The Dash Super DAO

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,990
1,148
1,183
Intro

The recent interview with Evan Duffield seems to of caused a bit of a storm and for some it has re-enforced the notion that dash is becoming more centralised / corporate. Personally, I don't agree, though I can definitely see how such ideas come to be. I think, in this instance, Evan very poorly articulated his personal vision of the Dash DAO. I had the sense that this was more brainstorming / early ideas. But regardless of the facts, this notion of dash centralisation is definitely in the minds of the wider cryptosphere... and that's something that needs to be addressed.

My worry is not so much the centralisation of resources, but the centralisation of ideas...

Evan's Evolution

I think Evan's vision is that of many sub-DAO working like a network of cells. Some cells might work together while others might actually compete against each other. In practise, however, I think the dash network would end up more or less aligned and destined to a specific path. For example, Evan has his vision of Evolution, ATM / Kiosks, KYC etc. Evolution is basically a fancy wallet with supporting backend functions (the Distributed API etc).

Counter-DAOs

Now, it's entirely possible other wallets and counter-DAOs could be built on top of the Dash blockchain. For example, a Dash Social DAO might one day emerge with a very different vision, a counter-culture, all working from the same blockchain. But here's the problem; how can competing DAOs emerge if they are being defunded (down voted) by those aligned to Evan's vision?

Blue Pill, Red Pill - Blue DAO, Red DAO

What we need is the concept of a Dash Super DAO; the governance of governance. It's child DAOs would each have their own unique voting and funding mechanism. The current mechanism of 10% net yes votes would become the Blue Dash DAO (or "Evan's DAO"). Whereas a different funding mechanism would coexist and become, say, the Red Dash Dao. The idea is, a failed proposal in one DAO might still survive and thrive in a second DAO.

Why should we bother with multiple DAO funding? - because it directly confronts the idea that dash is centralised.. that a small group of people (relatively speaking) saying yay or nay to everything before their eyes. Sticking to a single funding model has the advantage of a clearly defined purpose, but it comes at the expense of losing business to other coins / DAOs.

Dash could consume the business of other coins / DAOs if it adopted similar mechanisms.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,990
1,148
1,183
Precisely why PivX et al exist, because every single one of them believes they have a better single model of operation. But what if a DAO had multiple mechanisms for voting and funding such that it took the wind out of all the others?
 
  • Like
Reactions: akhavr

JZA

Active Member
Jan 4, 2016
516
226
113
Cancun
alexandro.biz
Dash Address
XmZ3aBBWJdYa6hUJkWbTvwHMwMscmHQFNH
I like to call it CHO or centralized human organizations

Sent from my MotoE2 using Tapatalk
 

akhavr

Active Member
Oct 11, 2014
817
408
133
I don't get, if the project isn't funded by MNO (Blue DAO), who and how would fund it (Red DAO)? Are you talking about usual crowdfunding/ICO/venture investing, or something else?
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,990
1,148
1,183
I don't get, if the project isn't funded by MNO (Blue DAO), who and how would fund it (Red DAO)? Are you talking about usual crowdfunding/ICO/venture investing, or something else?
Yes, ideas like crowdfunding would be one option, though it should also incorporate it's own unique voting mechanism, separate to that of the Blue DAO.

Depending on the funding model, the block reward might need to be restructured (controversial). I imagine it might bring into being a new type of node; Blue DAO Masternodes and Red DAO Masternodes.

Of course, it's quite contentious but I'm thinking in the long term it's required. If dash doesn't do it, someone else will, by which time it's quite possibly game over. Can you imagine what happens if a DAO mimicked and combined the best governance and funding systems? Why would anyone want dash, decred or pivx if they could go to a Super DAO and fund their projects exactly the same way? Or, just as important, create a more diverse ecosystem by incorporating multiple voting mechanisms. Blue DAOs could claim to be legal and compliant, while Red DAOs might appeal to anarchists, yet both functioning on the one blockchain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stellabelle

joemoraca

Member
Interesting to think about. I am not sure how at the "code" level you could have competing teams both have commit access. If Red wants red_feature built in and Blue doesn't who wins? That is the definition of a fork. I don't include teams using different programming languages like the C++ version of Dash should be fine with the JAVA version of Dash if they are both using same block chain and have similar features. You can't have one team with inflationary Dash and the other without.

Having multiple teams with "slightly" different marketing messages might be able to coexist but at some point without a shared vision it seems you are doomed.

Having different DAO's working on different things like PR, base code, wallets, POS etc seems to be a great way to grow the ecosystem with the teams working together or competing on the "best xxxx" but with a common base feature set.
 
Last edited:

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,990
1,148
1,183
Interesting to think about. I am not sure how at the "code" level you could have competing teams both have commit access. If Red wants red_feature built in and Blue doesn't who wins? That is the definition of a fork. I don't include teams using different programming languages like the C++ version of Dash should be fine with the JAVA version of Dash if they are both using same block chain and have similar features. You can't have one team with inflationary Dash and the other without.

Having multiple teams with "slightly" different marketing messages might be able to coexist but at some point without a shared vision it seems you are doomed.

