Is the masternode vote the final vote?

[Borris]

Starting this for discussions ready for an end all proposal to stop all these disagreements about how the dao works.

There seems to be alot of confusion about how the masternode voting system is used for making decisions.

Let's make this completely clear and set out what exactly your vote does and if it actual matters?

My view of it is the masternodes vote is the decision maker. If something is voted through that's the decision no matter if you like the outcome or not.

Now @Eric_Stanek view of this is the vote is just the funds but they can choose to ignore it if they wish. This is a red flag for me and my view of the dao this is not how it should or is meant to work. Feel free to add a more detailed explanation Eric but that's the basic explanation your giving.

Let's give a few examples.

A vote to remove an admin discord user. If that passes are they removed?

A vote to be lead dev. If it passes are they then lead? (Obviously hyperphetical) this is just an extreme example.

A vote to rebrand if it passes will everyone be on board and follow it through?

These are basic examples. Simple yes and no vote examples. Obviously other things get more complicated when access to sensitive information is involed but who decides what information is shared? If your not voted through to have access to certain information who decides that?

 

[SiggeB]

Maybe you should also add a description about how exactly the voting system works. That's important for being able to make a good vote, and many aren't fully aware about how the system works.

 

[Borris]

Maybe you should also add a description about how exactly the voting system works. That's important for being able to make a good vote, and many aren't fully aware about how the system works.

Once a clear consensus has been agreed I'm sure we can all come up with a writeup together then there can be no disagreements or confusion of how it works and what the vote is for.

My view is alot different than Eric and the clique obviously else this wouldn't even be a discussion. I can understand why they would prefer to see it their way as the control over decisions are being made by a few which they class themselves as volunteers with no voting of decisions being doing. That's not a problem and I have no problems with any of them putting their time in to expand pivx. It also probably does speed things up getting things out there instead of waiting each month for another vote. But if they were not voted in to make those decisions what gives them the right? If a vote appeared to completely cut them out of any decisions would that be enforced and they are removed from whatever it is they have been doing? Who also has given them that power over decisions if they were not voted in?

There are lots of volunteers, great we love you for it. But to then think your above the vote if the mn owners decide they don't want you anymore? Doesn't make sense.

This is not about removing people, this is about setting a clear guideline that if a vote is passed that's the final decision.

 

[SiggeB]

For what I've noticed, there is already a consensus. Consensus means a majority, not necessarily *everyone*, agrees.

And, I wasn't aware of that the MNs voted over volunteer work. Do they really? I don't thinks so, because how can anyone decide over what a volunteer should do or not, as long as it's for PIVX's positive development. That wouldn't even work in theory.

Or maybe I just misunderstood what you mean.

 

[Borris]

For what I've noticed, there is already a consensus. Consensus means a majority, not necessarily *everyone*, agrees.

And, I wasn't aware of that the MNs voted over volunteer work. Do they really? I don't thinks so, because how can anyone decide over what a volunteer should do or not, as long as it's for PIVX's positive development. That wouldn't even work in theory.

Or maybe I just misunderstood what you mean.

Wouldn't really be a fair if the volunteers then have the power to decide that tho? Why would the people already involved who have been placed there with no vote change it? Who has placed them there? Who is making these decisions?

The only voting system we have currently is the masternodes. Be better if stakers had a vote too but then again if going off Eric and the cliques view of how the voting works whats the point in even adding that feature if a vote can be ignored?

I'm failing to see the point in the masternode voting system if its not the end all vote? What's the point in it? If a proposal is voted out should they still be involved?

 

[Borris]

A perfect example of how they sometimes choose to use the voting system would be the alliance proposals. They are asking for no funds just a yes or no vote. The masternodes are the one who then give the decision if it should be made. No pass no alliance.

Now if we are going off that example the masternode owners make the decisons why is this not the case for everything? It can't be pick or choose when you decide to use the voting system.

