Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

[TanteStefana]

Camosoul's basic concern, that it would be very bad to have pork barrel wasted funds, or even a huge savings account building to infinity and I completely agree. I just know there are many ways to skin this cat, and that the proposal put out is vague on a lot of things on purpose. But as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe said, "less is more and god is in the details" We will be hashing out those details together here, as we have been.

The way I see it, there are several ways to do this. 1. We could make a fund, pay for basic core development and marketing, then allow people to propose projects against this fund, vote on them, and fund what we can. Then, when the funds are not used up and a basic savings amount is reached, the rest of the funds could be returned to the system. Or, 2. We could make a fund, pay for basic core development and marketing and have the community decide what essential projects we need, create a specification and send it out to bid, and pay for those projects in order of importance and then again, return unspent funds each year. Or, 3. We could somehow create a system whereby core development and marketing costs are projected for the year or so, and the funds are deducted from mining rewards with a cap of 15%, on an as need basis. A constantly adjusted fund is created for this, or perhaps it could work more like a tax (accross the board tax) If everyone is in agreement that a certain project needs to be built, then funds are allocated and the tax is raised to pay for it. until the entire 15% is spent, or anything less than that.

There are probably other ways of doing this, just trying to break it down to a sentence :tongue:

In a practical sense for simple programming, and less arguing on not wanting to spend so much (in order to keep as much for themselves), a flat 15% goes to the fund is easiest. But in the future, that could end up being billions of dollars, all caught up in a pork barrel with everyone wanting to spend them on their pet projects, and who could possibly oversee so many projects? However, this % could also be adjusted yearly by the core team based on recommendations of the community. Or it could be hard programmed in to reduce each year assuming a constant value increase in each coin.

Oh hell, i could go on and on and nobody will read because it looks like a book, LOL

 

[fernando]

There is no such incentive and the argument is empty.

There is a need to balance pork with productivity and have the option to pull the plug on non-contributory members, just like unplugged miners or MNs that don't MN.

MN operators, and everyone hodling, want the decimal point to more left. But presuming that there wil always be a worthy project is short-sighted. Evan is talking about an ecosystem that outlives him. You can't hand that ecosystem over to a know pork death already exemplified by government. We know for absolute certainty that this doesn't work, we're surrounded by it every day, and is the very driving force for why crypto came into being... So we scuttle the ship in the very thing we're trying to avoid? in 20 years, what do we need this for? Why is it still being skimmed off and handed to devs/foundation for no reason?

Entitlement brats don't ever think ahead. They just squander their welfare and party on the moon until it's gone and then they want more handed to them, oh, look, a pork barrel, lets pretend to do work so we can mooch it...

I have to disagree about the incentive. There is such an incentive. I'm not donating any part of my masternode proceeds and I know there are worthy causes for the coin. I don't donate because I feel that my very few masternodes would make little difference and I fucking like the coins I get. I feel that I have donated enough already, so I don't. I care about myself more.

I know I'm not alone in that feeling. If we are all so awesome that we only have the coin's best interest in mind, why there are so few donations? and I don't buy the "it is difficult/I don't know where or to whom" argument. I think there is widespread consensus that people like Flare or UdjinM6 deserve to get paid and their addresses are public, so anyone interested in donating can do it already. You don't even need to set up anything automatic, you can just send a payment. If we don't donate is because we are humans and we look after ourselves first. And that is ok, that is what makes humans great. Looking after ourselves first have taken us far, but we can't negate the evidence.

Btw, in the part of my message that you don't quote I was suggesting to send the coins back after some time if they were not used in deserving projects. I like base zero budgeting and I don't want stupid projects getting fund either.

 

[fernando]

I kinda thought of the same thing last night.
Alot of the masternode owners are using masternode services.
Will there be any method for the actual owners to vote, or is voting only possible from 'command line' on the actual masternode?
Maybe we should find a way to vote without actually having cli access to your masternode ? Somekind of webinterface might be easiest(?).

The voting is done in the local wallet, so those with managed masternodes still can vote by themselves.

