In addition to a digital currency with an emphasis of instant, private, and inexpensive payments, Dash also stands as one of the world’s first successful decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), a radical new way of organizing cooperation and resources. While years in and growing stronger by the month, including a $2 million monthly budget, there remain a few key inefficiencies in the system, exacerbated by the influx of members into the DAO. Make no mistake, Dash is going through some growing pains right now, and there’s a few things we can do to help it to grow in health.
The Dash DAO largely succeeded because of its simplicity
Dash’s governance system has stood fully-functional for years now, in contrast with more hyped and complicated projects such as Ethereum’s “The DAO,” which crashed and burned spectacularly. This track record of success can be at least partially attributed to the simplicity of the Dash DAO. Anyone with 1,000 Dash can become a masternode and vote yes/no/abstain on budget proposals for allocation of the 10% of the block reward reserved for the treasury, proposals which merely contain text and an amount of funding requested. With a net vote of over 10% of the total masternode count, a proposal passes. A budget amount of 5 Dash exclusively to reimburse the proposal fee can be requested to form a simple question instead. Because of the simplicity of this system, very little can go wrong technically, and there are no obscure rules or structures to exploit.
Lack of structure and accountability has led to inefficiencies
While still largely successful, however, the lack of structure in the Dash DAO has led to plenty of inefficiencies along the way. Contractors like Charlie Shrem have cruised right in with an interesting proposal, passed by a wide margin, and then simply never delivered. There is a generally-accepted process of making a forum post first, debating the issue for a while, and then submitting the proposal officially, but this still allows for a potential contractor to get through without proper evaluation. After a proposal is passed, it’s up to the community to check up on them, but there is no easy way to find, or display said evaluation information. Right now, with more proposals and contractors than ever, it’s a bit of a mess.
We need streamlined evaluation, escrow, and detailed follow-up review
Put succinctly, the Dash DAO most needs three structures to help the budget process to operate at higher efficiency. First, there is need of a dedicated evaluation system, criteria, and team to grill proposal owners on their qualifications, plans, and ability to execute. Second, for new contractors that have yet to be established, there needs to be a strong escrow system by trusted community members to withhold funds until certain deliverables are met, in order to avoid the situation where someone makes a great-sounding pitch and then disappears into the night with the funds. Finally, a post-proposal review process is needed to keep track of progress and updates from the dozens of proposals that have already been funded. With all three of these, having several competing iterations will be beneficial to the continuing decentralization of the DAO.
Solutions should be adopted organically
Now, it’s easy to think of creating an ultimate solution to “fix” the governance system once and for all by hard-coding structural changes. I would advise strongly against this. The reason the Dash DAO has flourished as it has is because of the freedom afforded by the simple rules already in place. This relatively free-market environment is a good thing, and in order to capitalize on the benefits the system provides, improvements and detailed tweaks should come about in a similar fashion: organically. Various intrepid community members should get together projects to solve these solutions. They should try, they should fail, some should give up, and others should try instead, and eventually we have a battle-tested system that has proven to work and maximize the potential of the DAO, while not falling victim to the rigidity of the law of code.
The DAO is evolving as we speak
The good news is, this is already happening. As we speak, elements are cropping up to attempt to address the issues mentioned above. Green Candle Inc. and Instant Karma Fund have stepped in to provide escrow services and help manage projects, the first for larger sponsorships and the latter geared towards smaller charitable ventures. Dash Force News provides basic proposal evaluation articles on a consistent basis, to keep masternode owners informed about the progress of past proposals until a more well-oiled machine can crop up to take on long-term evaluation. Bit by bit, the demand for an improved governance system in the Dash DAO has caused the community to organize: autonomously, in a decentralized way. This is just the beginning.
I fully agree that this needs to happen in a decentralized way and outside of the code base. On one side, as experiments in other projects have proved, it is not possible to take out the human element just yet. On the other, touching the code takes longer than fast human experiments and has many more risks.
And let’s not forget that governance is just a tool to help bring to the market the best form of money that society has seen. If it works 80% right, that is probably enough because it will let us focus on the part that the user sees, which is the really important stuff.
If I am not mistaken you are the person which has (some) responsibility in dealing these matters.
I would like to see 2 things in place a proper :
1) administrative organisation which includes the following: accounting system, administrative structures, Systems & Procedures Dept.
2) Legally binding contracts, such as SLA
I believe this would require at-least to professionals
1) some with how graduated in Computer Science and Business Administration
2) And a legal expert, which is able to make things legally binding
Some extra additions could be, standardize proposal forms, which include providing reall detailed company and personal information for example: linkedin, facebook, website, review-site. Non-cure no pay deals, or pay for expenses, but the full payment on completion
IF what I am saying is al brand new information, please get people on that as soon as possible.
