Proposal “DCG-COMP-OCT-DEC23“ (Completed)Back

Title:Dash Core Group Compensation October - December
Monthly amount: 2558 DASH (71048 USD)
Completed payments: 3 totaling in 7674 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2023-09-10 / 2023-12-09 (added on 2023-09-03)
Votes: 578 Yes / 40 No / 13 Abstain

Proposal description

Dash Core Group September 26th Funding Proposals

DCG is submitting 2 funding proposals for the budget cycle that pays out  September 26th:
1) DCG Compensation: 2,558 Dash per month (currently in month 1/3)
2) DCG Supplemental proposal: TBD on amount.

What does this specific proposal fund?

This proposal funds Dash Core Group's ongoing compensation costs - including all developers, administrative, and support staff.  This is a multi-month proposal that will cover compensation for October through December 2023.

What is the proposal funding?

As of September 1st, 2023, DCG has 29 paid staff at full time/close to full time associated with the project and 4 part time contributors. In addition, we have 2 volunteers who have decided to work for no compensation and 1 person who has decided to work at minimal compensation. Since the last proposal we seen 2 individuals leave the project, both developers in the Platform team.

Our projected run-rate for September will be around $160,000. With this current compensation proposal, we are asking for total funding of $67,288 per month. If this proposal passes as well with a supplemental, we will be consuming roughly $80,000 from our reserve per month. Currently we should be able to operate without drastic structural changes for around 2 more months. We will be making another proposal within a few days that if passes should improve the outlook dramatically for continued funded development of the project.

What does DCG's current structure look like?

DCG has evolved to primarily be a tech focused organization that can be grouped into 2 main parts, technology and technology support.


  • CTO Samuel Westrich - quantumexplorer (making this proposal)

Core (no change):
  • Lead C++ Software Engineer
  • Lead C++ Software Engineer
  • Senior C++ Software Engineer
  • Senior C++ Software Engineer
  • C++ Software Engineer
  • Lead Android Software Engineer and Principal Developer
  • Sr. Android Software Engineer
  • Android Software Engineer (Part time)
  • Sr. iOS Software Engineer
  • Sr. iOS Software Engineer
Platform Consensus
  • Sr. Go Software Engineer
  • ~Sr. Go Software Engineer~ (left as a full time contributor August 31st)
Platform Protocol
  • Lead Rust/JS Software Engineer
  • ~Lead Rust Software Engineer~  (taking time off till at least the end of the year)
  • Senior Rust Software Engineer
  • Rust/JS Software Engineer 
Platform Database (GroveDB)
  • Rust Software Engineer
  • Rust Software Engineer (at half time till Platform release)
Platform SDK
  • Sr. Rust/JS Software Engineer
  • Lead Tech Research Engineer (at half time till Platform release)
  • Tech Research Engineer
Technology Support:

Communication / Business Development / Marketing:
  • Head of Business Development / Marketing
  • Communication Officer
  • Business Development Manager
  • Business Development Manager (new part time volunteer)
  • Lead Technical Content Developer
  • Technical Content Developer
Human Resources:
  • HR Specialist
  • Lead Infrastructure Engineer
  • Infrastructure Engineer
  • Infrastructure Engineer (very part time)
Project Management
  • Lead SM / Project Manager
  • SM / Project Manager (part time)
  • Head of Product
Quality Assurance
  • QA Engineer
Tech Support
  • Lead Support Engineer
  • Support Engineer
  • Web Developer

If you have any questions, please direct them to @quantumexplorer at dashcentral to ensure we are notified of your request.
Requested funding is as follows for the September through November budget cycles:
  • 2,557.66 Dash for core team compensation per month ($66,499 USD @ $26.00 per Dash)
  • 0.33 Dash / per month proposal reimbursement 
Total: 2,558 Dash per month
Note: Should any funding remain, we will apply it toward future compensation expenses and any related taxes.

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
-1 point,6 months ago
And the stupid MNOs keep paying THAT DCG and THIS DEV team.
1 point,6 months ago
See :
0 points,6 months ago
The funny thing is that:

1) DCG didnt mention me at all in the above relevant github bug report. I remind you also that I am banned forever from the whole github site because DCG reported me when I was trying to expose their design errors.

2) I have revealed the solution for this bug, but they didnt understand/read it yet.

Instead of the above clear solution, DCG's inherent stupidity in designing the dash protocol makes things worst. Their "design solutions" are often a pile of stupid shit created in order to hide another pile of shit, and @xkcd already started complaining about it in github.