 

[alex-ru]

I was suggesting to send the coins back after some time if they were not used in deserving projects.

Proposal:
If MN operator can't dispose of "his" developing budget by himself for 1-2 years - these funds must be automatically sent to Official Foundation multi signature address - so these funds will be used (even If it wouldn't be as effective as in case MN-operator decided by himself) to develop DASH project anyway.

 

[thelonecrouton]

I have to disagree about the incentive. There is such an incentive. I'm not donating any part of my masternode proceeds and I know there are worthy causes for the coin. I don't donate because I feel that my very few masternodes would make little difference and I fucking like the coins I get. I feel that I have donated enough already, so I don't. I care about myself more.

I know I'm not alone in that feeling. If we are all so awesome that we only have the coin's best interest in mind, why there are so few donations? and I don't buy the "it is difficult/I don't know where or to whom" argument. I think there is widespread consensus that people like Flare or UdjinM6 deserve to get paid and their addresses are public, so anyone interested in donating can do it already. You don't even need to set up anything automatic, you can just send a payment. If we don't donate is because we are humans and we look after ourselves first. And that is ok, that is what makes humans great. Looking after ourselves first have taken us far, but we can't negate the evidence.

Btw, in the part of my message that you don't quote I was suggesting to send the coins back after some time if they were not used in deserving projects. I like base zero budgeting and I don't want stupid projects getting fund either.

I'm with you on this, once that money is in my wallet you'd need a crowbar to pry it back out, but ticking a box in-wallet to allocate a portion of future block rewards to a a well thought out and presented proposal that I believe will increase the value of my DASH... is an entirely different animal.

If I like a proposal and think they can pull it off, I'll tick that box without hesitation, because I'm not spending my money, I'm voting that future block reward, which is diverted from everyone, is spent.

Two different things.

 

[alex-ru]

If I like a proposal and think they can pull it off, I'll tick that box without hesitation, because I'm not spending my money, I'm voting that future block reward, which is diverted from everyone, is spent.

It sounds like exclusion from the rule...
How much it can get? My prediction is:
5% of MN operators * 10% of their earning = 0,5% of new coins - for first "enthusiastic month"
And after 2-3 months they will see they are paying for everybody and result will become even worse, I expect
3% of MN operators * 5% of their earning = 0,15%

It is just not enough. And this is a very unfair system. We can see it with existing (Bitcoin, ...) systems - do not expect a miracle with DASH about it.

 

[thelonecrouton]

It sounds like exclusion from the rule...
How much it can get? My prediction is:
5% of MN operators * 10% of their earning = 0,5% of new coins - for first "enthusiastic month"
And after 2-3 months they will see they are paying for everybody and result will become even worse, I expect
3% of MN operators * 5% of their earning = 0,15%

It is just not enough. We can see it with existing (Bitcoin, ...) systems - do not expect a miracle with DASH.

They are not 'paying for everybody.'

If 51% of MN ops think it's a good idea, block reward from all infrastructure providers gets diverted towards the project and it gets done. If not, whoever wants to spend the money will have to do more work to persuade people to support their idea.

You can not 'see it with existing Bitcoin systems' because they don't have a proposal/voting system in place to divert future block rewards to projects that a majority/consensus deem worthy.

I agree with you one one thing though: electorate participation is likely to be relatively low as time goes on, which is exactly why 15% (or any %) should not be automatically allocated to the pot each and every block.

When you have Tungfa and Minotaur repeatedly saying, "$40000 a month is nothing!" and, "$500000 a year isn't even enough to run a small business!" you know that every available penny is going to get squandered in an orgy of cronyism without effective consensual oversight. Maybe to our resident Rothschilds these amounts barely qualify as pocket change, but to most people $40000 a month is a lot of money and how it is spent should require some goddamn effort on the part of those wishing to spend it.

 

[alex-ru]

If 51% of MN ops think it's a good idea, block reward from all infrastructure providers gets diverted towards the project and it gets done.

