our money / Dash! Even more so, the money / DASH I am having in my Masternode(s) is earning me PROFIT as I expect them to work for me and the fucking future of humanity for FREE!

To bicker should we "give" them a part of the profit or not is insane.

We should all be happy to participate, with such a small contribution (10% - 15% of the MN profit) and help them create a better future or leave it. And we have a voice (vote) in the future developments. And we can offer our own projects and ask for funds... I mean, come on...

 

[camosoul]

Right. Anyway it's hard to make ideal system from the first try. We can adjust parameters and change scheme several times in future. Just don't change % often - it will force investors to be nervous...

At this moment, it's a fatal flaw. This open and needs to be closed. I like most of the idea. But leaving it an open-ended pork barrel waiting to be abused is fatal.

 

[Minotaur]

Nothing. That's the point. If the MN operators can't place that option, then it's all funded all the time... Pork do-nothing projects can't be stopped. A piece of the pie is being pork barreled with no contribution... I don't keep getting MN payments when I take down my MN. Miners don't get paid when they turn off their miners. If there's nothing useful for a Dev to do, why do they still get paid? If "The Foundation" Is blowing funds on First Class tickets to Thailand to bone 14 year old hookers, how do we stop it? There has to be a "nothing useful, put the money back where it came from" option to make this a closed-ended system or else it'll be abused like any other giant pile of useless money...

This is supposed to be Proof of Service, not Dev welfare pork bullshit... We already have that, it's called government.

Some MN operators might vote no blindly all the time. But most are smart enough to realize that some projects are worth it. I thought that "Wisdom of the hoarde" was cited, yet it is immediately negated... Hmm...

This is very much like a shareholders' meting where nobody is allowed to say no...

I get the feeling nobody here has ever handled real money in real life... If there's a giant pile of cash, someone will make up bullshit jobs to spend it into their own pocket...

Not true at all, a proposal needs 51% + approval to get done, if it is bullshit it would not get done. Something else that does get approval and therefore is not bullshit would get done.

You keep saying the funds "returning" when these would belong to the network not the masternode operators. This option you are describing is exactly like having enforcement off. "Some miners might keep the coins all the time but others would understand the importance of sharing" how does that work out?

 

[balu]

Right. Anyway it's hard to make ideal system from the first try. We can adjust parameters and change scheme several times in future. Just don't change % often - it will force investors to be nervous...

Or preferably think a bit about the possible alternatives, and implement a good system in the first place. Speaking for myself I really hope a modified version of the idea will get implemented. While I agree with most of it, there are some details that could be tweaked, resulting in a system that will lead to less issues.

Rare occasion, but I agree with camosoul - I like most of the idea as well, but it definitely needs to be altered a bit BEFORE it gets implemented, as changing things after implementation is always more difficult.

 

[camosoul]

As it stands, there is no real "no" vote. There is only "yes" and "abstain." There is no "no."

99% of it is a damn brilliant idea. But it fails a foundational premise of crypto; closed-loop. You can't do a money-for-nothing scheme. Definitely not in the coin that invented the notion of Proof of Service...

There has to be an option to "put the money back, there's nothing worth spending it on." It's not about MN or mining profits... Get off that. It's about an open-ended pork barrel.

 

[tungfa]

At this moment, it's a fatal flaw. This open and needs to be closed. I like most of the idea. But leaving it an open-ended pork barrel waiting to be abused is fatal.

you are just so dam dramatic !

 

[camosoul]

you are just so dam dramatic !

The only entity that has ever survived such a behavior is government, because they can just print more money. That's the only way to live with that flaw. Do you propose we just fabricate more DASH out of nowhere to keep this idea from imploding? It's inflation, it only postpones the inevitable...

 

[Minotaur]

As it stands, there is no real "no" vote. There is only "yes" and "abstain." There is no "no."

99% of it is a damn brilliant idea. But it fails a foundational premise of crypto; closed-loop. You can't do a money-for-nothing scheme. Definitely not in the coin that invented the notion of Proof of Service...

There has to be an option to "put the money back, there's nothing worth spending it on." It's not about MN or mining profits... Get off that. It's about an open-ended pork barrel.

Well I most definitely feel there should not be any way in any option for some masternodes to have an option to just vote themselves more profit while others fund projects that benefit them. No way.

Fortunately we would have a vote to see if the new model gets approved so we dont all need to agree, the crowd can decide.

 

[camosoul]

Well I most definitely feel there should not be any way in any option for some masternodes to have an option to just vote themselves more profit while others fund projects that benefit them. No way.

Fortunately we would have a vote to see if the new model gets approved so we dont all need to agree, the crowd can decide.

The crowd voted to create so much debt in the USA that the country cannot possibly do anything but default on it...

