Welcome!

https://mnowatch.org/the_results_dashd_2023-02-22-02-35-33.html?0=crowdnode

Crowdnode vote result for fractional voting :

7 YES, 48 NO

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-would-you-like-to-be-able-to-vote-with-number.9081/

Would you like to be able to cast votes using numbers and extract the results as an average?

9 YES , 2 MEDIAN, 42 NO

When a community is asked about the numbers for the first time, the percentages are similar and this is yet another indication of how the demons affect the people.

Perhaps Crowdnode should disable fractional voting then because their users clearly don't actually see the value of having it.

The crowdnoders are using it, but when asked about it they deny it!!

This is yet another proof of how strongly the crowd is possesed by the anti-numerical daemons.

The crowd didnt burn the Pythagorean meeting houses for nothing....

Lets calculate the approximation of the indivualities for the budget voting

Approximately 5 individuals are in favor of fractional voting.
https://mnowatch.org/the_results_dashd_2023-02-22-02-35-33.uniqueHashVotes.183.html?3=fractional

Approximately 48 individuals are against fractional voting
https://mnowatch.org/the_results_dashd_2023-02-22-02-35-33.uniqueHashVotes.183.html?4=fractional

5 YES, 48 NO

A different community, the community of masternodes, but SIMILAR RESULTS.

Another indication of the intervention of the ancient demons who, throughout human history, prevent any community around the world from voting the numbers.

Pythagoras realized that the majority hates the numbers, so he refused entry to the Pythagorean houses to those who did not know mathematics.

The ravaging crowd burned the Pythagorean meeting houses. Only two Pythagorean philosophers were not burned.

"Αγεωμέτρητος μηδείς εισίτω"

https://faculty.math.illinois.edu/~jelliot2/plato.html

The Dash Town Hall is going to implement fractional voting for non-MNOs:

"Public votes are currently associated with a unique email address, but later will be tied to those users who own dash, but not enough for a MN."

But still MNOs choose to vote against this particular proposal which gives all MNOs more precision and especially to single node owners whom have no precision. MNOs do not want more precise in governance proposals. Bias and hypocrisy at its finest.

Poor Dash community, you lie speechless like a lamb in front of the fractional voting, but your death is already predestined, by a number voted by the daemons.

Speechless be the lips of the impious who refuse to reverence thy revered icon which is known by the name Directress.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/1hD4UM6Okqat/

Let my vote be set forth as incense before Thee, the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice. Hearken unto me, O Lord.

How does this work with the ability to delegate votes?

Delegation is not affected, it works as it already works.

You used to have a (yes/no/abstain) vote, now you have a (1 to 0 and all the inbetween numbers,abstain) vote.

Example of votes:

gobject vote-many proposalhash funding 1

gobject vote-many proposalhash funding 0

gobject vote-many proposalhash funding 0.56

gobject vote-many proposalhash funding 0.4564

gobject vote-many proposalhash funding abstain

...though it would need at least two states provided to calculate the third state:

gobject vote-many proposalhash funding 0.4 Yes 0.5 No

...this would automatically calculate Abstain as 0.1

Thats an alternative idea, I agree with.

The important is the semantics, after all, not the implementation.

On the other hand, if 0.1 is abstain, how can we match the range 0 to 1 to a specific numerical range?

On a second thought, I think abstain should not be represented with a number.

Abstain is undecided. It could be said that 0 = No and therefore not the same as abstain. But I agree, it's semantics and not so important.

Look at the results of this proposal. There are 66 Abstain and I'm sure not a single one of them voted Yes and changed their mind, I think they deliberately voted Abstain to say they are undecided. It effectively amounts to a No vote anyway because the only thing that matters is a super majority Yes.

What is the reason to do this?

Certain proposals, typically involving governance, could more precisely gauge interest. But more importantly, it paves the way for further governance improvements. For example, perhaps the network has decided on a change but then seeks to understand how much should be allocated.

Another possibility it opens up is the setting of parameters where the median is determined from all votes.

At the moment, the blunt end of the current governance system means DCG has to submit multiple proposals and then go to a penalty shootout.

To create a level playing field for all and especially single node owners. The more nodes you own, the more refinement you get. Single node owners can only achieve this by staking with CrowdNode or similar.

