Universal Dividend and Web of Trust for Dashcoin

IMO, the budget system does need to change, but the "voting with numbers" method that you are describing is a really bad idea. I think we should accommodate for the minority to be heard, and responded to, but if one person or an extreme minority thinks that the entire block reward should go to x, that doesn't mean we should actually divide their vote by the total votes and give them that percentage to do x. That's just not a good way to do governance in my opinion. You will also find that even if a particular idea is popular, that doesn't mean it is technically feasible and no amount of voting or fundraising can fix that.

If you really do want to proceed with a budget proposal on this, if you are willing to provide the funds for the proposal (5 DASH), I do hope someone here will be willing to assist you to submit it to the network. From what we have seen from the responses on the forum though, don't get your hopes up that the masternodes will respond much differently.

 

Are you talking about budget allocation, or are you talking about project direction? Because what you are proposing would involve both an allocation from the budget and a major change in the project direction from a technical standpoint. Even if you had the funds approved in the budget, this would not do anything to actually implement this universal dividend you keep asking for.

If there is a less-than-5% minority opinion about the project direction, the core developers are obligated to completely redesign the entire project vision to accommodate this? If 1% of people say, "I think we should change the protocol and increase the block reward 1,000,000-fold", and 99% of people think this is a bad idea, this means that in order to be "fair" we should only increase the block reward by 10,000 times? If ten people say they want the developers to build 1000 square circles, and 990 people (including the developers) say no this is a bad idea, then why should that mean in order for the developers to respect the minority, they should endeavor to build only 10 square circles? This is clearly not a good model. The core developers can't be rewriting the whole protocol to implement every idea that gets put forward.

The people who are working on this project don't seem to share your vision of what this cryptocurrency needs to be like. If you don't like it, or if you can find a group of developers who share your vision, then build it, compete in the marketplace and prove us all wrong! But I think we've gotten to the point here where many of us have heard your arguments and although I can't speak for everyone, it seems we just don't share your vision, and don't agree with your economic model. I don't mind that you are having us talk about your ideas, but it's an entirely different thing if you insist that we accommodate them.

 

@demo, I agreee with you in that aspect. I also do NOT like democracy, but I am coerced (by use of force, aggression threats from the governments) to submit myself to it.

I don't like democracy exactly due to the reason you brought: "it does not respect minorities". The only real minority is the individual. And, as you have said, the individual is ignored in democracy.

Now, back to DASH's budget voting system. One of the rules assures us that

"only proposals that reach a minimum threshold of acceptance from the community of voters will have the right to be funded from the communal budget."​

Mind you that this threshold is not even something incredible, like a 51% or a 75% threshold. Much to the contrary, it is a much lower one.

So, it doesn't mean that the MAJORITY of voters must agree with an idea for it to be approved. But, at least, there is a minimum margin of consent that will justify the delivery of common monnies to some project. One can say that DASH established a "moral limit": or better, a clear limit that signs when it is a morally acceptable decision to fund some proposal from its budget.

Now let's say that a proposal is not good enough to convince even 10% of voters (like the one brought in OP, for instance). Would it still be morally acceptable to fund it with "community money"?

As I have said before, MORALLY, the only REAL MINORITY is the INDIVIDUAL. If an eventual group of individuals believe in an idea, but most of the other individuals from the community does not want it, it would be a CRIME to have this idea funded from the common budget!

In this case, the morally acceptable is that each interested individual provides money from his own pocket, instead of forcing all others to consent.

Or else, the dissatisfied should better go away from the community, create a parallel community with its own budget (secession), for instance: that would be the morally correct decision.

 

In this instance are you referring only to the hardcoded block reward allocation? 45% PoW miners, 45% masternode miners, and 10% DGBB?
Debating the merits of those allocations is entirely different from debating the merits of funding and implementing a universal dividend.

 

The Devil will use NUMBERS to justify his acts.

 

Sorry, but I refuse to acknowledge moral relativism.

 

Yeah I'm not saying your method is valid for either case, but I'm trying to get an idea of what point you are trying to make.
If we are trying to answer the question "Who decides what the block reward allocation is?", currently the answer to that doesn't involve a vote. The only piece that gets decided via a vote is how the 10% from the DGBB gets distributed. And the way the voting works within that 10% is that proposals compete and the proposals with the most support get funded. It won't work if proposals only get partially funded based on the percentage of yes votes.

 

Can you at least put forward the model you are going for by answering some of these questions in your ideal cryptocurrency? Even though I really don't think any of the changes you are describing will ever happen, why not go down your rabbit hole as a thought exercise.

How is the percentage of the block reward going towards DGBB determined?
What is the criteria (if any) for a DGBB proposal to be funded at all?
Do proposals always get entirely funded with respect to the requested amount, and if not, how is the funding amount determined?
What happens when there are many proposals that are popular and the amounts exceed the DGBB total allocation, or even the entire block reward allocation?

