This article tells about the ideological reasons behind our way of managing the platform. Let’s see why decentralization is relevant in the modern days and see what we can do to turn abstract ideas into the viable type of financial architecture.
Among the main topics of the material will be masternode voting mechanisms and budget allocation. While Giant works at the forefront of blockchain technologies, our developers have taken the good achievements of other successful projects in mind. Dash was our major source of inspiration. This material tells about the governance in Giant, while also outlining the way community proposals work in our system. You can check out another essay called Giant Blockchain: The Best Features of Dash and Ethereum to see other aspects of our technology.
Decentralized governance in digital finance is, in other words, independence of the whole system from a central authority. This way of operating and maintaining cryptocurrencies in the working order seriously varies from the approach taken by central banks of the world towards the usual or fiat currencies. We would like to start with an explanation on why we never cease to stress the importance of decentralization which is currently underestimated by the public. The solutions we are offering easily take advantage of the cons of the existing projects in this field. But that’s no ‘magic wands’, that’s a direct result of us intentionally using the benefits of blockchain technologies instead of trying to raise easy money on a hyped theme. A quote from Theodore Roosevelt characterizes our philosophy in the best possible way: “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”
Blockchain technologies allowed us to dodge greedy investors and get a direct access to crypto enthusiasts from all over the world. We want everyone - including Giant masternode owners, miners, coin holders to understand how grateful we are for the provided opportunity to implement an interesting and prospective project. We would like to state that in return we are doing our best to keep our work transparent and listen to the opinion of each member of the community. Actually, it’s the only option to remain viable on this market. Despite this desire, blockchain is not just a budget revenue source for our team: it presents indisputable competitive advantages, e.g. the lack of centralization as a source of fraudulent activities. The irony here is that we did not come up with this on a whim, we simply chose the only way that works. From this angle, the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry has embodied the ideals of laissez-faire, because there is a natural selection of projects able to create value. This is why during our work we are focused on the project itself, allowing everybody to independently decide whether or not the Giant project deserves investment. But we would like to go even farther and get even closer to the ideals of the free market with the minimum data asymmetry.
We would like to reach a situation when Giant becomes a commonwealth of all investors in the form of masternode owners. Open source and decentralized network can guarantee life for the project even in the absence of the Giant team. Naturally, we would not like this scenario to happen because we are sure that we can bring maximum value for the project. But our main goal is to focus on the development and establishment of the project, while making important decisions together with the pool of competent investors. This will become possible with the use of network self-regulation and self-funding mechanism based on votes and inherited from Dash. From this period onwards, we are starting to attract the community in the voting procedures. A true management decision-making decentralization would not be possible without this. We hope that in the future, everything including servers maintenance, marketing spending and the subsequent development will be a direct result of the initiatives pre-approved by the Giant community. The original Giant team will not have any extensive powers, although will have more trust when it comes to development.
One of the main pros of masternodes network is that the owners of such vital blockchain maintenance hubs have a sincere interest in keeping the network safe and secure. This becomes possible through the multilateral negotiations and voting procedures masternode owners can open. Miners can easily dump the coins they lose interest in, while every masternode owner is making a long-term strategic financial investment.
If you are a masternode owner, you can take participation in the talks related to the actual development and fine-tuning of the project - in a way, become a part of the massive board of directors. Unlike usual corporations, there are no board chairmen or vice chairmen, it is a purely horizontal structure.
The transparent nature of blockchain technologies ensure that the money are invested into what was chosen by the community. This efficiently prevents budgetary machinations and embezzlement. As said by R3 CEO David Rutter recently, blockchain could have prevented some actual financial scandals of old.
We are not turning a decentralized community into a group of elitists: regular members who do not own a masternode can still take part in the voting.
The masternode owners will always be interested in keeping the network in working order, which, in turn, ensures the adequate governance. Malicious actors will easily be overwhelmed with the majority of voters. Judging by other projects based on masternodes governance, the probability of the sudden loss of community integrity is bordering zero percent. Despite the difficult internal structure of any blockchain, the masternode voting procedure resembles usual parliamentary voting with options to say ‘yes’, ‘no’ or to abstain from voting at all with the help of easy commands.
The wave of discussion provoked by a simple post of any competent member of the Giant community may result in a new voting. The results of the vote will illustrate if the original author of the proposal was on the right track. There will be not only votes dedicated to changes in the project structure. Another type of votes will be about the financing of initiatives using the money from the proposals fund we are going to fully describe later. Better proposals will attract bigger investments, once again establishing the system of natural selection. We would like to advise potential authors of the new ideas to be as clear as they can in voicing them, or else the public attention may divert to other concepts.
The main principles of budget allocations will be inherited from Dash, including the methods of spam restriction and the way to return money in case the proposal contractors are not acting as efficiently as expected.
On this early stage, we’d like to capitalize on capabilities our server has because it can significantly simplify the process of preparation of voting. Every proposal will be published on Discord first; and if it passes primary voting we will prepare Masternode voting. At the current phase, initiatives can be related to, say, coin specifications or the new project design. The range of available topics will become wider in the future.
To keep the bankruptcy of our blockchain structure at bay, we have to use certain measures. In the future, we are going to activate a special tool which will efficiently finance the proposals fund. This instrument has been inherited from Dash and implemented in the form of superblocks.
We are going to use these superblocks that will store the info about the proposals voting results and their budget at the end of each month. The actual configuration of superblocks (including the financial share invested by different categories of users) will be openly discussed and the corresponding network voting will take place. To avoid confusion, the superblocks budgetary spending is not the sole way to vote with masternodes on Giant. Aside from voting on how much money should be sent on prospective initiatives, there will be voting on how to decide on other key issues the project has to solve. This all creates an environment which can potentially surpass the lifespan of the original creators of Giant.
Instead of an overly-centralized community of a narrow range of managers with potential conflict of interests, the audience of Giant will form a digital board which will make decisions beneficial for the future well-being of the project. The spending of money will be controlled on the blockchain. Everybody will be aware of the current strategic and tactical goals of the project. This is exactly the type of transparency most anti-corruption organizations are fighting for.