Having different DAO's working on different things like PR, base code, wallets, POS etc seems to be a great way to grow the ecosystem with the teams working together or competing on the "best xxxx" but with a common base feature set.
I don't know. So far, imo, dash happen to stumble upon the best ongoing funding model in crypto. HOWEVER, it's also gained a bit of a rep as being "centralised"... not necessarily centralised in the old sense, but more like elitist i.e. a few hundred (or thousand) people making lots of money with voting power, yet the majority of people are excluded from such club. Now, I am most certainly not here to preach socialism!!! - but the "them and us" argument is exactly why people are revolting from the banks. Equally, dash has no robust mechanism to ensure it's meeting the demands of it's users.

That's why I was thinking of the Blue and Red DAOs, because I was imagining a day when someone could say to their friends, "you should come over to Dash Red because so and so". If people are finding freedom between Blue and Red then at least it's still Dash The Super Dao, instead of switching to another coin to meet their needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stellabelle

joemoraca

Member
I don't know. So far, imo, dash happen to stumble upon the best ongoing funding model in crypto. HOWEVER, it's also gained a bit of a rep as being "centralised"... not necessarily centralised in the old sense, but more like elitist i.e. a few hundred (or thousand) people making lots of money with voting power, yet the majority of people are excluded from such club.
Well reality is real. MN owners do control all of the voting power in Dash. I see you are one and that is cool with me. Being a new Dash person it would take me $100K to become a MN owner now which is not happening. The reality is that the strength of Dash - self funding - makes that "elitist" tag visible where other coins that have much more centralization of ownership but its less public. The fact that my investment - if made 3 years ago - would allow me at least one MN but now does't get even 10% of one is not really "unfair" - since that investment if made 3 years ago could also have gone to $000.00

If "evolution" makes "savings accounts" with "share voting" that provides the "perception" of equality which is great - I want a savings account that pays "interest" but I am OK with the fact that the "whales" have more votes than I do.

As long as Dash is going in a direction I like I will stay. If things start going in a direction I disagree with me and my small investment will go.
 

akhavr

Active Member
Oct 11, 2014
817
408
133
Yes, ideas like crowdfunding would be one option, though it should also incorporate it's own unique voting mechanism, separate to that of the Blue DAO.

Depending on the funding model, the block reward might need to be restructured (controversial). I imagine it might bring into being a new type of node; Blue DAO Masternodes and Red DAO Masternodes.

Of course, it's quite contentious but I'm thinking in the long term it's required. If dash doesn't do it, someone else will, by which time it's quite possibly game over. Can you imagine what happens if a DAO mimicked and combined the best governance and funding systems? Why would anyone want dash, decred or pivx if they could go to a Super DAO and fund their projects exactly the same way? Or, just as important, create a more diverse ecosystem by incorporating multiple voting mechanisms. Blue DAOs could claim to be legal and compliant, while Red DAOs might appeal to anarchists, yet both functioning on the one blockchain.
Err.. No, I don't think that can fly. Besides completely valid point by @joemoraca , for me Dash is it's governance model. DarkSend and InstaSend are nice, buy secondary features, compared to the governance.

If something has two competing governance systems, it is, effectively, two different things.

I don't know. So far, imo, dash happen to stumble upon the best ongoing funding model in crypto. HOWEVER, it's also gained a bit of a rep as being "centralised"... not necessarily centralised in the old sense, but more like elitist i.e. a few hundred (or thousand) people making lots of money with voting power, yet the majority of people are excluded from such club.
Majority of people is not excluded. They vote by their bitcoins, dollars, euros, and attention. If they aren't satisfied by the actions of the elites^W Masternode Owners, they vote by selling their Dash.

Equally, dash has no robust mechanism to ensure it's meeting the demands of it's users.
Again, @joemoraca correcly pointed towards Evolution's "shared masternodes" via savings accounts.

Finally, the real power is not in holding stacks of Masternodes. Real power is in ability to create a compelling vision, organize people around it, and bring it to the reality. This is orthogonal to the price of masternode :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: joemoraca

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,990
1,148
1,183
Well reality is real. MN owners do control all of the voting power in Dash. I see you are one and that is cool with me. Being a new Dash person it would take me $100K to become a MN owner now which is not happening. The reality is that the strength of Dash - self funding - makes that "elitist" tag visible where other coins that have much more centralization of ownership but its less public. The fact that my investment - if made 3 years ago - would allow me at least one MN but now does't get even 10% of one is not really "unfair" - since that investment if made 3 years ago could also have gone to $000.00

If "evolution" makes "savings accounts" with "share voting" that provides the "perception" of equality which is great - I want a savings account that pays "interest" but I am OK with the fact that the "whales" have more votes than I do.

As long as Dash is going in a direction I like I will stay. If things start going in a direction I disagree with me and my small investment will go.
I agree with you. Some research and common sense would lead people like you and me to the same conclusion. But then again, there a lot of people in crypto that have unconditionally chained themselves to one tribe or another. And that's my point really, a multi-pronged approach can take the wind out of their argument, whether it's real or otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stellabelle

jimbursch

Well-known Member
Mar 5, 2017
837
502
163
57
Dash has successfully transitioned from the rule of a benevolent dictator to an oligarchy of MN operators that support the Core Team.