 

Wow !
Discussions on democracy here on a forum for a payment tool ... Fascinating !

I may be a Newbie here, yet it's not my first cruise.

Democracy comes to us from the ancient Greek.
Pretty much, it is defined as Mob Rule.

All mobs become irrational.

In my years, perhaps the best example of democracy in action would be described as 3 wolves and 1 sheep, sitting down at the table and taking a vote upon what to have for dinner.

IMO, the DASH PoW/PoS method of voting masternodes should be quite representative of direction DASH needs to go in order to provide the best service to the most people.

Best
rc

 

Man, this is crypto town. You are trying to sell socialism to a bunch of libertarians trying to disrupt the government backed global financial system.

You might have more luck selling hamburgers at a vegan convention.

 

Well, I doubt you'll find any bolsheviks or mensheviks on the dash forum. Plenty of greedy capitalists though.

Why don't you join us? Jump in for the big win!

It's still early. Dash is still sub $10. Get yourself a MN and we'll all be rich in 12 months!

Socialism will be a distant memory when we all meet up on a tropical island sipping champagne.

 

Socialist ideas are not only hypocritical, socialism in immoral and criminal.

Marx is the worst crimminal I am aware of. Because of his fallacious ideas lies, billions have died, and are still dying.

Statism is Socialism, so anyone who defends Statism is immoral, hypocritical and criminal.

Finally, as @halso already said, this is a cryptocurrency we are building. Cryptocurrencies are weapons to fight against Statism, Communism, Socialism, and all other lies that are more and more dominant in the world.

Greed and inequality are not problems, actually these are the best thing in the world, because they make the individual need to fight against poverty.

Poverty is the natural state. Animals are poor. Men are naturally poor. To overcome poverty, the individual will user their habilities.

To fight against poverty, one does not need the Government intervention. One just need to create value, with work.

The wealthy person is the person that produces value, and values brings benefits,

The inneficient will stay in poverty, because they do not create value, in reality, they only create losses.

Government intervention is theft and violence. Its immoral.

Robin Hood ideas of robbing from the wealthy to give to the inneficient is IMMORAL, and that's Socialism.

As an example, companies that add value will succeed and grow. Companies which indistries are not interesting for consummers will break. This is healthy and natural. But when the Governments intervene, they hold an unnatural and dangerous situation (And this is not Capitalism, this is Corporativism).

Another exemple, I work hard, and bring a proposal that benefits the community. The budget funds my idea, and everyone benefits. But you bring a terrible proposal, but just because you and your friends approve it, you will benefit from the money (that could be better used for a real useful project) and only you will benefit, no one else. IMMORAL. It will be robbing funds from good ideas for the benefit of bad ideas.

No

If something is immoral, it will be immoral, no matter what the numbers are.

Statists (Socialists, Communists, and all these bunch of crooks) are always moral relativistis, and this is disgusting.

 

nonsense... there is no coercion here

 

Thanks for your responses, and without getting into the politics, I will try to explain why I don't agree -

What your model fails to account for is that people are not incentivized to vote according to exactly what they would like to see. Take for example, the budget is currently 45-45-10, and let's assume that most people agree that 45-45-10 is good. But let's say I would rather it to be 40-40-20. In this system, am I going to vote 40-40-20? No, because by "voting with numbers", I can vote towards the extreme in order to influence the end result. I would vote something like 10-10-80, or 0-0-100 to force the average in my direction even though obviously I don't actually want it to be 0-0-100. It gives too much power to outlier votes. The fact that people are incentivized to vote on the extremes rather than what they actually want, means that the end result of the weighted vote is not representative of the actual consensus.

However, the more general idea of dynamically allocated budgeting has already had a discussion here, which I am not entirely against, and it could potentially allow for more flexibility and not have the major flaws that this "voting with numbers" idea has.

This is a major problem because in real life if you are hiring someone to do work, you can't give them just a small percentage of the asking price. You have to give them the entire amount or they won't do the work. This means that proposal creators will be incentivized to create proposals for significantly more DASH than is actually needed, in hopes that the percentage they actually get from the network is sufficient. This system also incentivizes scammers to make proposals for 100% of the budget. They can bribe masternode owners for their votes in exchange for a cut of the proceeds, which are inflated because even with a small number of votes, you can get a nice chunk of change if your 100% of the budget proposal is distributed by an average. When we make a system like this, incentives are incredibly important -- and having a system that incentivizes abuse just won't work.

I don't necessarily have anything against this, and would be interested in ideas about the ability to set up a more complex decision-making system, but this I think is an entirely different subject from the "voting with numbers" and universal dividend.