Proposal pass rate discussions

Should the masternode budget pass rate be increased from 10% to higher? This would stop a few whales from controlling key votes and opening it up to all masternode owners meaning your vote counts!

At the moment someone with 10% or more of the masternodes can pass any proposal if no opposition.

With increasing the vote it would also force other masternode owners to vote otherwise proposals would not pass as there was no real consensus so no budget would be paid out.

Actually, it would add even more power for certain MNOs to block proposals. We already have had many examples proving there is no MNO that can force votes through, and you have admitted this. As such, it would achieve the opposite of what you propose giving more blocking power to whales.

Further, you can't force MNOs to vote. Apathy is indeed an issue. Expecting other MNOs to vote, who have no intention of voting, will just create problems.

The current system works well, and as more time passes, MNs will be distributed further, as they have been. That will improve the 'combined wisdom' of DAO Treasury spending.

Let's state the obvious. You want to be Dictator and you aren't. So, you're trying to change the rules to add power to yourself. It ain't going to happen, unless you buy more MNs.

Good luck!

My opinion is that making this change will make something that was meant to be simple more difficult.

There could be a channel on discord to create active proposal polls.
This way, the creator of the proposal would have feedback from the community at large.

Following these polls can influence the decisions of masternodes.

Same polls could be here to keep it all in 1 place in the forum. But, that necessitates the question being pretty general I think.

It is true that all feedback can influence MNO votes. So, even those without a vote can influence the votes by providing solid aupported logical feedback on any proposal.

the question must be standard. the proposal is only supported: yes or no.

It's true, as the proposals are linked directly in the forum, it could be customary to create a poll attached to the proposal. I think it would work well.

Are polls here private? Or can we see who voted. Hard to prevent polls from being gamed too though with bot accounts.

I would also add that just by the nature of the proposal process, they tend to be accepted by everyone, or rejected by everyone. In other words, the process already weeds out mediocre proposals.

When there is a controversial proposal, it is usually because someone is misunderstanding something and then I am not sure a simple agree/disagree vote would add much value to the MNOs.

@Eric_Stanek:
Are polls here private? Or can we see who voted. Hard to prevent polls from being gamed too though with bot accounts.

Bot is always a problem, even the result of the poll is not relevant to the MN's decision.
I don't see a problem with the transparency of the poll. no one is forced, and creating a secondary account to express your constructive opinion is no crime. the important thing is to add ideas. but I agree that there can be spam.
This is also good to bring interest in discussing the proposals, something rarely seen, we have 1900 MN and only 0~10 members show up to discuss...

I refuse to engage here because of OP.

Investors with recognizable names have told me personally the volatility is unacceptable.

Stop posting and lock your wallet if you truly want this to succeed.

"There is nothing wrong with those who don't like politics, they will simply be governed by those who do." - Plato

Debate is important as it leads to critical thinking, reflection, development of ideas, improvements in speech and presentation, helps with organization and promotes engagement.
What would science/technology be without the debate...

@KYMAVR:
I refuse to engage here because of OP.

Investors with recognizable names have told me personally the volatility is unacceptable.

Stop posting and lock your wallet if you truly want this to succeed.

Sorry who are you? So your against open discussions. Unfortunately this is not how the dao works. It's a poll to create discussions. If you don't like it vote no and move on. As I keep getting told remove whatever feelings you have towards someone and look out for the project. Work on facts and figures.

@Eric_Stanek:
Actually, it would add even more power for certain MNOs to block proposals. We already have had many examples proving there is no MNO that can force votes through, and you have admitted this. As such, it would achieve the opposite of what you propose giving more blocking power to whales.

Further, you can't force MNOs to vote. Apathy is indeed an issue. Expecting other MNOs to vote, who have no intention of voting, will just create problems.

The current system works well, and as more time passes, MNs will be distributed further, as they have been. That will improve the 'combined wisdom' of DAO Treasury spending.

Let's state the obvious. You want to be Dictator and you aren't. So, you're trying to change the rules to add power to yourself. It ain't going to happen, unless you buy more MNs.

Good luck!

How can I be a Dictator as my discussion/poll is actually relinquishing power of votes from groups of people who have a huge amount of votes? I would be in less of a power position but is the problem so would you?

