What's new

Archived Should a summary report be made?

Gerrald

New Pivian
Continuing the discussion from discord.

This proposal is a question to ask masternode owners if they would like to see more transparency with the funds that are provided by the treasury. The suggestion would be to write a report at the end of cycle and show how funds were spent to then determine if to continue the proposal next cycle.

Personally I could not vote on a proposal without knowing how the funds that previously had been approved were spent.

This would not be forced upon anyway and this proposal is to just get masternode owners views on doing it like this.

It does not mean anyone has to follow it up but atleast gives the proposal owners the indication that this is what people would like to see to increase transparency.

As always the votes are everyone's personal choice, some people might not be fussed about reports. This is just a question to see if other masternode owners would like it but they still may not get it and so they can choose who to give their votes.
 
Last edited:

Eric_Stanek

Administrator
Staff member
There are 3 simple questions I ask myself when evaluating how I will vote for a proposal. Here they are, with my answers.

1. What will it buy PIVX?

For this proposal, it buys absolutely nothing. It asks a question we already know the answer to, and presents zero actions that should result from any answer. Regardless, reporting is not enforceable. Only competition among proposals can create pressure to report out.

2. What will it cost PIVX?

The cost is very small. Only 10 PIV.

3. Is it worth it?

There is risk it could cause a real proposal to fail, if that other proposal expected those 10 PIV to be available. Wouldn’t matter though, because since this proposal buys PIVX nothing, it isn’t even worth the 10 PIV payout.

Conclusion:

Even though I believe that proposals should have reports, I have to vote NO on this proposal. It creates risk, and offers zero value. I expect other MNOs will think the same, but we can’t know that. Unfortunately, that makes any result coming from this proposal totally disconnected from the question it seeks to answer, and therefore completely useless. Hopefully the Proposal Owner will learn from this moving forward.
 

Gerrald

New Pivian
The 10 piv was only added as you can't put a proposal in without a minimum of 10.

412 / 383 currently. A large number of masternodes agrees more than the nos but I suspect you can change that % to favour nos very easily.

Its pretty clear from reading all the info available that the yes and no vote is decided by you but thats due to a chunk of the masternodes not voting which is no fault of your own.

Maybe eventually a more fairer system will be done instead of who's got the most voting power.

Anyway I hope the amount of no votes for proposals and the amount of yes votes this proposal has managed to get atleast changes something in the group to see that maybe your being to centralised and you need to be more open of what is going on and impact what you all have done has had.

Thanks for your time.
 

Eric_Stanek

Administrator
Staff member
With that many votes on both sides, clearly the voting system is decentralized. That's good and proves the exact opposite of what you imply.
 

Eric_Stanek

Administrator
Staff member
I am not sure why you don't understand. Let's assume the vote was 100% in favor of having reports. It changes nothing. We already know that is what everyone wants. But, that doesn't mean it is possible, or that the proposal owners want to. This is often the case, as there are trolls that just go and nitpick every single decision, and every single PIV, even while they are totally ignorant of what is required to complete the task. Micro-managing like that discourages people. Especially when they are typically working at a reduced rate. So, the only way to minimize that, is to not report out. This is why reporting can't be forced - because it is the only protection from bonehead irrational trolls, that simply want to damage PIVX. Further, proposals are funded AHEAD of the work being done. Then the proposal owner can decide to report out, or NOT to.

Now, if there are other people submitting similar proposals, and they are trusted, AND they have a reputation of submitting reports, then those MNOs that really want to see the reports, can decide to vote for them instead if they like. This is why I say that competition is the only way to apply pressure for providing reports.

It still is no guarantee though. For example, if I know and trust 'Team A', and they refuse to report out, while 'Team B' is new and has not earned trust yet, but has committed to providing reports, and has demonstrated so before with smaller proposals, it still is not acceptable to force a MNO to vote for 'Team B'.

So, let's summarize.

1. Proposals owners can't be forced to report.
2. Proposal owners are paid in advance of the work being done.
3. Trolls have used reporting data to 'word spin' and waste everyone's time, while discouraging PIVians.
4. Reports can be faked. MNOs are best motivated to do due diligence to check.
5. Even if they could be forced, you can't force MNOs how to vote.
6. This voting cycle proves that voting is decentralized.
7. It sounds like your definition of fair and decentralized, is when you get what you want no matter what. Sorry, that is Centralized.
8. You have already given answers to where the MBD funds are being spent multiple times. Those are reports. Yet, you didn't accept them.
9. Based on point 7, transparency and accountability is not your objective.
10. Voting down proposals, with no competing proposal to take its place, is a complete waste of value.
11. The MNO votes control the flow of the Treasury Funds via the PIVX Core wallet code. That's it. Full stop.

The PIVX DAO = Code + [Community x Swarmwise]

Good Luck.
 
Top