Your proposal is better then individual donations, but:
1. I don't think miners and investors "will be happy" about fact that MN op's can unpredictably "diverted" any amount at any time.
2. It have lots of administrative work - it is not a "stable system", it is "manual management".
3. Also it'll be hard to plan anything serious, urgent or long-term.
4. ...

But MN ops must vote for better system (as they think) before it starts. And change it later if it doesn't work as expected.
So there is no risk of making "fatal mistake" now.

 

[thelonecrouton]

Your proposal is better then individual donations, but:
1. I don't think miners and investors "will be happy" about fact that MN op's can unpredictably "diverted" any amount at any time.
2. It have lots of administrative work - it is not a "stable system", it is "manual management".
3. Also it'll be hard to plan anything serious and long-term.
4. ...

But MN ops must vote for better system (as they think) before it starts. And change it later if it works not as expected.
So there is no risk of making "fatal mistake" now.

1. They ought to be happier than, "15% is going to get spent regardless."
2. Decentralisation implies devolvememnt of responsibility. Fulfilling that responsibility needs a minute of your time now and again to cast a vote. After that the system/blockchain takes care of things.
3. No it does not. The only difference is that a project team actually has to present a credible case first to get funds allocated. As it should be. As Camosoul said, if voters don't have a real "No" they aren't going to bother at all, and as you said participation is likely to be low anyway - there are hundreds of MN ops but only a small fraction are even here to expressa any opinion at all - so under the proposal as initially presented in the OP, all sorts of worthless shit is going to get rubber stamped by the proposers themselves without any opposition.

The proposal in the OP should be changed from "Decentralised Governance By Blockchain" to "Automated Cronyism By Blockchain" because that's exactly what's going to happen if this goes ahead unmodified.

 

[alex-ru]

1. They ought to be happier than, "15% is going to get spent regardless."

Two different mental situations:

1. Predictably accumulating stable budget FOR RD&marketing from nobody (it doesn't harm anyone).
2. Unpredictably "diverting" funds FROM everybody.

Just imagine situation: 55% MN ops decide to finance "Decentrilized exchange" (or even worse - something for MNs) - unpredictably "diverting" funds FROM 100% of miner (also from dissent 45% MN ops).
It'll be hell: "They are robbing us! Why is MY money going to that f*cking exchange - I don't need it! I didn't accepted it! How can these 55% decide where my money is going!?" and so on.

OK, just IMHO.

Anyway only community can vote for best system to implement.

 

[thelonecrouton]

Two different mental situations:

1. Accumulating stable budget FOR RD&marketing from nobody (it doesn't harm anyone).
2. Unpredictably "diverting" funds FROM everybody.

Just imagine situation: MN ops decide to finance "Decentrilized exchange" (or even worse - something for MNs) - "diverted" funds FROM miner (also).
It'll be hell, miners: "They are robbing us! Why MY money is going to that f*cking exchange - I don't need it!" and so on.

What? Money is being diverted from miners either way, but one way means that it only gets diverted if a majority of voters wish it, the other way means it gets diverted anyway and nobody has a say in the matter.

 

[moli]

The voting is done in the local wallet, so those with managed masternodes still can vote by themselves.

What about shared masternodes? Suppose there are 10 people sharing a MN, who gets to vote? All of them or none of them?

 

[alex-ru]

What about shared masternodes? Suppose there are 10 people sharing a MN, who gets to vote? All of them or none of them?

I think It should be defined by the charter of the corresponding MN-shared-hosting service.

 

[moli]

I think It should be defined by the charter of the corresponding MN-shared-hosting service.

What's that? charter?

 

[fernando]

What's that? charter?

The agreement they have entered into to create that MN.

In a shared masternode there should be only one vote because any other thing would be unfair for the other MNs. How they reach agreement is something they'll have to work out among the participants.

 

[moli]

The agreement they have entered into to create that MN.

In a shared masternode there should be only one vote because any other thing would be unfair for the other MNs. How they reach agreement is something they'll have to work out among the participants.

Fair enough.

