Proposal “budget-system-v2“ (Completed)Back

Title:Budget System v2 / Transform PR
Owner:eduffield
One-time payment: 50 DASH (4512 USD)
Completed payments: 1 totaling in 50 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2016-03-07 / 2016-04-21 (added on 2016-02-08)
Final voting deadline: in passed
Votes: 1087 Yes / 131 No / 0 Abstain
External information: www.dashwhale.org/p/budget-system-v2

Proposal description

Hello,

I'm guessing most of the community is aware that we had a 3-month contract with Transform PR that started last month. This contract was for $6000, denominated in Dash and locked into a rate of $3.38. I believe this contract was going really well and that we were making the correct choice when we originally went with Transform PR. At the end of the first month, some vocal members of the community began lobbying to remove the Transform PR contract from the system while it was active.

I would like to post some evidence of the ongoing work that Transform was doing for us at the time the contract was voided and make some suggestions to alter the system so that we have better communication and we don't experience problems like this again in the future.

To start, I'm posting the final report from Transform PR, which shows the work they were doing. As you can see, they were the major driver of most of the media attention we were getting during the last month. They were even working with a major mainstream media outlet, Reuters, to publish a story on Dash.

December Transform PR Activity
Proposal For Next Contract

As a decentralized autonomous organization we need to be able to work with outside vendors reliably, so when the network makes a decision to fund a contract, we need to be able to support that decision in an irrevocable way. I believe the budget system failed us and it needs to be altered slightly to support this type of arrangement in the future.

Here are my suggestions for the budget system:

Proposals:

Ordinary one-time or month-to-month proposals will continue to function as they presently do; votes can be changed at any time, which will move these proposals up or down the payment queue (or even disapprove them altogether). These can be thought of as month-to-month contracts, which require ongoing review in order to keep supporting.

Contracts:

These will be an extended version of a proposal, with a minimum voting period of 30 days. During this period of time, an actual, legally binding contract between the vendor (promisor) and a network representative (promisee) should be evaluated. The promisee can be any legal entity which will act as the networks representative (legal firm, foundation, natural person, etc).

After the voting period (minimum of 30 days) has expired, any contracts which have been approved by the necessary number of votes will be paid until their expiration. Contracts, due to their legally binding nature, will be given priority for funding in the new budget system. Regular proposals will be funded by the system after funding is given to contracts.

I propose that the new contract system have a significantly higher voting threshold than ordinary proposals:

3-month contracts must be voted on by at least 20% of the masternode network.
6-month contracts must be voted on by at least 33% of the masternode network.
12-month contracts must be voted on by at least 51% of the masternode network.

Once these minimum voting thresholds are met, contracts will be considered "passed" if at least 51% of the votes cast are "yes" votes.

USD/Dash Denomination:

All contracts and proposals shall be denominated in Dash, unless the proposer is doing business directly with our foundation, which will carry a USD balance.

Eventually we wish to add native USD support to the budget system, which will allow a contractor to get an exact amount of Dash that can be converted to USD without the contractor carrying the market risk while the work is ongoing.

V12.1 - budget-system proposal

To establish network support for the above proposed, I’ve added a proposal to the system "budget-system". Please feel free to ask questions here about the proposed changes, I'll answer as many of them as possible.

I've also submitted the proposal for a payout of 50 DASH. If successful I'll be reimbursed for the creation of 10x proposal, which each cost 5 DASH a piece to submit to the network. To see all proposals that have ever been submitted you can use dash ninja, https://dashninja.pl/budgets.html.

If you support the idea and my reimbursement, please use the command ("vote-many a54a4fc99dde45b6841465c1cdb7b8f5ce4e6059c0086524ed26183f2b91f6dd yes").

What's Next?

During the time Transform PR was an active contract, they did fantastic work for us. I would really like to work with them again after we have irrevocable contracts, which will be available in 12.1. Transform PR has provided us with the plan they were going to use from March through May, which I have posted in order to give the community an idea of what our future work with them (if approved after 12.1) would look like.

Creating and fully testing a new version of the software will take about six months. The good news, however, is that while we're working on 12.1, we also have a separate development team led by Andy Freer doing work on Dash Evolution. Because of this, 12.1 shouldn't delay the release of Dash Evolution. We are right on schedule.

Best,

Evan Duffield

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
3 points,1 year ago
Eric Sammons started a new thread to review the contracts idea. Feel free to comment.
https://dashtalk.org/threads/budget-system-v2-irrevocable-multi-month-contracts.8174/#post-86578

These are the three main objectives we think will make contracts work:
1. It should be harder to approve a multi-month contract than a month-to-month proposal. (Which is true with Evan's proposal).