From the discussions this has created I am actually favouring your side of the discussion anyway! I don't think enough people will vote so can cause dead lock of funds.

Try not looking at everything I say as an attack is the first step for most of you. I have put in stupid money from the start into pivx, hugely contributing a stupid amount of pivx for the name change over for bitttex and I am still here and not going no where.

Not sure how to end poll.

@Gerrald:
How can I be a Dictator as my discussion/poll is actually relinquishing power of votes from groups of people who have a huge amount of votes?

I already answered this. With a higher passing limit, you would have even more power to block proposals.

The only benefit to a higher limit, is it would make it harder for a single whale to push thru a proposal. But, that's already been proven, and admitted by you, to no longer be the case.

So, your idea to increase the limit ADDS power to whales to block. It does not distribute power further. That's the total opposite of what we want.

Thank you for opening this discussion @Gerrald so il give my input. You are correct with your statement that both you and @Eric_Stanek made. There is not enough voters for an increase to work. It would result in most if not all proposals not passing which is something we don’t want. There is no dictatorship in opening a poll for public opinion. Referring it to this is just an antagonistic statement for which both of you are guilty.

If it continues this way the project both of you have dearly invested in will be damaged. We have people here who have literally built PIVX threatening to leave and that’s not okay. Think before you act and look at the value that person brings and not the person.

I’m up for hosting a call to discuss a way forward over jitsi if you are all up for that.

The statement made by @Eric_Stanek now is also absolutely true

@Gerrald:
Try not looking at everything I say as an attack is the first step for most of you. I

I guess you don't see the issue.

Every single one of your ideas, is because YOU are NOT able to INCREASE YOUR CONTROL over things. Such an attitude is indeed an attack on the DAO.

Focus on improving the DAO, and you will see your comments are received differently.

Suggesting the 10% passing limit be increased is a power move to make it easier for you to block proposals.

It is just as silly as me suggesting that Tor no longer be supported.

So what is that both of you @Eric_Stanek @Gerrald want to do together that will benefit the DAO? Because clearly this going back and forth on eachother about the negatives is going to bare no fruit and other hard working people are going to get caught in the crossfire.

We can all agree that changing the vote percent is a big no. The flaws far outweigh the pros.

@Jeffrey:
There is no dictatorship in opening a poll for public opinion. Referring it to this is just an antagonistic statement for which both of you are guilty.

Never said the poll itself, or any discussion was exercising Dictatorship. But, the outcome of increasing the limit would support centralizing power.

I'm just trying to explain to Borris how he has it all wrong how the DAO operates. Many have tried many times. We've also tried ignoring him. That doesn't work either.

But, perhaps we should give that approach a chance again?

There is an obvious disconnect and personal vendetta going on here. We can’t just change the past @Gerrald but we can work together on the future. No one here can force you to do anything, I personally want you to be part of the discussions and community but honestly you have to admit in the past you have done things that many would be banned for. Shit happens, @Eric_Stanek you are also correct many a time but sometimes your statements can come across as attacking which I also understand. we need to pave a way forward that is positive. Then we can review it and all vote together.

If we continue to experience this disconnect I don’t see much prosperity coming. With all I have planned I need unity.

@Jeffrey:
So what is that both of you @Eric_Stanek @Gerrald want to do together that will benefit the DAO? Because clearly this going back and forth on eachother about the negatives is going to bare no fruit and other hard working people are going to get caught in the crossfire.

We can all agree that changing the vote percent is a big no. The flaws far outweigh the pros.

I think the solution is dead simple.

When reviewing a proposal, a MNO should look at the total value added to PIVX. If that value is greater than the cost of the proposal itself, it should receive a YES vote. That's all there is too it.

There will always be parts of a proposal that look like they are not perfect, a waste, or somewhere in between. But, voting NO on such a proposal, is expecting too much and not practical, because then every single proposal would be micro-managed and fail.

The MNO should be free to ask questions and make suggestions, but voting NO because something isn't perfect doesn't work. The MNO is of course free to discount the value of those areas of concern, if they are not addressed, but they should vote based on the remaining value in the proposal.

Otherwise, a NO vote is "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

It's just that simple.