Post
Topic
Board Announcements (Altcoins)
Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
by
eduffield
on 23/04/2016, 22:29:28 UTC
But it could also lead to rampant corruption, cronyism, and people just living off their reputation rather than doing the actual work. I think this is a question that must be considered carefully:

Quote
Who can be manager? And how can we incentivize managers to make right decision?

The new way is radically simple, the network hires managers, then managers hire employees. You guys will negotiate pay with the managers, then you're delegating much of the day-to-day operations to the project management team. As for stopping abuse, we're talking about having to get your primary and secondary manager to "sign off" on expenses. This means if you can't come to an agreement between the three of you, nothing gets paid. In the end it'll allow us to move really fast and keep abuse down to a minimum. So managers are responsible for reviewing and approving expenses, if the employee and two managers pay for something the network doesn't like, the network can talk to the management team and voice the concerns. These are going to be the primary point of contact for the network, so that's how we direct the ship.

The employees are agreeing to do a specific amount of work with their manager, so they can't just live off of the system. You have to work to get paid for it under this model. The budget system money is a scarce resource that we need to be careful about to avoid the situations you're talking about.

The nice thing is that we're going to be moving to sentinel, which is the "brain", so every part of this can be tested with trial and error. We can roll out test implementations, then revert them or tweak them. I imagine we'll be pivoting pretty quickly as we realize different goals.

Thanks for the answer. Its the managers just living off the system that I would worry about rather than the employees. Managers keep the employees in check, but structuring it like that seems to encourage coin holders to delegate the task to keeping check on employees to the managers - so the question remains of who will keep a check on the managers? I think its a recipe for having less oversight from MN owners on projects, but with nothing to make sure that managers are actually doing their job properly.

I don't think we need more than 2 tiers of management at this point. There's probably about 20-30 people that will be in the current system. Research shows that communication starts to break down when there's more than 8-10 people reporting to one, after that people do a really poor job. The obvious choice to keep managers in check is to allow the network to talk to them and part of their job is making sure communication isn't breaking down and that the network knows exactly what's going on and why... they need to keep you guys happy in order to continue working the network.

Eventually this model won't be big enough. At that point we'll move to the next phase of the system, with some sort of elected board, which is responsible for hiring the managers and directing the project. Centralized control, but the network again will have control over the elected board. So control always comes back to the network.