21 Gov Questions to Consider

(Johnny401View) #1

21 Gov Questions to Consider


(Nick Saponaro) #2

Transcribed version from the other site below:

Governance Thoughts

  1. Are we looking for a direct democracy?

  2. If so (#1) what about if the masses take actions which go against the best interests of the project according to the Divi team?

  3. If #1, will Gold Masternodes have 10x the influence over a Copper? If not, what would stop the Gold masternode from breaking up into 10 wallets?

  4. In the WP 2.0, there was discussion about possibly validating blocks again Diamond. Could we lower that to Platinum to allow 30+ nodes?

  5. If #4 comes to pass, would their be an extra rewards for those protecting the network?

  6. Referencing #4, could Gold+ be nominated (similar to a DPoS) system and those validators act as little mini companies. In other words, similar to DPoS, the validators would campaign and show how if elected, they show value to the ecosystem.

  7. If #7 is considered, would part of the rewards come from the 8% for proposals or would we need to vote on adjusting the 45/45/8/2% ?

  8. How would we encourage people to vote? Would they get some type of incentives or reminders?

  9. Does the core team have the ability to veto any approved proposals? If so, what’s the mechanism?

  10. Recommendation: Hand-holding and advanced modes available to engage in the process.

  11. Do we want a 10% required approval on proposals similar to Dash?

  12. What percentage of the 8% governance will be green-lit for maintenance?

  13. Will voters have the option to be anonymous or do we want a record of votes? Option to publicly show voting record?

  14. Strengths/weaknesses on the following voting systems: BitShares, Dash, Decred and EOS (after July 6th)

  15. Recommended idea: First step is to create an easy GUI interface that the community can vote on proposals submitted by the Divi Team (similar to the current vote on airdrop/resetting blockchain)

  16. What are the interim steps to get to full (or almost full) community governance? Do we envision that as a stated goal?

  17. What about technical proposals that most people might not understand the implications?

  18. How much do proposals cost to create? How long is the voting? Thresholds?

  19. How does the system scale? Is it modular enough to upgrade/modify without designing it?

  20. If the team greenlights a proposal, is there a percentage of votes from the community that would require a response?

  21. If the team makes a proposal, can they set the criteria for the measure to pass?

Proposal for Small Change in Block Rewards
(Johnny401View) #3

What are your thoughts about proxy voting? In other words, let’s say I want my vote counted and I don’t feel I have the experience to properly vote, I could allow a representative to vote on my behalf. This approach would create an ecosystem that proxy reps would have to justify their voting approach to that trust them with their votes. If it was transparent, I can see that solving one of the major issues on voting I’ve seen in projects that have some type of governance.

Proposal for Small Change in Block Rewards
(OriZ) #4
  1. I definitely prefer a direct democracy. I want the people deciding, not the “representatives”(the team).

  2. I think our interests are aligned, so I don’t think the community will go against the best interests of the project. Regardless, we should have checks and balances in place. I propose each proposal get approved in an initial vote(simple majority) by the community, and then brought to a vote on the issue itself. I think there should be a (small) fee for each proposal, a fee that will be shared by the other masternodes as a reward. I propose limiting the # of votes each masternode can call for, based on tier. Stakers cannot make proposals. Copper will only be allowed, say, 1 proposal per month. Silver maybe 2 per month, etc diamond 5 per month. Masternodes that abuse that(bring alot of junk votes) will be banned from making future proposals(their peers will vote on whether or not the proposals were considered junk proposals - the vote itself can be called by either another masternode, or the team). On issues that relate to reward distribution or allocation of funds, a 65% majority in EACH tier is required. I know the electoral system is losing popularity to some, but to me, it is an ingenious system, and I think we should have something similar. so, to win a vote you basically need 4 out of 5 masternode tiers to be aligned(once they get their own 65% majority). If there are 3, it’s the team’s call. 2 and the vote is lost.

So for example, I bring a proposal to change reward distribution. 60% of copper masternodes vote for my proposal, copper is out. 70% of gold masternodes vote for my proposal, that’s one tier on my side. 70% of silver vote against me, 80% of diamond and 80% of platinum vote for me. so copper is out and doesn’t count; I still need 4 and only have 3. Team’s call. I also think the team should be able to participate in votes and have x2 the voting power. Also, they should be able to veto proposals that receive less than 80% majority, but they only have a limited number of vetos per year so should use them wisely(perhaps 20 vetoes per year?).

We can also allow stakers to vote on anything that could have an effect on them or on masternodes, to make sure the masternodes don’t screw them over. So stakers would be a 6th group needing 65%. In regular porposals/votes, a simple majority should be enough, but in combination with the tiers as well. So for example, if I want a vote on a donation to some agency, I would need to get 51% of the “popular vote”, + a majority of tiers. Votes regarding reward/fund matters, should be limited to 2 per year per masternode, regardless of the monthly count.

  1. 1 coin = 1 vote.

  2. see 2.

  3. I think the option to remain anonymous should be there.

  4. not too familiar

(Johnny401View) #5

@oriz123 has brought up some good points I want to address later today. One of the primary questions I’d like everyone to consider is how to encourage enough voting to satisfy 2 primary conditions. These conditions often challenge one another which makes the balance tricky.