 

[SiggeB]

A volunteer usually works for the greater Good of PIVX. Why change that? Let's take my example. I donate huge amounts of my time to spread the word about PIVX, mainly on Twitter. No voting is necessary for that. But if I would spread FUD about PIVX, would we first need a vote to stop me? No, everyone would ban me, end of story. And, I would shoot myself in the foot because I'd ruin my reputation I've gained on Twitter and in the PIVX community.

If I understood it correctly, the voting system, as it is now, is designed to let MNs strictly decide over funding or not of certain ideas/projects, and not if MNs like or dislike trends, ideas. So in my view, making it necessary to first vote over each and every volunteer's job would let the whole process of volunteer work just put to a grinding halt. I don't see anything good in that.

 

[Borris]

A volunteer usually works for the greater Good of PIVX. Why change that? Let's take my example. I donate huge amounts of my time to spread the word about PIVX, mainly on Twitter. No voting is necessary for that. But if I would spread FUD about PIVX, would we first need a vote to stop me? No, everyone would ban me, end of story. And, I would shoot myself in the foot because I'd ruin my reputation I've gained on Twitter and in the PIVX community.

If I understood it correctly, the voting system, as it is now, is designed to let MNs strictly decide over funding or not of certain ideas/projects, and not if MNs like or dislike trends, ideas. So in my view, making it necessary to first vote over each and every volunteer's job would let the whole process of volunteer work just put to a grinding halt. I don't see anything good in that.

I'm not saying to vote for volunteers. I love everyone who helps pivx. But this is about how the voting system is used. If a vote popped up to remove someone form a position and it passes is that enforced?

Like I said this isn't about removing people this is about the voting system and who is making decisions behind the scenes without a masternode owners vote. Who puts people in key positions without a vote? Who has voted to give them that control?

Volunteers are volunteers. There in it to help pivx for free and donations . But as soon as you try to pull funds out of the system then you should be under full scrutinies from the masternode owners because in any version of how you view it. My view or Eric's the funds are in control of the masternode owners.

 

[SiggeB]

But as soon as you try to pull funds out of the system then you should be under full scrutinies from the masternode owners because in any version of how you view it. My view or Eric's the funds are in control of the masternode owners.

Isn't that how it works today?

 

[Borris]

It should be ye but have you seen the abuse I get for asking questions of how funds are spent?

Let give the most recent example. Zettys Spanish proposal has failed again . Sure no one can take that account away from him as he made it? But that is being pushed as the pivx Spanish official. Hes just been voted out so should that role now be given to someone else or should it be removed as official spannish account? Or does he just carry on as he is? If it is carry on as he has been then what was the point in the vote apart form tying to get funds for something that keeps being voted down?

 

[Borris]

This can all be settled with a clear description of how the pivx uses the dao and that put to a masternode vote. There can be no disagreements then.

 

[PIVX Member (PM)]

Masternodes olny vote where funds are going. Regarding other decisions each active PIVX member has 1 vote no matter if he has masternode or not. MY 2 PIVs

 

[Borris]

Masternodes olny vote where funds are going. Regarding other decisions each active PIVX member has 1 vote no matter if he has masternode or not. MY 2 PIVs

If that's the case then why do alliance proposals pop up that don't require any funding but a yes vote to agree for it? The voting system has been used for years for decisions. Prime example was the branding refresh. It can't be pick and choose when to use that voting system.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

Correct. It should not be used for Alliance decisions on their own. However it can be used to pay Treasury funds to a person as a token of respect for the time they invested and will continue to invest, to manage the Alliance relationship, or to pay for marketing costs etc.

Regardless, Alliance proposals came to be because of what a certain person wanted to do via a unilateral decision with no support from the DAO. It would have damaged PIVX greatly, and we dodged a bullet there. But, ultimately, it should be the DAO that decides what gets the official label as 'Alliance'. The DAO is plenty strong enough now for that. Further, a NO vote would do absolutely nothing to prevent a 3rd party from using PIVX or integrating it into their system. So, the vote would be moot.

There was no vote on a branding refresh decision. Just on spending Treasury funds towards that effort.