I agree with Lysergic, this seems like a waste of resources in our current position.

I also want to address itsdemo's piggyback off this proposal. I wrote up a whole thing last time explaining the reasoning but I'm feeling lazy since it got wiped. But essentially it boils down to this:

Under our current system it is likely that an enforceable legal contract is created when someone proposes the network and we vote to accept and a payout happens.

Under Demo's proposed system that would likely no longer be the case. We would be removing any legal duty from the proposer to follow through with their proposal.

It also introduces a problem of someone receiving a payout that is lower than the minimum to carry out their proposal. For instance if I make a proposal to build something for dash which I have calculated will cost me 90 dollars, I ask for 100 so that I get a healthy profit. The network decides to pay me $85 to do it. Now I have the networks money, no legal duty to carry out my plan, and further can't carry out my plan because the network didn't give me the resources to do it.

Which part of the proposal said the payout changes?

Initially, the payout of a proposal is not planned to change, this makes the implementation of fractional voting very easy to code.

But later on, the payout of a proposal may be related to the voting outcome. In case the semantics of a proposal require a numerical voting rather than a simple yes/no, the payout of a proposal may change depending on the voting outcome. This requires more complicated development.

But the first verion of fractional voting having unchangeable proposal payout does not make fractional voting less usefull.

Because fractional voting is not used only for proposal's payout issues, but also for governance questions that can decide multiple things (among them and for payouts).

I think you didnt understand what I have said. Under fractional voting, the proposal owner has two options:

1) Either he/she asks for a yes or no (1 or 0)

2) Either he/she asks to vote the numbers ( a range from 1 to 0 )

So its up to the proposal owner to clarify what the semantics of his proposal.

Fractional voting does not exclude the yes-no vote as you claim.

Gotcha, I did misunderstand what your were proposing. In that case I'm not against it, but I do think that we don't want to use DCG resources and time to implement this right now. I do think its a good idea as having both types of proposals and would be open to voting for it in the future

Just remember this argument of yours when DCG come back later with a far more complicated offering. No less than their pledge to build masternode shares which has been further delayed and is far more complex than this. Sam made that promise when seeking votes for HPMNs, it should be no surprise they backpedaled once they got the vote.

Your attitude to putting DCG / Platform before every other governance proposal which is exactly why dash is a security. You are putting DCG on a pedestal before the needs of the network. Of course you will argue against this to protect your bags.

I am putting the network on notice that I am going to communicate with the US SEC and possibly the same for Thailand as I have local contacts in the region.

If you want to hire a developer to implement your proposal then by all means make that proposal. I don't think its a good idea to put more work on DCG when we are already leaning on them to get Evo/Platform out the door.

It honestly seems like you've never been in a workplace before. There is a limited bandwidth and we are already pushing DCG as hard as we can.

And for the record everything everyone is doing is to protect their bags, that is literally how the incentive structure of this system works. We simply disagree on what the best way to protect our respective bags is.

Oh contraire, I have multiple credits in both systems design and applications programming.

When I said within two months, I was allowing for other activities within DCG while not giving them the perception that it's okay to push things back.

Sam already stated one person, two weeks, or one month at absolute most.

Both Ash and Sam have already made their intentions clear to move governance to Platform. How complex do you imagine that will be compared to this proposal?

Did you notice how Sam promised trustless masternode shares while seeking votes for HPMNs, then subsequently pushed it back once he got the vote? How complex do you imagine trustless masternode shares are in comparison to this? How many years did MNOs wait before getting it? Do you understand a by-product of masternode shares is fractional voting? - and if not, why not?

You are making excuses for DCG while being critical of this proposal which is significantly less complex.

It makes no sense for you to speak on the behalf of DCG or prioritizing their time and resources, especially when they agree to do this work if this proposal passes.

As you know, for an extended period of time I have been hard on DCG. They have consistently and repeatedly failed to deliver on many fronts, not just Platform. So when you say...

"There is a limited bandwidth and we are already pushing DCG as hard as we can"

...what you actually mean is, they are quite incompetent to manage and deliver anything. And we know now that any final delivery will be a fake delivery and incapable of running on any more than 100 nodes.

So yes, I am handing DCG the simple things that they should be able to complete, more so if you claim they already working flat out on the complicated stuff.