 

[Gi01]

Cool to see that we can't reach consensum even now

How about working a bit more as a company? Internal crowdfunding is very hard to reach. I really think this is a great idea but we need some tuning, or it will destroy rather then build.

 

[David]

Cool to see that we can't reach consensum even now

How about working a bit more as a company? Internal crowdfunding is very hard to reach. I really think this is a great idea but we need some tuning, or it will destroy rather then build.

I don't know, I count two people so far who are against the proposal. One of whom lost all credibility a long time ago with "OMG Evan broke my walletz and all my coinz is gone. Darkcoin is broke sell sell sell" and "Darkcoin is obviously broken because even though hundreds of other people can figure out how to set up a masternode it's not working for me so I'm out of here."

Weighing those two voices against the several dozen that have lauded the proposal both here and on BCT and I think you're pretty damn close to a consensus. Code the system, push the update, and find out!

 

[thelonecrouton]

What about shared masternodes? Suppose there are 10 people sharing a MN, who gets to vote? All of them or none of them?

The shared MN I run has shareholders in the ratio 5:2:1:1:1 so I was going to run it as 1 (sub)vote per 10% share. As wallet holder I'll cast the vote.

Hopefully there will be a method for my shareholders to verify that I have indeed voted as I should have, via some RPC call or something so that anyone can see how an MN address voted on whatever issue.

 

[darkwing]

What? Money is being diverted from miners either way, but one way means that it only gets diverted if a majority of voters wish it, the other way means it gets diverted anyway and nobody has a say in the matter.

I hear what you are saying (even if I find the language you are using unnecessarily antagonistic) the trouble I'm having with what you are proposing is how to cycle the project funding up and down. It sounds massively complicated to do. Also there will be a combination of budget and project. And create more of a hell no situation whereby people react to the their payments as miners or MN dropping periodically for something some of them don't want. Where as with the set route payments are regular.

The set amount route means their is a pot to compete for. You see this as the route to cronyism I see this as the route that will bring in a lot of new/outside people competing to get things done and get some money to achieve it. I see that as a good thing. Some things you will agree with some not. Some will work better than others. Such is life.

If you don't like a project/budget/just vote no. If you do vote yes.

To me no has to count as no not abstain and a certain majority has to be reached according to % spend.
Instead of yes/no/abstain it could be a scale of 1 to 10 as in disagree strongly to agree strongly thereby gathering opinion as well as vote. Or 5 to -5 or whatever.

However it is done is better than people trying to outshout/ "win" debates with each other on forums. (That is a general comment not a dig at you.)

 

[Gi01]

I don't know, I count two people so far who are against the proposal. One of whom lost all credibility a long time ago with "OMG Evan broke my walletz and all my coinz is gone. Darkcoin is broke sell sell sell" and "Darkcoin is obviously broken because even though hundreds of other people can figure out how to set up a masternode it's not working for me so I'm out of here."

Weighing those two voices against the several dozen that have lauded the proposal both here and on BCT and I think you're pretty damn close to a consensus. Code the system, push the update, and find out!

I am not against the proposal at all!

I am saying that the concept needs further optimization. I don't think that 50%+1 of the nodes will vote Y, I don't think 50%+1 of the nodes (much less actually) will have the competence to understand what is more or less important to queue, I don't think that 50%+1 of the nodes will be able to evaluate a proposal being adequate from the technical/business/mktg/operation/whatever point of view

I think we need just to fix this "excess" of democracy and give more power (and responsibilities) to someone that is able to lead the process accordingly

 

[David]

I am not against the proposal at all!

I am saying that the concept needs further optimization. I don't think that 50%+1 of the nodes will vote Y, I don't think 50%+1 of the nodes (much less actually) will have the competence to understand what is more or less important to queue, I don't think that 50%+1 of the nodes will be able to evaluate a proposal being adequate from the technical/business/mktg/operation/whatever point of view

I think we need just to fix this "excess" of democracy and give more power (and responsibilities) to someone that is able to lead the process accordingly

Not referring to you at all. I agree that the idea needs to be fleshed out and optimized. I'm sure it will be awhile before we see this in code.

