Universal Dividend and Web of Trust for Dashcoin

[demo]

well, as far as I could understand it, our voting system does not claim the power to decide the fate of humanity. It's a tool that aims to help administration of the budget, pure and simple.

You are right. This is the case. You are allowed to administrate the budget, and you can do it for whatever reason. Pure and simple. Including of course some reasons that are about to decide the fate of humanity. Its up to you to decide, and you are allowed to spend your budget however you wish.

If you believe that you should not be allowed to administrate the budget for some specific reasons, then those reasons should be written of course. But as far as I know, currently there is not any restriction on that.

 

[TroyDASH]

My proposal is real. Do you want the budget voting system to change, and MO to be able to vote also with numbers? This is the proposal.

But I cannot ask that question to the real masternode owners. I need for someone to help me put that proposal into the budget system.

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.

 

[demo]

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.

I do not really understand your argument. You are saying that voting with numbers is not a good way to do governance, but you do not explain the reason why it is not a good way. Why we should not divide the minority votes by the total votes? Why we should not respect the minority point of view?

I think respecting minorities is a good way to do governance. If you do not respect the minorities, this is called "tyranny of the majority" and this is a bad way to do governance. The tyranny of the majority is established, when we have only a yes/no system of voting.

 

[TroyDASH]

I do not really understand your argument. You are saying that voting with numbers is not a good way to do governance, but you do not explain the reason why it is not a good way. Why we should not divide the minority votes by the total votes? Why we should not respect the minority point of view?

I think respecting minorities is a good way to do governance. If you do not respect the minorities, this is called "tyranny of the majority" and this is a bad way to do governance. The tyranny of the majority is established, when we have only a yes/no system of voting.

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.

 

[raganius]

I think respecting minorities is a good way to do governance. If you do not respect the minorities, this is called "tyranny of the majority" and this is a bad way to do governance. The tyranny of the majority is established, when we have only a yes/no system of voting.

@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.

 

[demo]

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.

I think I already said that.
We should vote with numbers, only in case a number is put hardcoded and has no theory behind.
So if the core team can explain why they put a number like that, then of course we should not vote that number.

 

[demo]

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 individual provides money from his own pocket, instead of forcing all others to consent.

You are talking without numbers.

You said "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!"

Ok, but how many are this "eventual group"? How many are "most of the other individuals"?

If you do not quantify your talk with specific numbers, then your talk makes no sense.

 

[TroyDASH]

I think I already said that.
We should vote with numbers, only in case a number is put hardcoded and has no theory behind.
So if the core team can explain why they put a number like that, then of course we should not vote that number.

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.

 

[raganius]

You are talking without numbers.

The Devil will use NUMBERS to justify his acts.

 

[demo]

The Devil will use NUMBERS to justify his acts.

This is not a answer, you avoid to answer me what "most" and "eventual" is in number.

 

[demo]

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.

I tried to generalize the number voting. Thats why I said this about hardcoded numbers, for you to be able to understand when it is correct to vote with numbers and when it is not.

The universal dividend, or the the hardcoded block reward allocation are just specific cases of the number voting method. Please dont look at the tree, look the forest.

 

[raganius]

This is not a answer, you avoid to answer me what "most" and "eventual" is in number.

Sorry, but I refuse to acknowledge moral relativism.

 

[demo]

Sorry, but I refuse to acknowledge moral relativism.

Moral relativism is considered your below phrase.

"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!""

You do not define the numbers, so that your moral to be relative to your personal interests.

And I say that as long as there is no theory on what "eventual" or "most" should be, those numbers should be voted. And this is not moral relativism.

 

[TroyDASH]

I tried to generalize the number voting. Thats why I said this about hardcoded numbers, for you to be able to understand when it is correct to vote with numbers and when it is not.

The universal dividend, or the the hardcoded block reward allocation are just specific cases of the number voting method. Please dont look at the tree, look the forest.

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.

 

[demo]

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.

Yes of course. Voting with numbers requires some changes to your code. You can try a demo, and see how much the fund will be on each proposal , in case a number voting is established.