By your quote I understand that you may disagree with the quote

"To be completed by Dash Core Group within TWO MONTSH of this proposal passing."

Well, this is EXACTLY what fractional-voting is meant for.

LETS VOTE THE MONTHS!

As you can see, there is no rational reason why people fiercly deny voting the numbers, everywhere on earth, since at least 2000 years. The only rational explanation, they are possesed by daemons.....

You have to understand a simple governance rule.

FIRST we decide, and THEN we implement.

Thats what governance is for. We do not implement things that are not approved.

Furthermore, the code is already almost written, since OCT 22ND, 2017

https://pastebin.com/jBmA8G5F

oops...sorry...the code is written since Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:19:09 +0300

It is not that simple, it is not just a SEC. It may be, but this is a superficial explanation.

They used the same argument in incubator, when they refused pietrosperoni's proposal to vote the numbers.

Is incubator related to DCG? It is not.

It is more complex than that, it is the daemons that posseses all these people who fiercly oppose or postpone a "voting the numbers" implementation. The daemons prevent that simple idea to be implemented in any human community, since at least 2000 years. This consistent denial is a proof that demons exist.

Can the sheep escape their shepherd? They can't, they don't have the mind to do it.

So do human, they can't escape daemons.

"Here is wisdom, and whoever has a mind in him, let him vote the number of the beast"

Yet another proof of the immense interfearence of the daemons in the "voting the numbers" issue.

The greek word "Psefisato" that clearly means "vote", the whole humanity translates it as "calculate" or "count"!!!

https://biblehub.com/greek/5585.htm

#13 ?

As long as you understood what I have said, the next important question arises:

Why "voting the numbers" is not allowed anywhere, not allowed in the smallest community here on earth, never in the whole human history?

As state before the wipe, this is a solution looking for a problem.

LET THE DAO DECIDE "HOW MUCH"!!!!!!

DONT YOU SEE A REAL BIG PROBLEM WHEN THE DAO CANNOT DECIDE "HOW MUCH"?????

"When to apply the system

The opportunities for this system to be applied are really countless, and the world would be a very different place if we, as a society and as a civilisation, really have understood this modus operandi and applied it anywhere it could be applied. Many Dao has an enormous number of quantitative decisions to take.

How long should this work last?
How much should we invest in this company?
How much should we pay for this job?
This Dao is offering a service, how much should it ask to be paid?
How many people should be in this team?
How long before new elections should be held?
How many times a person can be elected for a specific role?
and so on"

As proven before the wipe, you are fully aware of both the demand and the solutions being worked on by CrowdNode and DCG. More so, that the DCG solution is yet again delayed, making the case for this proposal even stronger.

You have been proven to show favor for CrowdNode and willfully make an effort to voice your opposition for this proposal.

If you can not make the cause for this proposal then you can equally not make the case for CrowdNode / DCG. It is that simple.

In the previous comments, everyone said it was a good proposal :p

It is the greatest proposal ever.

Fractional voting allows MNOs to vote the numbers.

For example if you want to vote a range from the number 435 to the number 43546, then you match 0 to 435 and 1 to 43546. So if you vote 0.675 , it is the number 29100.

You may also read the below relevant article:
https://pietrosperoni.medium.com/let-the-dao-decide-how-much-3181bfdf1e7c

"When to apply the system

The opportunities for this system to be applied are really countless, and the world would be a very different place if we, as a society and as a civilisation, really have understood this modus operandi and applied it anywhere it could be applied. Many Dao has an enormous number of quantitative decisions to take.

How long should this work last?
How much should we invest in this company?
How much should we pay for this job?
This Dao is offering a service, how much should it ask to be paid?
How many people should be in this team?
How long before new elections should be held?
How many times a person can be elected for a specific role?
and so on"

"Here is wisdom, and whoever has a mind in him, let him vote the number of the beast"

Furthemore , I challenge any rational person to answer the below questions:

Why so much hatery about this idea (as also shown by the negative votes in this proposal) ?

Why "voting the numbers" is not allowed anywhere, not allowed in the smallest community here on earth, never in the whole human history?

Why Pythagorean meeting houses were burned?

Because the relatively small membership of the Dash DAO has essentially decreed DCG is the owner of the dash protocol and delegated to DCG the control of hard forks and sporks. In other words, dash is to all intents and purposes a security.