There is no such thing as collective wisdom. When the crowd is dumb as shit, the crowd will destroy itself. The crowd is always dumb as shit.

I like almost everything about this idea, except the fatal flaw of being an open-ended pork barrel that encourages waste and abuse. Make it closed-ended. You present the idea of "wisdome of the crowd" and then immediately say "the crowd cannot be trusted becasue it will vote no all the time to keep the money."

Do you believe in the wisdom of the MN operators as a collective or not? You can't put the idea forward as a solution and then claim it's the problem in the very next sentence... You're running up against something you know is wrong when that happens.

 

[Minotaur]

The crowd voted to create so much debt in the USA that the country cannot possibly do anything but default on it...

There is no such thing as collective wisdom. When the crowd is dumb as shit, the crowd will destroy itself. The crowd is always dumb as shit.

I still disagree with you all the same. No option for some operators to keep more profits, while others fund development that benefits them. No way.

 

[camosoul]

I still disagree with you all the same. No option for some operators to keep more profits, while others fund development that benefits them. No way.

So, "wisdom of the crowd" except that the crowd will always do what is wrong so the crowd shouldn't get a choice. Your impossible, self-defeating argument proves the point.

An irrational paradox highlights the truth like nothing else... Thank you sir.

 

[sdef2]

just a small idea;
maybe something like an expire-date can be build in to the funds.
They need to be assigned to a project for a specific date (let's say 60 days from now), or otherwise they expire and return to miners/masternode rewards?

That way it prevents stockpiling up funds

 

[GreyGhost]

The crowd voted to create so much debt in the USA that the country cannot possibly do anything but default on it...

Such a nonsensical statement makes any attempt to converse with you on this topic beyond futile.

 

[GreyGhost]

just a small idea;
maybe something like an expire-date can be build in to the funds.
They need to be assigned to a project for a specific date (let's say 60 days from now), or otherwise they expire and return to miners/masternode rewards?

That way it prevents stockpiling up funds

This is how the discussion should go. Ideas - good or bad, feasible or not - not bickering or nonsensical arguments. Enough for now, Need to earn some fiat to convert to MN and support this wonderful project.

 

[Minotaur]

The crowd voted to create so much debt in the USA that the country cannot possibly do anything but default on it...

There is no such thing as collective wisdom. When the crowd is dumb as shit, the crowd will destroy itself. The crowd is always dumb as shit.

I like almost everything about this idea, except the fatal flaw of being an open-ended pork barrel that encourages waste and abuse. Make it closed-ended. You present the idea of "wisdome of the crowd" and then immediately say "the crowd cannot be trusted becasue it will vote no all the time to keep the money."

Do you believe in the wisdom of the MN operators as a collective or not? You can't put the idea forward as a solution and then claim it's the problem in the very next sentence... You're running up against something you know is wrong when that happens.

So, "wisdom of the crowd" except that the crowd will always do what is wrong so the crowd shouldn't get a choice. Your impossible, self-defeating argument proves the point.

An irrational paradox highlights the truth like nothing else... Thank you sir.

It is not a paradox, wisdom of the crowd where the operators pick the best projects to invest in and dismiss the poor ones, without an option to just pay themselves.

If we do it your way then we turn enforcement off too and let the miners decide if they want to contribute or not. Your way does not work.

 

[camosoul]

just a small idea;
maybe something like an expire-date can be build in to the funds.
They need to be assigned to a project for a specific date (let's say 60 days from now), or otherwise they expire and return to miners/masternode rewards?

That way it prevents stockpiling up funds

I thought of that too, but it's too static. Some projects may take a while to save up money. The vote needs to be a REAL VOTE.

Wisdom of the crowd, except when I don't like it, won't work. You either have real votes or you don't. "If you vote yes, it counts, if you vote no, it doesn't count" isn't a real vote system...

 

[camosoul]

It is not a paradox, wisdom of the crowd where the operators pick the best projects to invest in and dismiss the poor ones, without an option to just pay themselves.

If we do it your way then we turn enforcement off too and let the miners decide if they want to contribute or not. Your way does not work.

You're jumping to extremes.

The issue is not paying one's self more, but allowing miners to get paid even when they aren't mining. If devs aren't deving, they shouldn't get paid. Just like MNs that don't do their job shouldn't get paid, and miners that aren't mining shouldn't get paid.

If there is no project worth doing, the option to unplug that miner and not pay it needs to be an option. That means, by default, that the money stays in the contributing members, not continue to be given to non-contributors...

It is a false choice to say that I get to choose which project, or no project, but still pay for it when there is no Service. Proof of Service, I thought it was?

 

[Minotaur]

You're jumping to extremes.

The issue is not paying one's self more, but allowing miners to get paid even when they aren't mining. If devs aren't deving, they shouldn't get paid. Just like MNs that don't do their job shouldn't get paid, and miners that aren't mining shouldn't get paid.