 

[TroyDASH]

Yes of course. Voting with numbers requires some changes to your code.

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?

 

[demo]

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?

Thanks for the questions. I ll answer them as soon as possible. bye for now.

 

[rustycase]

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

 

[demo]

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.

It is a wrong example, because in a democracy you are not allowed to prohibit voting.

If the wolves eat the sheep, then the sheep is dead ,and a dead sheep cannot vote. So the wolves are not allowed to eat the sheep. In a democracy it is not allowed to kill, because killing results the loss of a voting right, which is not allowed by definition.

 

[demo]

How is the percentage of the block reward going towards DGBB determined?

It should be voted. Those who have voting rights should cast a triple percentage vote. For example I say 30-40-30, and Evan says 45-45-10, so the result is
37,5 Mining reward-42,5 MasterNode reward-20 Budget

What is the criteria (if any) for a DGBB proposal to be funded at all?

It will be funded even with one dash. People can change their vote, and turn it to 0 dash, if someone do not funish his work.

Do proposals always get entirely funded with respect to the requested amount, and if not, how is the funding amount determined?

Yes proposals get funded not to the requested amount, but to the amount it is given to them. The funding amount is like an auction. I ask an amount, they give me another, and I sign or not the contract in order to start working.

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?

The votes are expressed as percentage of the total allocation , so the amounts cannot exceed the DGBB total allocation.

Finnaly, there is also a tree like voting. For example:
First we cast a percentage vote about Mining reward-MasterNode reward-Budget. And then in a poll that depends on the result of the first, we cast a percentage vote on the Budget for specific proposals. The second voting depends on the result of the first one. Thats why we say that polls are dependant eachother. The result of a poll affects the result of another poll. Thats why a dependant poll structure should be built.

 

[halso]

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.

 

[demo]

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.

Socialism is the yes/no voting system of the budget. It is bolshevik socialism.

Voting with percentages is menshevik socialism.

 

[halso]

Socialism is the yes/no voting system of the budget. It is bolshevik socialism.

Voting with percentages is menshevik socialism.

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.

 

[demo]

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

Of course you are bolsheviks . Do you know what bolsheviks means in russian? The people of the majority. The yes/no voting system in the budget is in favor of the majority.

Voting with numbers and percentages allows the minorities to breath. Do you know how the minority people were called in russian? mensheviks . And as we all now, the bolsheviks after sending mensheviks to siberia-exile, they established USSR. And we all know what the fate of USSR was.

This is what you, the bolsheviks, are doing right now, to me and to any other minority here. You are sending minorities to the exile. But as long as deep inside we are all minorities, in fact you are not sending minorities to the exile, you are sending yourself to the exile, because the minority is the metropolitan city and the majority is the exile. And you are going to fail, because the failure is the fate of every bolshevik which oppresses and sends to the exile the mensheviks.

 

[raganius]

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.

Moral relativism is considered your below phrase.

"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!""

You do not define the numbers, so that your moral to be relative to your personal interests.

And I say that as long as there is no theory on what "eventual" or "most" should be, those numbers should be voted. And this is not moral relativism.

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.

 

[demo]

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.

Yeah Yeah...

Only that you forgot to mention that statism is also the way dash is created and operates.

There is the dash state governed by Evan and his core team. There is the budget percentage strictly defined to 10% by Evan and his core team. They intervene by setting the budget to their favorite percentage, dont they?

And all the rest of you are the faithful servants of the dash state, which are prohibited to decide and set the budget to 0%, or to 100% , or to whatever their opinion and their vote is.

And of course dash is also bolshevism, as long as the majority always rules, and as long as the yes/no voting system sends the minorities to the exile.

So If you are looking for statism, put your dash community (put yourself) in the mirror.

And what am I proposing? Vote with numbers, to crash statism.

 

[raganius]

Yeah Yeah...

Only that you forgot to mention that statism is also the way dash is created and operates.

There is the dash state governed by Evan and his core team. There is the budget percentage strictly defined to 10% by Evan and his core team. They intervene by setting the budget to their favorite percentage, dont they?

