I think that Dash governance system is quite imperfect, because the number of the masternodes is much more limited than the number of the people that holds Dashs.
Giving the decision power to the masternodes owners make the whole system vulnerable to the external attacks.
To avoid this problem we can decide to give one vote for each TRC that the person holds, but there might be still a conflict of interests between the TRC holders and the TRC miners that are very important for the whole system.
Another thing is that if the coin has anonymity features it will be very difficult to promote it in the real word (see the last communications of the Chinese Central Bank and the motivations of Bitcoin EFT rejection).
It definitely has imperfections, but I think we need to implement something similar to it very soon. Currently getting a team/money together to work on any of the projects we have discussed has become nearly impossible.
I see they there are 4000 masternodes with DASH right now, so I don't think external attacks would be an issue for them. It does require a 1,000 DASH to set up a masternode which is insane. That is like $80,000.
I have been hearing a lot of talk about not doing anonymous features because of the things you mentioned. We could not implement that portion of the code for now and see how things play out. It is easier to add a feature then to take one away.
I think miners' vote is the mining hash power they thrown.
In my idea, the proper vote is the coin age. Once vote made or coin moved, the coin age will become zero.
This will prevent people make fake votes or double votes.
Since we have merge mining I think people who mine SHA256 will mine TRC regardless because why not?
I think that the coin age since the last voting is a great idea, but I wouldn't connect it to the movements of the coin, because if the coin age since the last voting is inferior to the date of beginning of the voting, independently from whether the coin has been moved or not, it can not vote, by other hand if one owner of the coin has sold the coin without voting (maybe he was not interested in the question), the next owner will be able to vote, or to sell without voting to someone who is interested to vote (if the voting period has not expired in the meantime). This mechanism may create a market of coins that has not been used to vote and there may be an increase of the transactions in the voting period (which is still positive for the economy of the coin).
In case we decide that on every coin movement the coin age will become zero the people that are interested to influence the coin evolution will tend to hold the coins, which is still good for the price of the coin, because the tendency of holding them will cause scarcity, but is not good for the economy that stays beneath of the value of the coin, because holding may create the stagnation of the trc economy, which by the way for the moment is practically unexistent.
So voting by coin amount is not a good idea because of those large mysterious holders who could vote and pass every vote they wanted. I guess they could also just set up a ton of masternodes to do the same thing.
We need a balance of ease to set up a master node, and not let people spam them to get their way.
Coin age seems interesting. It would be nice if every wallet with a certain amount and coin age could vote. For example every wallet that had 1000 or more could vote. This means that if someone who had 1,000,000 could still set up 1000 wallets and vote 1000 times, but what a crazy amount of work to get that set up.
Also remember the masternode people get a payout when it has been run.
We also have to be careful not to fall into the traps of so many POS (Proof of Stake) coins.
