Concerned about the centralization of SmartCash


#1

Hi,

for a long time I have been concerned about the centralization of SmartCash.
Every projects started centralized it is not a bad thing but I do not notice any conversations or change’s to get more decentralized.

All these things are my opion and how I think it works. these are my quistions/concerns:

Would the devolpers listen if there would be a proposal accepted about changing the code (answer: if not fork SmartCash).

Also the voting the so called giving control into the SmartCash holders.
is not true there is still trust in the people managing the funds because all aproved proprosals are still managed by “fund manager”. Are there any plans to get rid of the fund managers?

I also have the quistion is the voting system only runned on the SmartCash site? or if there are any plans to get it decentralized?

Because with the current voting system you are trading in decentralization for protection against the SmartCash holders wasting the funds on people that do not deliver/complete. (or protection agaist large players voting on their own proposals, this would be gone when volume/SmartCash is bigger).

In my opion it is not bad if a system starts off bad as long as it improves. I hope there will be improvement in this field.

Would love anyones thoughs or comments.


#2

The proposal system is a project treasury for projects related to SmartCash, not code changes. Code updates are to be submitted to GitHub. Anyone is welcome to submit there and create pull requests for consideration. These would absolutely be reviewed, and if they were improvements and the code was fine it would be eligible to be added into the main codebase.

There is project oversight by the SmartCash SmartHive for projects. This is similar to how grant organizations have oversight over grantees projects. This requires that projects actually meet their goals and don’t scam (as is quite common with Dash and other treasuries that utilize block reward based treasuries).

This enables projects that don’t deliver to be disabled / deactivated. This style isn’t going to change, because oversight allows more effective growth and higher standards for proposals.


#3

Hi, Mark appreciate your response.
I am still concerned.

Maybe while we are growing it is okay to make sure no money is wasted (and being more centralized), but when we have moved to a point where there are enough SmartCash holders that are voting I really think that the “fund managers” should be removed and the responsibility should be given to the SmartCash holders. Also to send block rewards to a centralized place to be distributed is not good. It is however fine if there would be an centralized organization that takes donations and distributes them by votes of SmartCash holders (so with no privileges of being the ONE that gets block rewards).

Or if the goal of SmartCash is not to be a decentralized place to make transactions and have a decentralized governance, but to fund projects and get more attention to crypto and people familiar with it. That would also be fine but there should be a distinction.

*my thoughts and opinions


#4

There are different flavors and balances, pros and cons to each approach.

We believe this promotes decentralization. In the design of SmartCash, multiple hive teams acts independently to encourage faster growth without the overhead of central planning or risk of censorship by platforms. This cooperation is a strength of SmartCash, helping to build community support and encouraging involvement to participate and build the payments platform of the future.


#5

Unfortunately if you take away fund managers you are leaving it open to control by whales, it is easy enough for large holders to push through votes they want to see just by having a huge SMART balance.
NEM has a community fund similar to SmartHive and it was the same problem there, the community votes (NEM’s PoI consensus is slightly more sensible than PoS) but it still needs a committee to approve it - this is where the bottlenecks happen.

Having community votes for who should be fund managers should be a consideration and not simply the weighted power of SMART, there should be a minimum participation of the top node holders to consider consensus reached in the community. That way a single whale or small group of them cant control the outcome


#6

Projects just meet a simple set of terms (like not funding for another coin promotion or simply voting funds out of the treasury). A “fund manager” doesn’t make sense for projects, as that shifts responsibility from the project owner itself to someone else.

The closest to something like that are the hive teams, which have a portion of block rewards dedicated to fund activities. This started with three hive teams and now there are six, each focused on different areas.

Coins are dispersed widely and voting is easy to do from the web wallet and node client. Voting is also accessible because it is not restricted to having a certain number of coins to vote (say, a SmartNode), so everyone can participate, 1 SMART = 1 VOTE.