2. It should relatively difficult to approve a multi-month contract. (Again, which is true of Evan's proposal).

3. It should be harder to cancel a multi-month contract than to approve it.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I wonder, if someone submitted a proposal to have the core team fix the budget system, as the voters want it done, if they would actually do it? Or has Kardashian Politics reached them, too?
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
Please update this proposal and title to remove any Transform information. This is only about changing the budget system.

I disagree with irrevocable contracts. They limit any leverage we have with contractors. We should have a large change threshold instead. For example, 30% yes to activate a contract and 30% no to reject a contract that is already active. Also suggest we only provide 3 month contracts to start with.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
The title of this proposal totally throws me off and makes it sound like we are voting on 1 subject, when in reality we are voting on multiple things here, no?
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
A band-aid isn't enough. The budget system needs a complete overhaul. As I said before there was a budget, we're seeing the very reasons come to life, which I had argued about. No, this isn't a toljaso post. Well, it is, but for a useful reason. DASH should never leave the blockchain unless it has been voted out of it, and it should come in each block, not these crazy superblocks, burned funds, etc. A % of each block reward goes to a payout address until it reaches the amount voted upon, or voted down, then it stops. Simple. No burned funds. No superblocks. Easy to augment. Easy to work with. No race-to-fund, no changing amounts to 'fit,' no failure to revise when dash value changes... Easy to code because this is how the rewards are already split. Just make it dynamic and quorum-assigned.

No idea why this way complicated, known-to-be-problematic-before-it-was-even-created system was made in the first place...

If you're making deals based on FIAT, they payouts have to be weighed against fiat. It can easily be done dynamically because exchanges have APIs for exactly this purpose...

A half-assed band-aid on top of a half-assed system, the half-assed band-aid for which won't actually fix it, is not what we need here. The system has much deeper fundamental defects that need to be addresses, not another gadget built on top of it that will need to be re-engineered when the inevitably-needed revamp is done.

I get it. But I also understand that adding dependent code on top of something that will go away, the replacement for which can't be compatible, is a huge waste of time and effort. Lets fix the broader underlying problem instead of band-aiding only one of it's limited symptoms...
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
It doesn't make sense to make a payment on every block to a budget. 574 payments per day would get pretty insane if you were dealing with a vendor. Maybe per day or per week could work.

Maybe we should have a variable length budget cycle. So if we don't spend enough to use up the rewards for the next xxx blocks the vote/budget start timing changes yyy blocks sooner.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Why not? That's how it already works for miners and the MNs. Why re-invent the wheel as a square?
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
A single miner doesn't solve every block. If you are lucky solo mining maybe you get 1/day. And a pool will maybe get 100 blocks/day, but they don't pay them out instantly with your 1/100 portion. They pay miners once per day or per threshold you set to to minimize transaction fees.

I can't see working with any vendor and expecting them to receive five hundred 0.5 dash transactions each day and expecting them to manage a bloated wallet.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
The pools I mined on paid out ASAP in whatever chunk. I don't mine any more, but I can easily see that those same pools still operate that way. Pools aren't related to this discussion tho, so not sure why you brought it up.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Wut? You can't be serious?

Mining was never supposed to be pooled. Ever block had payment. Still does.

No one said vendors would get 500x 0.5 TXes a day. We're talking about payees of budget proposals. Not vendors...

There's only one address, so it doesn't bloat. Just a bunch of TXes to the same address. So what? Pretty sure they're going to move it to another address anyway... Or hit that handy darksend button and start mixing...

Are you drinking again? :-p

Imagine having all proposals funded by percentage, which can be voted upon, too. Accelerate one, decelerate another. All by simply adding a rate vote.Which is nothing but an add-on to a much simpler system of funding in the first place. I discussed this at length last year, but was ignored because nobody could see a use for doing ti that way.

I think you can see one now. My idea is more flexible, uses existing metrics, and simpler by far, without any of the pitfalls... We can decelerate something if something really cool comes up, instead of cancelling it altogether. We can throttle on major price changes... Even add a dynamic FIAT bind for those making proposals who wish it so... But the existing system can't scale like that because it's a complete clusterfuck that obeys none of the pre-existing rules in the system and creates it's own clunky microcosm.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I guess I am assuming the vendor creates their own proposal and accepts the funds directly. Why have a project manager involved?