If this is all old news please, so I’ll sleep better at night 😛
* Contact if you want
I have graduated in Computer Science and Business Administration, and have been full-time active crypto in since 2013, and have been dealing with some legal issues as well, please get the ball rolling on that
Yes, I’m part of the Dash Core Team and I’m involved with this.
As for what you suggest, I think it is all good as long as it is not compulsory for the proposal owner and it is not integrated in the code.
Trying to do that in the system would be too complex and prone to errors and centralization. As an independent entity in charge of monitoring the proposals that voluntarily admit to be monitored, that is fine. Anyone can set up such a monitoring entity and then maybe its prestige will grow and proposal owners will voluntarily seek to be under that subsystem.
That is what the entities that Joel mentions at the end of the article are starting to do. Nobody can force a proposal owner to accept that the money is escrowed or the project managed by them, but if the owner wants to give more guarantees to the masternodes so they are more comfortable voting for them, they can relinquish part of their control.
This influx of new ideas, and new attempts to put the ideas into practice, are a direct result of a free and informed market. A truly free and informed market has not really existed for decades until it was re-invented by Satoshi. Of course, I think Dash is the best expression of that new movement. If the (Dash) market needs something bad enough, solutions will appear.
I would welcome an independent group that gives the Masternode community more and better tools to inspect and groom the folks that put up proposals. And after a successful vote, an escrow and accountability service would definitely improve the home run ratio for the whole Dash ecosystem.
And YES, not compulsory. If you think your proposal will pass easily on its own merits, and the Masternodes trust you enough that they don’t need or want further accountability after passing, then go right ahead. But if you need and want more accountability to help sell your proposal, this service would provide it.
Absolutely, far away from the core team! we have provided some kind of accountability in a couple big proposals in which we have escrowed the funds, but those were exceptions and because we were already working closely to the owner of the proposal, we can’t do that for everyone that wishes so.
I know you are busy you thanks for you’re reply. I totally agree that building in this directly into the system would be to complex, and it would also not be legally binding seeing there are no real laws in place (most noval idea’s of smart contracts suffer the same problem). But good that you cleared that up as well. Do the addition of multi-signature address would be a great functionality all by itself,
(I actually hope that you already understanding the following, so please don’t take it as an insult, I just want to make sure the following is crystal clear)
However what I was talking about using existence technic’s which are in use today in almost every company if they reach a certain size. administrative organisation almost always has people at key central points mostly in pairs of 3
for example:
1 user (the proposal owner)
2 administrator (the keeper of the funds)
3 owner (the masternode owners)
And it using works with signatures (let’s say I sign this contract, because I take the money, and i promise use it on x, y ,z properly done the signatures can also work legally binding)
The key point is this your making people responsible for their action. In Case of let’s say Charlie Sherm, you setup a contract in which he signed, I will spend this much on x,y,z and deliver proof that I actually spend it on that as well. If in turn now he does not stick to his end of the bargain he can be legally be held accountable for his or her actions. Personally I never like going down this road but in business you conduct business, and we are all not friend, we are business partners.
Excuses like Charlie Sherm got maried, does kind off excuses are insufficient at any-rate, Dash is not a charity in that sense, and people can’t just come in and take a free lunch at anytime. I am 100% certain failed proposal will not just be a thing we deal with from time to time but it will be a regular thing, as it’s a good way to make money, undercut your competition by offering your services for lower financial requirements and offering increase value in return, all you have to do now is pretend your working on it, and bingo $$$$$.
Agreed.
I also agree and think that the failure to deliver has left some bad feeling, which part payments and escrow would have sorted.
Although I have retired, I was European Retail Programmes manager for Digital Equipment Corp back in the early 1990s, I would be willing to offer my services for monitoring and managing a number of projects.
If this is of interest, please contact me.
Are you able to create legally binding contracts ?
Hey @andrewcballantine:disqus, I’m not involved with any such programs, but I would suggest getting in touch with GreenCandle.io and instantkarmafund.org to offer services to them. I’m sure they’d appreciate it.
😉
Good going getting stuff started trying to address this btw. We’re still growing, but I won’t forget the work you put in.
Thanx Joel. Still have most of the docs that were developed – Once I see a capable team tackling this problem I’ll send it to them to use as they see fit. Don’t want it to be screwed up again by some fly-by-night.
People will be sorry they did not vote for your proposal and get this started earlier. You can lead a horse to water…..
I should have waited for the shit to hit the fan before submitting the proposal. Thought the MNO’s would also see the need to be pro-active. Assumed most MNO’s would be quite bright.. Maybe my marketing just sucked?