I suspect that the oligarchy does not have formal organization or leadership -- it's probably made up of people who have a cohesive shared vision as articulated originally by Evan that will remain cohesive through to the launch of Evolution. After or by the time Evolution is launched, the cohesiveness of the oligarchy will be challenged by competing ideas about "what next" and there will be political struggle over how the MN operators will organize themselves and manifest leadership. Then a new oligarchy will emerge.
 

stellabelle

Active Member
Mar 5, 2017
293
185
103
USA
medium.com
I agree that Evan's interview was a stream of consciousness diatribe. Most people who do not exercise stream of consciousness thought patterns get confused by it. I understood him perfectly as I tend to use this same style of thinking and speaking. And it did appear to contain several centralizing and what-could-be-construed-as corporate ideas, especially with the drivers license idea. Crypto people went nuts over that. The thing about Evan's delivery is that he doesn't pre-package his ideas for a particular audience. He free flows ideas, not thinking about how it will sound to one particular group. If you asked a general population about using their driver's license to get money, I doubt very many people would care. The crypto set does care and is the most vocal. In retrospect, Evan could have been more effective if he stated very clearly that the driver license idea would be totally optional and voluntary for those who don't mind using IDs.
After listening to Evan, it does appear that he envisions the Dash DAO of the future to contain many sub DAOs who can work independently or together. I do agree that in order to really grow in a healthy way, there might be a need to have the funding model follow an organic, decentralized approach. I like the idea of many sub-DAOs which are led by healthy and trustworthy people. Trust is the marker of growth. I've seen this happen in my other community, Steemit. When you have a trusted person leading, then you have massive growth.

The Red DAO sounds good, although there would need to be some kind of agreed upon structure for this one. I'm thinking that the people who don't own masternodes but who are committed to Dash are starting to make up more and more of the community. For starters, it could be those who have masternode shares, but who don't have a full masternode. Giving 25 Dash now, is no small amount, (25 is minimum for MN share).

Very thought provoking piece. The more we operate like a giant organism, with lots of different organs, duties and functions, the healthier Dash will be...
 
Last edited:

stellabelle

Active Member
Mar 5, 2017
293
185
103
USA
medium.com
I agree completely with you.
I am attracted to Decred for the exact reasons you've stated. I'm invested in Decred, and it does seem to get some things right (voting rights for regular people who don't have a ton of money). Of course other things, are not quite right, but I'm attracted to people have voting rights.....I support your idea 100%
 

stellabelle

Active Member
Mar 5, 2017
293
185
103
USA
medium.com
I agree that this will be necessary. Think of it this way, if I have already looked at Decred and thought, wow, this seems more fair than Dash, just imagine how many others have the exact same thought. We need to embrace all great ideas, no matter where they come from.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,990
1,148
1,183
I agree that this will be necessary. Think of it this way, if I have already looked at Decred and thought, wow, this seems more fair than Dash, just imagine how many others have the exact same thought. We need to embrace all great ideas, no matter where they come from.
Yes. The alts are playing out all these ideas and it's kind of like natural selection; survival of the fittest. Except that when you go to the next level, you realise some cryptos will emerge that are not just embracing the best ideas, they are inclusive of the best ideas. So in my mind, a small number of Super DAOs will emerge that will have their own unique little twist that keeps them relevant. Everything else simply becomes hobby coins.
 

dashakti

New Member
Apr 15, 2017
18
10
3
Well reality is real. MN owners do control all of the voting power in Dash. I see you are one and that is cool with me. Being a new Dash person it would take me $100K to become a MN owner now which is not happening. The reality is that the strength of Dash - self funding - makes that "elitist" tag visible where other coins that have much more centralization of ownership but its less public. The fact that my investment - if made 3 years ago - would allow me at least one MN but now does't get even 10% of one is not really "unfair" - since that investment if made 3 years ago could also have gone to $000.00

If "evolution" makes "savings accounts" with "share voting" that provides the "perception" of equality which is great - I want a savings account that pays "interest" but I am OK with the fact that the "whales" have more votes than I do.

As long as Dash is going in a direction I like I will stay. If things start going in a direction I disagree with me and my small investment will go.

I am a new to Dash too and feel the pain of not having invested in Dash earlier. That being said I am perfectly fine with the voting rights being exclusive to Masternodes.

There has to be some incentive for MNs to hold their Dash. The main two incentives right now is the ~10 to 12% returns every year and voting rights. With evolution, and the "savings account" feature, everyone will get some returns on their Dash, so the only real motivation to have a MN is for the voting rights.

I am not a big fan of one dash equals one vote idea. The last thing you want is day traders/ swing traders who have no interest in Dash development to buy dash, vote and then sell the dash and move onto to other crypto.
Think of it this way, imagine if citizens of other countries could become U.S. citizens for a month, vote in the U.S. elections/road/bridge development projects, and then return back to their country. Should this be encouraged/promoted?