And all the rest of you are the faithful servants of the dash state, which are prohibited to set the budget to 0%, or to 100% , or to whatever their opinion and their vote is.

And of course dash is also bolshevism, as long the yes/no voting system sends the minorities to the exile, and the majority always rules.

So If you are looking for statism, put your dash community (put yourself) in the mirror.


And what I am proposing? Vote with numbers, to crash statism.

nonsense... there is no coercion here

 

[demo]

nonsense... there is no coercion here

There is no coercion here, because this is digital life and not real life. You are an exact mirror of statism in the digital life, and you do not coerce simply because you cannot, simply because in digital life it is very hard to coerce.

I am sure that if you could coerce, you would do it. The same happened with other big digital companies, they initially started with no coercion, and when they became monopolies they started coercion.

You have already the structure of coercion in your dash state, because you are an exact mirror of a state. Τhe state is above all hierarchy, because with the help of hierarchy the state has the power to intervene without asking the others or against the will of the others. And your dash state is formed strictly hierarchical because some people here have also the power to intervene without asking the others or against the will of the others. So you repeat statism almost tottaly, until its very tiny details, in a digital form of course. And because of this mirroring, you will start coercion whenever (and if) you will become dominant.

And what am I proposing? Vote with numbers and percentages, in order to crash dash's hierarchy, to crash dash's bolshevism, to crash the present dash's statism and the future dash's coercion.

 

[TroyDASH]

It should be voted. Those who have voting rights should cast a triple percentage vote. For example I say 30-40-30, and Evan says 45-45-10, so the result is
37,5 Mining reward-42,5 MasterNode reward-20 Budget

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.

It will be funded even with one dash. People can change their vote, and turn it to 0 dash, if someone do not funish his work.

Yes proposals get funded not to the requested amount, but to the amount it is given to them. The funding amount is like an auction. I ask an amount, they give me another, and I sign or not the contract in order to start working.

The votes are expressed as percentage of the total allocation , so the amounts cannot exceed the DGBB total allocation.

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.

Finnaly, there is also a tree like voting. For example:
First we cast a percentage vote about Mining reward-MasterNode reward-Budget. And then in a poll that depends on the result of the first, we cast a percentage vote on the Budget for specific proposals. The second voting depends on the result of the first one. Thats why we say that polls are dependant eachother. The result of a poll affects the result of another poll. Thats why a dependant poll structure should be built.

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.

 

[demo]

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.

You are right. People will vote to the extremes. This is an obvious consequence of the system I propose. But the vote in that system does not represent what people really believe and want, but whether they want the current result (the status quo) to be increased or decreased.
People are incentivized to vote on the extremes, but the result is representative of the actual consensus, because if the result is lower than someone believes it should be, then this person is always allowed to change his vote and vote to the opossite extreme. You have to understand that voting exactly what you believe is a wrong way of voting. It is not very important how big you believe a number should be, the most important thing is what others believe about that number. And when you vote, you must primarily take into account the opinions of the others, and not your opinion. Your opinion (and your voting attitude) strictly depends on the opinions of the others. This is what games theory also claims. People must accustom to vote taking into account games theory, taking into account the opinion of the others. They should stop voting like if they were alone in this world, and this applies to any kind of voting and not only to number voting.

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.

There is not any problem with scammers making proposals for 100% of the budget. You understood me wrong.
You are not allowed to make a proposal asking 100% of the budget. You are just allowed to make the proposal. Thats all. You are also allowed to declare that you are going to start working only if the votes of the Masternode owners will reach your favorite percentage threshold. But the actual percentage of the budget you receive for your proposal is exclusively the job of the masternode owners. The masternode owners are the ones who vote with percentages, not you. The average is only applied to the opinions of the MO. Your own opinion as a proposal maker is not taken into account for any average or for any other arithmetic operation. The only thing you can can do, is to deny or to accept a budget percentage given to your proposal by the masternode owners. Not to mention that MO have the power to change the percentage whenever they wish, as long as the vote never ends. So scammers are tottaly eliminated.