Budget proposals vs. "declarations"

[TroyDASH]

More ideas to bounce off DashTalk -----

It seems to me that the current budget proposals are being used for very different purposes
1. To fund projects that benefit the network
eg. Core team budget, marketing budget, Dash N Drink
2. To establish or affirm a consensus among the masternode network
eg. Should we increase the blocksize to 2MB? Should we implement some form of budget prioritization and/or immutable contracts?


For #2, the current system does not seem particularly conducive to this usage. If you were to put forward a proposal for 5 DASH, and it is to establish a consensus about the question "Should we increase the blocksize to 4MB?" This is obviously a non-binding proposal in the sense that it is only a guage for the sentiment of the masternode operators. What happens if there are slightly more Yes votes than No votes, but it does not get funded? What if it receives a supermajority of Yes votes but still does not get funded because other unrelated proposals were even more popular? If it is funded, why should the 5 DASH even be deducted from the total DASH budget size when the only purpose was to reimburse the 5 DASH from the proposal itself? While we can use the current system to guage the masternode sentiment, it's really not designed for that - it's designed to pay for things.

Therefore, I am thinking it may be helpful to create a separate type of governance proposal in order to distinguish between these different purposes.
A "declaration" or "ratification" per se, would be proposed when there is a need to establish a masternode consensus on literally anything that does not involve an immediate payout. Could be used for things like:
- Development direction / to demonstrate support for ideas about future adjustments to the protocol
- Specific instructions aimed at developers or other current budget proposal payees
- Decentralized governance - should the masternode network form a consensus to establish certain (amendable) policies and procedures, for example https://dashtalk.org/threads/project-management-framework-proposition.8693/
- DASH Nation constitution?

Since these would be separate from the current budget proposals, the criteria for which the proposal cost would be reimbursed by the protocol may be different than an ordinary budget proposal (not quite sure what the best criteria would be). But regardless, if the cost is reimbursed, the funds would be effectively reimbursed and not deducted from the total budget allocation for the month. And if not reimbursed, then the proposal cost is burnt or added to the available budget.

Obviously, any consensus established via this method is not binding on any masternode operator and is not enforceable (unless we build into the protocol some ways to tie in these with actual budget items, for example, a way to exit a multi-month contract,...). However I would argue that this is not a bad thing and does not diminish the value or importance of building these sorts of declarations. I am of the opinion that we need to go beyond the "just leave things be and the masternodes will either update or not update, vote a budget in or out,...etc". Ultimately yes that is what happens, but it feels like we are missing out on the opportunity to leverage our decentralized governance to plan ahead and act more like a governing body and less like a mob.


Thoughts?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

You're absolutely right and this is becoming much clearer to me in recent times, the block size vote demonstrated this.

I'd like to see a voting system that I can rent. For example, I might be a local authority with 1M constituents / members and I want a verifiable yet anonymous voting mechanism. Moreover, I want to give my members the ability to sub-rent and create their own votes to other members without me having to publish my member database.

Say, for example, I am a local politician I build a database of 1M verified members. I take responsibility for validating and verifying my members onto a database. I then use the blockchain to rent 1M votes which provides the anonymous layer to my members, such that they can cast their vote or transfer it to someone else. Additionally, each of my anonymous members can also rent the voting mechanism to reach the same 1M members without needing access to my database.

Another example. The dash core team rent 4k votes, one for each masternode operator. The core team might then ask it's members to vote on the block size. Moreover, each MNO can then rent 4k votes, reaching out to the same members.

Both of the above examples would utilise the same blockchain voting system, crucially providing an anonymous, democratized and verifiable layer. There would be a small charge for renting the voting mechanism but it would be a flat universal fee. This might be better suited to a PoS blockchain where the fees can be burned without affecting overall supply.