Edit: clarity


#7

Everything have to evolve or die, is a good questions, we just have to wait and continue working , by the moment is efficient and better than other daos that waste money in fake and bad proposals, but descentralization is needed to grow, this only have 1 year.


#9

awesome as long as we are taking steps forwards I am happy.


#10

Takes time for people to put the effort in independently to build more community, but now you can follow that link above as one example of it.

Always good to have more people putting effort into the project, and as you said, it can’t come from a central source all the time.

Community engagement needs to happen from everyone to work, not just relying on someone else to do it.


#11

There’s much more people on this channel: http://discord.smartcash.cc/ you will get support and be able to share your proposals with the community.


#12

We always listen to suggestions. But a proposal is not the correct format. A forum post, discord chat in corrections or ideabox is the best way to request a change. But realize changing the fundamental things like the reward split is unlikely to change. We have added many features from requests. So don’t be afraid to ask for something that would improve SmartCash.

You are confusing two ideas I think. The voting site records all the votes from individuals. This site has been very reliable, but we are looking at some ways to make it more redundant. The question I believe you are asking is related to decentralized voting. This is already decentralized and is totally decided by users voting. There is a manual process to weed out proposals that break the terms and conditions before they are put up to a vote. There are several admins and if there is a dispute on a proposal it is addressed in a logical manner so even the vetting for terms isn’t just a single person.


#14

SmartCash team has already made a video to reply to those accusations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qKX2nbhjfI


#16

I just wanted to get back on this matter.

So the weakest place is the part where the admin are because mathmatically secure (voting) is more secure than humans.

Then the reason why we wouldn’t let the voter deciding if the terms and conditions are follow is because there can still be wales that try to steal the funds.

so then I am still concerned and I agree that there should be some way to stop the whales. but what would be a good way to improve the current system?


#17

There are a few parts to the proposal system, and 1 and 3 won’t help to be automated.

  1. Proposals are submitted and accepted if they meet the terms. Yes, there are humans making this decision, but it is impossible to make an AI to do this. There are always edge cases that don’t quite fit in anything thought of before. The terms and conditions are decided by the hive members(remember hive members can’t submit proposals so there isn’t a conflict of interest here). Of course, letting the community decide terms and conditions would just open a loophole that proposals would be submitted to fill.
  2. The next part is deciding which projects get the opportunity to get funded. This is pretty obvious, it is decided by the number of votes which is based on each smart voted. This is the 100% decentralized coinocracy decision mechanism.
  3. The last part is actually paying the proposals. Proposal submit expense reports and summaries. Once proof that the event or expenses were provided they are paid. Again, this is decided by humans and there is no way to make an AI determine what is legitimate. We have secret shoppers check proposals and call on receipts that are submitted. You may think that is overkill, but it is a priority that only legitimate expenses are paid.

Switch your thinking on the “must stop whales”. Whales are most concerned about the long term future. They have more invested. Most likely have a deeper understanding of what is going on and how it should move forward. We need Whales to vote and participate. The small investors that watch 100 coins and trade in an out, will focus on short term gains and are not ideal when you think about the long term future.


#18

There is a pretty extensive article on this subject here:

Perhaps it could be somewhat clarified or ratified by the governance guys.


#19

I’ve read that. They seem a bit focused on governance is it relates to protocols, rather than community participation.

Ultimately with a cryptocurrency adoption, usage, and acceptance matters (just like any form of money). In this regard, the highest proportion of block rewards is to the SmartHive Project Treasury which is dedicated to community projects.

This is a new form of decentralization and is more refined than a “buzzword”.


#20

To me the article explains that focusing or even insisting on either meaning of “decentralization” is not very wise, because it just brings confusion, disappointment, and sometimes anger. Whether it is a buzzword or not I do not really care.

It is like if I would say that you “seem a bit neglecting governance as it relates to protocols”, and instead you focus a bit more on community participation. And that is exactly what the article suggests to avoid.


#21

I follow a different conclusion, that the space is very new and there are different ways of approaching hybrid systems. Community participation is huge, just in different ways than other projects are promoting it.