If there is no project worth doing, the option to unplug that miner and not pay it needs to be an option. That means, by default, that the money stays in the contributing members, not continue to be given to non-contributors...

Of course if devs aren't deving they shouldnt get paid. You just vote no and they stop getting paid and you fund some other dev or project that does work. There is not an option where you need no dev, so there is no waste.

 

[camosoul]

There is not an option where you need no dev, so there is no waste.

So, your position is that the condition I am concerned with cannot exist, when it very much can exist in many obvious ways which I have described in the past 2 pages?

You just crucified yourself. The point was already solid, now it's some kind of Unobtanium/Adamantium alloy. Thank you again, sir.

Evan and Udjin are objective enough to see the truth in this, even if you are not.

 

[AndyDark]

This is the future

 

[Gi01]

May I add my 2nd-biggest concern (after the detractors, posted above)?

Democracy doesn't work, in business more than all

I am not saying that everything should be centralized, but it's pure utopia that ALL the MNs owners have the skill, the time and the vision to understand proposals.
Managing a company/business (we are leaving the pure tech area here) it's a different story from building a cryptocoin from the technical point of view.

We have plenty of evidence that this CAN'T work in the long run. A strategy has to be consistent. If we are going crazy about one idea THEN another THEN another (iterate n times) according to short term wins rather than long term scenarios, we'll just burn money and, as a consequence, the value of the asset.

As long as we are inside the tech area i am not skilled enough, and if we have head developers with ideas and project they deserve money.

But if we go into mktg, legal, any kind of deal that's a totally different story, and if this coin will be worth something we need a small group of people and not random votes from wannabes (no offence, guys)

If you want to study a case, look for "movimento 5 stelle" in Italy, that was able to get about 1/3 of the votes in the elections. The concept was brilliant ("we decide everything voting online etc") the esecution was terrible (how on earth someone that barely can do basic math is able to write a 5year plan for a whole State in the EU/Euro Macroarea?).

My 2 cents (and my MNs votes...)

BTW stop pushing the price up! I was thinking about putting some more but now you cost a lot!!!

 

[Minotaur]

So, your position is that the condition I am concerned with cannot exist, when it very much can exist in many obvious ways which I have described in the past 2 pages?

You just crucified yourself. The point was already solid, now it's some kind of Unobtanium/Adamantium alloy. Thank you again, sir.

Evan and Udjin are objective enough to see the truth in this, even if you are not.

Is not that, is just that your proposed solution is worst than the potential issue you describe. There should not be a way for the masternodes to pay themselves.

A more sensible approach is to start small and grow into it as we learn and get familiar with the new system.

 

[alex-ru]

Democracy doesn't work, in business more than all
I am not saying that everything should be centralized, but it's pure utopia that ALL the MNs owners have the skill, the time and the vision to understand proposals.

Largely agree - and there are solutions to this situations - different foundations (including Official one).

Let users have options vote not only for particular projects, but also for particular Foundations (just for example - "Tungfa PR fund", "Minotaur adoption fund", "Fernando legal fund" and so on...)
Such a foundations can offer a kind of "programs" and can spent money instant without further additional matching. Then report results to community - so everybody decide are they effective and whether they are worthy of further confidence.

Everybody can claim "I can do the same more effectively" and community will decide whom to trust. So system will be self and quickly adjusted.

 

[rango]

This proposal is outstanding, Evan and all other contributors!

1. We need to have 15% collected as fixed tax with no way to return. No MN owner has to do the decision "put money back to own pockets or invest in development". That way the question of greed is solved elegantly and he simply can focus on productive work and decide, wether a project should be funded or not. Exessive money can be saved for larger projects. The ideas to put money on will never stop. Yes, there will be waste of money. But even money invested with only 50% efficiency increases the value of DASH disproportionate. So it's worth it!

2. 40k USD monthly budget is nothing. Even 200-500k USD per month (taking future DASH value increase into account) is not much if we want to make this thing really big!

3. I suppose Evan and few other initial miners are still holding about 800k in DASH or equivalent in MN. So they have 33% of total voting power (given 2500 MN). So the rest of distributed MN operators still have the power to vote against or for critical projects with 66% of the votes. So even this point seems to be reasonably balanced right from the start.

 

[Walter]

I think what Evan is proposing is brilliant in many ways, however, I think Camosoul has a point. I can see both sides of the argument but ultimately any redistribution of block rewards into a slush fund to pay devs - no matter how democratic the process - is effectively a tax on productivity/income imo.

Wisdom of the crowd, for all it's positives, can also be countered with tragedy of the commons, an economic theory that is worth considering during the design process of creating a self-sustainable, self-governing, Decentralized Blockchain.

Walter