Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash | First Anonymous Coin | Inventor of X11, DGW, Darksend and InstantX
Isn't this the basis of the current political system? Maybe one day Dash will be big enough to have Dash political parties and Masternode Senators!
Walter
Democracy is terrible. Delegative democracy is probably less terrible. Delegative democracy without egalitarianism(you have to have 1000 dash to vote) might actually work.
You are absolutely correct. As Churchill once said:
"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. "
But until somebody invents a better system, we keep coming back to it =)
There will only be 6000 or less masternodes. It isn't unreasonable for each of those to research and vote on each proposal when each masternode is worth $100k. And then each node will probably be shared by a few owners. Each node owner may hire advisors to help read and decipher proposals. Each node may have an internal voting strategy between owners. And it is also possible to have each proposal be a group of projects that internally decide how they move forward. So those 2000 proposals may be 20 with 100 projects under them.
The core voting mechanism needs to be done by those actually risking capital. Every project is kept honest by the threat of losing funds, every voter has a vested interest and votes in the best interest of Dash.
Masternode operators are going to always lack specific domain knowledge that is required to make competent decisions about where to spend the money. Governments solve this issue by having boards of advisors, such as the administrative cabinet, the counsel on foreign relations, the economic advisory committees, etc. Can't we just alter this strategy slightly for our purposes? For us, we're going to need to setup some kind of simple advisory boards for business, economics, technology, etc. What if at a few billion dollars we have four or five of these types of committees, where the masternodes are electing whoever they want into the roles. After that these people would do the research and publish reports.
These advisors could be expensive later on as well, I think they'll need significant experience in the domain in question. For economics, it might mean you have a PhD and have published. Those types of people are going to be too expensive to hire alone, I think it makes more sense for the network to band together.
If we use a setup like that, the masternodes could start by reading the research done by these committees about various decisions they need to make, then they could make up their own mind.
Depends how nominations and elections are done, "official" research could open up the same kind of vulnerabilities as corporate lobbying of government. I'm fairly sure Liquid Feedback have gone over this area in detail, I know they had a lot of teething troubles getting just this kind of thing up and running smoothly.
A few thoughts, voters will have some idea of who's opinion they'd value on individual proposals and if those individuals have an ID they could be delegated, after a few links there'd be a leaderboard of sorts on who had influence on individual proposals and that could be presented to others to see how they align with their own views. Over time that would lead to self-categorisation of proposals, some individuals or groups with a lot of influence in PR, some on development and quite likely a few surprise groupings that cant really be confined to a single category but would likely be dynamically mappable. Maybe that could be incentivised, a reward for voting and split rewards for delegating votes or something along those lines but imho the recognition alone would create a far better incentive structure and with far less complications. EDIT: The delegation wouldn't necessarily have to be an ID, if one can be attached and chained then all the better but a link to something like a paper or article would be enough to reference common support.
One thing I'd be dead against is placing any kind of third party requirements on any of that though, education, standards bodies etc. Fine if individual groups insist on those kind of requirements but not the network, it would amount to discrimination even if that just means one persons country doesn't have an equivalent certificate to another's.