If you are anticipating a project manager that is paying the vendor, then your idea works well.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I can't figure out what you're talking about. Vendors have nothing to do with proposal payouts. Project manager? What?
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Anything to keep the pet pork barrels alive...
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Are we really sure we want irrevocable contracts this early in Dash's lifetime? Wouldn't this theoretically tie up quite alot of future funds within the budget and stifle half the innovation coming from the community?
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
The February contract proposal with Transform PR, which is posted here though it's not this proposal, is missing a little information. It says, again, that their fee is $6000. Are we going to convert Dash into fiat to pay for this? Or are they accepting Dash? I just think it's a detail that needs to be spelled out when you actually make the proposal again. Also, this isn't the place to say it, but I really think that working in PR for an open community has got to be ridiculously hard. It's a subtle job, and everyone is watching. Rumors get started and inflated and suddenly you have mob mentality on the project. "I could have done it for 10% the cost!" etc... and sure, one aspect might have only cost you 10%, but these guys are trying to establish us with a solid foundation and take us outside the crypto world. Anyway, they haven't been given a proper chance, the criticisms seem a bit flaky, or possibly flaky, and I see nothing bad about them when researching them. Thus, even if they've done badly, they seem to be able to keep their company looking good in public. So I'm personally ready to get them going again, but please spell out all the details on how they are to be paid and which funds are being used for what, then there will (hopefully) be no surprises to spark a fire again. Thanks!!!
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Oh, and I know you are writing up a contract with the PR company, and you can't have all us chefs in the kitchen, but we really should discuss this - here or on Dash talk (preferably Dash Talk as it's more open) to explain any points in the contract people object to, and if/why it can/can't be changed. And it would also clear up any other questions people might have. Then, if things get unruly again, we can point out that that was a known issue, and that we agreed to it. Thanks for all your hard work!
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I'm voting no. As I've seen it mentioned in the forum, there has to be a possibility to exit a contract if it turns out the promises are not kept. Something like an massive No vote that can terminate a contract. If a similar system is added in, I will gladly change my vote to yes. But it has to be massive vote, I mean massive :)
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Voted no as well. Contracts must be breakable. If this one issue is fixed I'll change my vote to yes.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I like where this is going. But, I think there should be constraints on contract length. Maybe limited to 12 months maximum. A 10 year contract that passes and cannot be revoked is kind of crazy if you think about what DASH could be worth in the future. And when the budget system goes to native USD support, will old contracts be grandfathered?
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I think that would be a big hurdle to get over if someone wants a longer contract than 3 months, harder the longer the contract. Hopefully, we won't need any super long term contracts until more constraints can be added that are in line with ensuring our end of the bargain will be upheld.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
the raised tresholds & 51% of the cast votes to be YES votes to specifically contracts is fine
but i would also like to raise the current treshold of 10% for proposals higher, to 20%
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
I would prefer if no budget ever gets passed if less than 51% of the masternodes have voted

If only 700 MNs have voted, that is NOT support for a proposal...
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
You can't force people to vote. However, there is an option to ask for a minimum participation level. Personally, asking for much over 50% participation will become increasingly more difficult as time goes by though.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Honestly I'm in favour of forcing people to vote. Simple process, participate in at least half of the monthly proposals, or masternode is no longer allowed to function. See the thing about democracy, it works great if people are involved. But when apathy strikes, you leave a small minority of people to take the decisions. This has proven disastrous in many national elections i've watched in many countries. I'm sure you're at least familiar with what I'm saying.

Of course, downside is you do need masternodes to keep the second tier running, so that's a problem. But I strongly believe that people WILL vote if they are asked in this way and mn count will not drop. Benefit is a stronger more involved comunity.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
you can not force anybody to vote, no way .... the numbers are fine, compared to public voting we hit similar numbers (30-40% +)
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
There's also people like otoh who own a lot of masternodes, but do not want to throw that weight around. So he abstains (or said he did a while back). Anyway, yes, it would be optimal if everyone kept up with what's going on and participated in discussions.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
This is a very interesting idea, but I'm afraid that if you forced masternodes to vote, you'd have people log on once a month, randomly vote yes or no on a few proposals, and then they would have met the requirement.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I think that's also a possibility, but I'm not worried it will be the prevailing scenario. I think most people will take the time to also check what it is and put a little heart in it while they're at it. And participating is fun! Also another reason I think people are not voting is because they are not part of this awesome site. I know I wouldn't have otherwise
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Generaly Abstain don't count, so 701 vote over 741. Make a 95% !
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
It's 801 ocer 841 vote..
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
More about this (Evan's post) : https://dashtalk.org/threads/budget-system-v2-transform-pr.7991/
Reply