My point was that the only two people who appear to be dead-set against this are lonecrouton and camosoul. Everybody else either a) thinks it's a good idea, or b) thinks it's workable after some modifications.

In the Dash network, for purposes of enforcement, we consider 80% a consensus. I think we have consensus here: that the basic idea is sound, even if it needs more work.

 

[Minotaur]

I don't know, I count two people so far who are against the proposal. One of whom lost all credibility a long time ago with "OMG Evan broke my walletz and all my coinz is gone. Darkcoin is broke sell sell sell" and "Darkcoin is obviously broken because even though hundreds of other people can figure out how to set up a masternode it's not working for me so I'm out of here."

Weighing those two voices against the several dozen that have lauded the proposal both here and on BCT and I think you're pretty damn close to a consensus. Code the system, push the update, and find out!

That is because some people enjoy being argumentative.

About the project itself,

-The emission is the same whether you direct a portion of the rewards to the development of the ecosystem or not. It means the coins are going to the market no matter what. The network needs to decide what is the best way to direct those funds so that it can ensure, mining, development, promotion and masternode operation.

A good way to think about it, is asking yourself. What would benefit a regular Dash end user the most? These are the people that are not miners or masternode operators. The emission dillutes the capital of the regular user no matter what, whether it goes to masternode operators or miners. So is it not better for the regular user for a portion of rewards to be directed at the development and promotion of the ecosystem, as his only chance for profit is actual coin appreciation and that can only come from value created?

-The rewards initially belong to the network and the network should distribute it depending on what it needs, this is the Dash model where 100% of the reward does not go to mining(securing the network), it has changed before to incentivize what was most needed at the moment, and now it is looking to ensure it can develop and grow in an independent way. What if Evan says tomorrow that he honestly can not continue working on this full time and that he is going to have to get a job? Same with Udjin, what do we do then? Go to MIT, they wont bail out Dash, we need to learn from Bitcoin experience.

- The business model is changing, masternode operators don't get to keep the development funds as they simply dont belong to them, they belong to the network. This is also not a donation model, you can only donate what belongs to you. Masternode operators are just chosen as an assembly of stewards because they have a vested interest in the future of the network. Also they all keep their capital, so they get to keep their capital, receive 45% direct reward and vote on how to reinvest 15% of the emission. That sounds like a good deal to me.

- Everything babygiraffe has said since this discussion started. Seriously, read all his posts.

About the mechanics,

I certainly agree we need to define some of the mechanics, and I would love to hear Evan's ideas after he has been reading all the feedback.

- I like Tao's idea of maybe having a revision every 24 months, that could be an option.
-

 

[Gi01]

In a company, 24 months is a lot (as in technology, let me say).

Let's see what happens with proposal version 0.2

 

[thelonecrouton]

My point was that the only two people who appear to be dead-set against this are lonecrouton and camosoul.

This is blatant nonsense. Neither of us have said any such thing. I just think the process needs modifying to prevent waste and abuse.

That is because some people enjoy being argumentative

Or maybe it's because we care about the project and know full well how this is going to play out?

I can see the $$$ signs whirring in the eyes of certain folk who have Evan's ear, they think they've hit the jackpot with a perma-fountain of easy money here.


I've made my case, I'll shut up. Unless Moli wants to step in and give me some rough stuff.

 

[tungfa]

I can see the $$$ signs whirring in the eyes of certain folk who have Evan's ear, they think they've hit the jackpot with a perma-fountain of easy money here.

BS all the way !
really, this nonsense with
"the rich people are whispering into evan's ear"
"$$ signs of people who whisper into evan's ear"
bla bla bla

is this really what you are thinking of the Dev Team and Foundation ?
WTF happened to you

 

[alex-ru]

Let's keep friendly and positive - because we have much to be proud.

 

[TanteStefana]

They are not 'paying for everybody.'

