Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1421. (Read 9723748 times)

Excellent insight ! (Into the principles of certain types of investor).

I'm sure there are many people that boat. You raise a very relevant point which is that this type of asset integrates the traditional roles of shareholder and executive to a much greater extent than in classic corporate equities.

Shareholders usually vote on who they want to run the company but don't vote on day to day issues. Here they do. The implications of that probably need to be thought through and evolved a good deal (which is what's happening I'm pleased to see).

Yes, I trust market forces, although the crypto market has a lot of invisible hands on the scales (to mix metaphors), and will probably have more once GovCorp realizes the stakes.

I really don't mind if a particular ship is rudderless. An inept helmsman can find the rocks more quickly than random currents can. The crew might mind a great deal, of course, as they would value both the illusion and the reality of control. If I were to invest in, say, GM stock (just a hypothetical - ain't gonna happen), then I would have no plan to try to influence the direction of the company. My area of control would be in choosing when/whether to buy, sell or hold. I approach crypto in the same spirit. It's fine by me that there are people who want to mold its direction. I'm just not such a person, despite my occasional compulsive suggestions. I micro-manage my own life, but I generally try not to influence group behavior - groups do what groups do. Different strokes, is all.

After all that blather, I definitely think DASH is a superb creation, and getting better by the day. I speculate that it will drift toward mediocrity in the long run because that is the way of things, but that may well be decades away. I have no "perfect decision-making protocol" to offer. I relish this moment in DASH evolution (sorry) just the same.

Edit: fixed a typo. Sorry.


 

In this case, could it be easier to permit some kind of change on a proposal (only by owner) without the need to resubmit one new?
Impossible to increase the payout for example but posibility to reduce it? Like this no need to re-submit one proposal (ex: the problem of the dash dispenser machine).

In other words, you regard the market as the governance mechanism - which it is indeed, ultimately.

But that doesn't solve the problem of day to day executive decisions. Need a bit of a rudder, otherwise you'll be investing in a rudderless ship whether you like the look of it or not 

Heh. I can't speak for others but I don't mind at all how such things are decided. A coin-toss would be fine for my context, viewing myself as a consumer rather than developer. My overall position is that if I like the product (I do) then I acquire more of it, and if I don't like the product I feel free to drop it with no hard feelings. Wearing a different hat - imagining that I wanted to persuade a group to do X rather than Y, and/or to protect myself from being pushed this way or that - then I would have all sorts of concerns about methodology. I'm very detached, but compulsively analytical so I just couldn't help but make a suggestion anyway.       

How about something like this :-

A minimum of 3 days up to 300 DASH and then use the formula ((X*10)/60)/16 where X = DASH proposed

DASH   Days
50   3
100   3
150   3
200   3
250   3
300   3
350   4
400   4
450   5
500   5
550   6
600   6
650   7
700   7
750   8
800   8
850   9
900   9
950   10
1000   10
....

Edit: Or even X/100 and rounding up would make it much easier lol

After great thought...
72 hours would be just fine :-D

Also, people who value the right not to vote at all may have serious objections to minimum participation levels.



EDIT: Ahhghh !! He got in before me. Shoot. 

Since I don't vote, my opinion may not mean much but what the heck -

How about a canned figure of merit formula combining amount requested (apples) with lead time needed (oranges), such that trivially inexpensive items need little lead time and high-cost proposed items need and get more time for reflection?

As a general principle, I think that trustless -> troll-less over time. This community is really good at curing warts, especially including those pounced on by trolls, leaving the trolls with nothing much to say lately except instamine and its variants.

Nothing would ever get passed. Look at the average participation .

https://dashninja.pl/budgets.html

1 week is too high. It will block re-submissions from getting paid. Imagine someone submits a proposal 3 times in the last couple of weeks, there's no way for the protocol to know the community has been talking about this specific proposal for 3 weeks .

I didn't know that.
thx.

72 hours sounds great at the point we are right now. In the future 1 or 2 weeks imo.

These guys do not have 24hr support.  They also have everything expire at midnight....and then they are not awake for 8 hours to fix an "oops".  Be careful if you have a server with extra IPs, whenever anything expires(or you don't want to renew) they will shutdown your entire server until they fix the "oops".  As for downtime, they had an internet connection(server was still up) out for an hour in the last 6 months, not too bad.  The support guy is Andrew Clarke...I shouldn't know that right?  LOL.

I'd like to see a vote done with several options, and see what the community thinks is best

24 hr (keep as is)
72 hr
1 week,
2 week,
1 month


Edit: Originally I asked for 30 days, but I agree that hinders flexibility of the protocol... I feel like anything less than 7-days is dangerously low, so I'd vote 1 week minumum

I have to agree 24h is short.

1 week?

The (Number Yes - Number of No) > 10% is really good.

I would personally get rid of the 10% thing, and change it to 50 or 60% of the total MNs being the minimum for a vote to pass...

At current, that would be 1731 or 2077 votes to pass (out of 3462 MNs total)


Edit: With this option, I would feel better about the 24 hour minimum... if a proposal has 2000+ yes votes in 24hr, that's unanimous support

How about 72 hours?

A situation I would like to avoid goes like this:

Evan or Otoh proposes a budget 24hr before the superblock.

Even+Otoh vote yes with, lets say conservatively 700 votes.

There is now only 24 hours to get 350 no votes... not counting all the lemmings who will vote yes just because they see it started 700 to 0...
700:350 would pass
1000:650 would pass

There is also less than 24 hours to discuss the issue...

Seems like this situation could be remedied with a longer than 24hr window


Edit: I also do not like Evan's answer that he will monitor the budget to make sure nobody sneaks anything in... What happens if Evan goes on vacation, has a heart attack, or is less trustworthy than you think?  I would much rather trust the protocol than, "I promise I'll watch and make sure nothing fishy happens"

I agree on raising the 24hr minimum. I just wanted to clarify something. It's not just 10% for a budget to pass.
Quote from wiki: "Budgets are proposals which receive 10% of the possible votes (currently about 350 out of 3500) more yes votes than no votes. "
I think raising the 24hr minimum will do the trick.