I don't know what you mean   Maybe the only one with a 2 digit negative percentage?  

Exit pump or superior cryptography?...

I don't understand why the idea of someone else voting for you is ever a good idea.  Do senators ever vote to benefit voters?  Doubt it.   Educating masternode owners is the best way to have a functioning voting process.

I agree with Tok that excessive reporting is a waste of time....probably not how he put it.  The idea of reports may not apply anyway.  Think if each proposal used a video explaining it.  With the possibility of each proposal having significant funding, making a video is worth the extra effort.

I am interested to see what Evan comes up with.  I don't understand how you can confirm an identity with crypto.  Maybe it is tied to a collateral input.  Or a certain amount of Dash is held in escrow to give an incentive to follow through on commitments.  Otherwise, you could just create new wallets and new identities and dump old identities.  Maybe there is a reputation system, but how do you keep that based on real people....I am sure Evan has a creative way to solve this.

Plus, this is voting for budget. Delegating vote = allowing others to write checks to themselves by proposing something themselves directly or indirectly (camouflaged budget proposal by supposedly 'third parties').

Democracy is terrible. Delegative democracy is probably less terrible. Delegative democracy without egalitarianism(you have to have 1000 dash to vote) might actually work.

^ This I think. My Ethers are going down the pan too.

Dash isn't a democrracy.  Votes are based on the amount invested.  More like shareholders.

There will only be 6000 or less masternodes.  It isn't unreasonable for each of those to research and vote on each proposal when each masternode is worth $100k.  And then each node will probably be shared by a few owners.  Each node owner may hire advisors to help read and decipher proposals.  Each node may have an internal voting strategy between owners.  And it is also possible to have each proposal be a group of projects that internally decide how they move forward.  So those 2000 proposals may be 20 with 100 projects under them.

The core voting mechanism needs to be done by those actually risking capital.  Every project is kept honest by the threat of losing funds, every voter has a vested interest and votes in the best interest of Dash.

You are more than welcome to do everything yourself and make all the votes yourself. The beauty of what we have is that nothing ever needs to be added to the code. If people get too busy to make all the decisions themselves, then they can simply give their mnprivkey to a trusted representative who will vote for them. No funds are ever at risk, no code needs to be added to the protocol. If for some reason a person wants to rescind their proxy, they could change their mnprivkey (a little bit of work, granted, but a possibility).

I don't expect that I'd ever give up voting control either. But as Evan says below, there may be areas I don't understand, and I may be willing to take the advice of people I trust in those areas. I'm not a monetarist, but toknormal is, and when he says Proof of Labor is a good proposal, I may choose to go ahead and cast my votes in favor.

So I see three types of MN owners in the future:

a) Do it all yourself. Do all the research, do all the voting, do all the follow up to make sure projects are on task.
b) Take the advice of trusted community members who specialize in various areas
c) Give trusted community members your proxy and they can vote for you

Solar, you are more than free to be a). I will probably be b). Some others may choose to be c). Evan never has to add a single line of code to enable all three options. In fact, they already exist, and will certainly grow organically.

Cheers!

I completely agree! I believe that some people will voluntarily assign their proxies to third parties, but it should never be forced on the entire network.