BM roughly said this on the Hangout:
-Delegates are not going to run nodes, and not be compensated for their time and resources.
-Stakeholders also want to have a viable business so they have to pay the delegates.
-So we have to raise fees to cover the cost of delegates and user acquisitions.
-So we need a business model that is sustainable from a revenue perspective. If its not sustainable, then we don't have a viable business.
Agree with you BM, what about starspirit idea.
Voting is only good for allocating trust.
It is very bad for running a business or even a project.
Such roles involve specialty skills and deep hands-on knowledge beyond the average voter's abilities.
Any solution needs to, at most, vote on who to hold accountable and then let them manage the allocated resources.
I wouldn't want to fly on a plane controlled by voting passengers.
(And I wouldn't want to own a company that worked that way either.)
Absolutely! This is why a voting system where the coding workers are delegates is now sub-optimal. The only people that should fill delegate roles are those whose mandates and delivery outcomes are transparent enough for the community to judge. Most stakeholders are not and should not need to be sitting alongside developers to have any control.
Stan, how do you envisage the delegate structure should best be utilised then? My view is something like this:
Remove the need for delegates to produce blocks and price feeds. Within the broad delegate group, there should be competitive subsets of delegates responsible for:
- managing the decentralised pool of (X=101?) block-producers
- managing the pool of price feed submitters
The "Head of Development" should be responsible for allocations amongst coders based on value produced, rather than being determined by broad stakeholder voting.
In the "company model" delegates should be more like directors or managers, who are hired and fired on how well they allocate resources, including to others, to meet expected outcomes.
If this evolves in time toward a "network economy " model, the delegates would be more like public agents that are granted budgets to implement their public mandates, by allocating these to the service providers that best meet them. An entire system of decentralised governance could be built around this.
The key is that stakeholders need to delegate accountabilities, but always hold the collective power of conferring or removing that accountability if needs are not being met.
Further, voluntary funding models should be strongly considered to complement anything else we do.
[/b]
Show Posts
Got my vote.