If 51% of MN ops think it's a good idea, block reward from all infrastructure providers gets diverted towards the project and it gets done. If not, whoever wants to spend the money will have to do more work to persuade people to support their idea.

You can not 'see it with existing Bitcoin systems' because they don't have a proposal/voting system in place to divert future block rewards to projects that a majority/consensus deem worthy.

I agree with you one one thing though: electorate participation is likely to be relatively low as time goes on, which is exactly why 15% (or any %) should not be automatically allocated to the pot each and every block.

When you have Tungfa and Minotaur repeatedly saying, "$40000 a month is nothing!" and, "$500000 a year isn't even enough to run a small business!" you know that every available penny is going to get squandered in an orgy of cronyism without effective consensual oversight. Maybe to our resident Rothschilds these amounts barely qualify as pocket change, but to most people $40000 a month is a lot of money and how it is spent should require some goddamn effort on the part of those wishing to spend it.

And this is the heart of the issue. How do you get, possibly as many as 1000 people to vote every time a proposal is put before the community? How do you ensure the funds are spent wisely, and if DASH becomes worth the equivalent of 1000 Euro/Dollars, will we need 40,000,000 a month to pay for infrastructure/core development, etc?

I think we all agree we need a checks and balance system and a flexible payment structure. Question is, how is it built? And how do you get 51% of the vote on each project funded, on each "report card" of the project to see if funding continues, etc...? THAT is the challenge. NOW is the time for us to put our money where our mouth is. We complain about how wasteful the government is, yet they too have to deal with a huge infrastructure. Can we come up with a better system now that there is a blockchain? How smart are you guys? This includes me, with at least 34 years of complaining behind me

 

[TanteStefana]

Your proposal is better then individual donations, but:
1. I don't think miners and investors "will be happy" about fact that MN op's can unpredictably "diverted" any amount at any time.
2. It have lots of administrative work - it is not a "stable system", it is "manual management".
3. Also it'll be hard to plan anything serious, urgent or long-term.
4. ...

But MN ops must vote for better system (as they think) before it starts. And change it later if it doesn't work as expected.
So there is no risk of making "fatal mistake" now.

That's true, we're still young, we can back up and change the structure still, especially with the spork. Yet, at some point, the spork must be gotten rid of because it puts too much power in a trusted authority (unless it is modified to merely drop the network back to the last wallet somehow instead of turning enforcement off - but I think that will soon be resolved anyway, as enforcement has only affected MN payments)

As far as the diverted coins, the coins were marked to go to the Masternodes. It's the masternodes that are having their funds diverted this time, like it happened to the miners. So income for the miners is not changing.

 

[TanteStefana]

BS all the way !
really, this nonsense with
"the rich people are whispering into evan's ear"
"$$ signs of people who whisper into evan's ear"
bla bla bla

is this really what you are thinking of the Dev Team and Foundation ?
WTF happened to you

Tungfa, I have to say, though I don't think this way of anyone NOW, I know con-men will come in when they smell money. And con-men are good at conning! We need to make this with checks and balances, and a way to encourage spending only what needs to be spent. I'm not worried about the immediate future, as we could probably use 1 million dollars a year, and are only proposing half that at the moment. But as the funds become worth more, the fund could get huge in value. If it's not spent, it will hurt liquidity, if it's spent, it may be wasteful and abused.

But I have no doubt we will come up with a flexible solution. A LOT can be done to ensure productivity at a decent price, and a return of funds to the ecosystem when there is an abundance.

There have to be definitions:

What the core development team is expected to do, what is the maintenance responsibility?

Marketing may be the easiest, as a certain % could be allocated toward marketing, and of course, oversight on how well they're spending those funds.

Other projects should have strict requirements. Something like, does this project benefit the whole DASH ecosystem? Maybe my beloved decentralized exchange doesn't meet the requirement?

This can all be coded into a decentralized autonomous corporation/entity whatever you want to call it. Don't worry how it'll be coded, that's for the developers to do, worry about. Don't put up road blocks in your heads. Think of how it can work, the rest will come! Anything you can think of can be implemented.