How do you design a governance voting system that:

  1. Encourages enough participation that the result is statistically meaningful. In other words,is there a threshold (similar to Dash) needed to be met (10% for example).

  2. Encourage people that don’t understand the complexity of the decision not to vote for the sake of voting. This is why I like the option to proxy my vote to what ** I ** consider an expert. Maybe on a shared page, Ortiz does such a good job explaining his positions I trust him with my voting.

This is a MAJOR challenge I’ve seen in all major voting approaches. I understand that ease of use is barrier we can solve, however, I also believe not everyone is as civic as the small group we hear in the forums/tgs against the general population of holders we should expect in the next 6 months.

(Johnny401View) #6

Too many great points, I can’t wait to dig right in. :slight_smile:

  1. I like the idea of a simple vote first. I can imagine that if the cost to bring up a proposal isn’t meaningful, we could get a lot of FUD/Vulgar type proposals.

Suggestion: Maybe we make the cost higher, however, if it passes the simple majority, a portion is refunded. That would encourage people to gain backing for their proposal before moving forward. I can see the pushback concerning ‘only the rich can make proposals’ arguments, that’s why it’s tricky.

  1. I also like limiting the number of proposals based on masternode level. There would need to be measures to prevent people shifting coins around to game the system. I’m not quite sure how you prevent that from happening.

  2. I also like a higher requirement based on the type of issue.

  3. It would need to be stupid simple for anyone to quickly understand if they want to participate.

  4. I think anything less than 1 vote = 1 coin goes against the whole idea of POS. So we’re in agreement.

  5. I’m assuming the node validators is something that’s far in the future. We won’t have to worry about tps until we actually have a base using the product.


You beat me to write about it! And your wording is much better so its perfect.

I was sitting and thinking yesterday about how a country would fail if we implemented “direct democracy” to our countries. The 95% cant rule a country. It would end in a Venezuela like catastrophic event.

Remember the President of Venezuela is just a Bus Driver. He may be able to drive a Bus, but not a country. Not even remotely close to successfully. He is not even trying I would dare to say. But that may be an overvaluation of his intellect.

But as @johntravelsasia talks about the solution would be picking someone who is an Expert/Leder type who Will and Can lead a country or community in the right direction.

Sounds alot like Normal Democracy, Governments to me.

Please tell me the difference?

Problem is for some reason Governments/Politicians are/become corrupted. I’am figuring out why. Some say it is the system that make them corrupted, others think it is in human nature that some become corrupt as a result of power. They cant handle the power so to say.

It is like corrupted policemen. They sworn to serve the country but ended up being bribed to turn the blind eye to crimes or work with criminals. Some countries the higest police officers are bought and corrupted. Leading to the police force being useless in reality in fighting the real crime, the big criminals.

In Essence:

So the reason democracy fails, in reality, is corruption.

The People can never rule successfully by them self, they do simply not have the knowledge or intellect to do so. It is a full-time job to rule a company or country. And the right genetics is needed. ( intellect, smartness, Innovational thinking, decision-making skills )

  • Divi is not a country, but Divi is a company ultimately and will still be run like a Company even after full Decentralization. - Or should be so for any form of success long term.
  • Clarification: It takes much more skill to run a successful company than a country. Does not take much skill to run a country as President in comparison. Times yes, skill? Not much. You just continue the work from the last government for 4 years and that is that with a few minor changes essentially.

(Johnny401View) #8

Why proxy (sounds like normal government)

I don’t expect everyone to have the same background I have in crypto. I’ve seen voting mechanisms barely function since 2013, not everyone needs to live and breathe this material. Sometimes investors might want to put their vote in the hands of people they deem represents their best interest.

Here’s some engagement proof, look at the social media activity of our 500 or so investors. No offense to that group, but if they arent even willing to spend 10 seconds on a social media like, you feel they will spend the time researching difficult/indepth votes? :slight_smile:

Most people don’t live on these forums like we do. Quite frankly, they don’t need to. As investors, they have no obligation to participate. Let’s make it easier for them to contribute without forcing a crapload more time requirements.

I’m ANCAP by nature, but there’s a difference between my utopia and my (what I consider) practical recommendations as first steps. Even our WP 2.0 outlines a need for verification to participate in the merchant system. Goes against my political approach but makes sense what Divi is trying to accomplish.


It seems like everyone and his dog is creating their own money tech these days. New cryptocurrencies pop up every other day. But that’s not the worst. I’m concerned of the giant companies who own the markets and who already got a foothold in everyone’s devices. We used to have Google Play. Now there’s Google Pay advertising on TV!

The competition is fierce right now. And it’s only going to get worse. Giants like Amazon who probably have more money at their disposal than most countries, used to buy new brands and technologies which may be useful to them or which might pose a threat in the future, when fully developed or taken over by their competition. No matter how high DIVI exchange rate might get, those companies will be capable of purchasing enough to influence votes in their favor. And as soon as potential of DIVI becomes widely known, make no mistake about it, DIVI will be on their list.

(OriZ) #10

If that happens, we can all retire.


Or maybe they buy DIVI the same way Disney bought Lucasfilm. Everybody keeps their Jobs. Holders keep their Masternodes. Only the company is going to become a part of a bigger company. IMHO it deserves, a fair consideration whether that could be a good thing. And if not, preventive measures need to be discussed.