Apparently, DCG remains deaf simply because it is (s)elected by deaf MNOs. This bunch of stupid deaf, are unable to hear the storm that is approaching, a storm that will tear Dash apart.
-1 point,7 months ago
DCG is participating in a vote buying scheme to increase their funding. This is incredibly immoral and unethical.

Coupled with their years of deceipt and non-delivery any moral MNO should be obligated to defund them and remove the rot.
2 points,7 months ago
So to summarize :

* DCG has 33 paid staff associated with the project
* projected DCG run-rate for September will be around $160,000
* DCG consuming roughly $80,000 from the reserve per month
* DCG able to operate without drastic structural changes for around 2 more months
* 2 Platform devs left since last proposal
* DCG will be making another proposal (decision proposal ? budget proposal) within a few days that if
passes should improve the outlook dramatically for continued funded development of the project

I also assume below line is incorrect at the bottom of the proposal text :

''Requested funding is as follows for the December through February budget cycles''

I have two simple questions :

When will Dash Core v20 hit Dash Testnet ? (according latest sprint review it should have launched on Testnet in approx 1 week, that week has passed)
When will Platform v0.25 proceed to the testing phase ?
2 points,7 months ago
Thanks Qwizzie for spotting the incorrect proposal text.

We will get v20 of Core and v0.25 of Platform to Testnet with the start of the testing phase before Tuesday's review.
1 point,7 months ago
Thank you, that is good to hear.
2 points,7 months ago
Looks like the proposal text has been adjusted to show 29 paid staff.
5 days ago that was 33 paid staff.
0 points,7 months ago
No it was not changed: "29 paid staff at full time/close to full time associated with the project and 4 part time contributors. 29 + 4 = 33.
2 points,7 months ago
It's possible in the first 5 mins of me making the proposal it read 33 total, but then I decided to break things down.
2 points,7 months ago
yeah, i am pretty sure i read '33 paid staff associated with the project' which is why i quoted that.
1 point,7 months ago
Just a question regarding the Platform.

The Platform has been paid by ALL masternodes since 5 YEARS NOW, not only by those who hold more than 4000 Dash. So ALL the masternodes deserve shares.

Will you use as an oracle, in order to give to the 59 proved individuals that hold just 1 masternode ( the right to host an EVO node (along with the economic benefits that derive from that) ???

My vote on this proposal is highly related to the answer on the above question.
2 points,7 months ago
We have gone over this in great detail, having 4000 or so Masternodes all holding Evolution Platform data is extremely inefficient among other problems. If your argument is that having all 1k Masternodes should be able to run an Evonode because it is more fair, well I would say that we need to build a system that works before focusing on fairness.

However in the solution we voted on as a network, an equilibrium should be reached meaning that if Evonodes make more money more nodes will run Evonodes which would raise the amount that Masternodes get. This is a market based solution and I truly believe it will work well.
1 point,7 months ago
Have you read what I have just said, or are you answering like a bot?

Who said about 4000 ? I am talking about giving the right to run EVO nodes (along with the economic benefits that derive from that) to 56 masternodes that have been proved by the oracle to be unique individuals.

Please try to understand , and answer to the point.
1 point,7 months ago
Sam said, there is no technical solution so he proposed a "market based solution" i.e. a kludge. That kludge can not allow for fair compensation without impacting the newly created tokenomic rules and structure.

This will be interesting to watch because he's basically saying there is no technical solution to a market based hack / exploit.
0 points,7 months ago
Of course there is a technical solution.

We have two oracles. mnowatch and dashninja. They are both opensource.

So we can have as many oracles as we want, and they can provide to us enough voting data that can be used to judge the individuality of every voter.
2 points,7 months ago
Not to mention that QuantumExplorer was based on these exact mnowatch types in order to do his analysis and design the whole HPMN concept !!! So obviously he accepted that the mnowatch stats are reliable. Does he now refuses the validity of that same data?

By giving privileges on proven persons we can diminuish the infiltration of agents and corporates into the platform, and thus make the platform reliable.
3 points,7 months ago
No, we can't give preferential benefits based on an oracle to some 1k Masternodes and not others.
-1 point,7 months ago
You are not giving "preferential benefits"!!!

You are giving benefits to those who can PROVE THEIR PERSONHOOD.

If you dont like someone to prove his personhood by using oracles (mnowatch, dashninja), you can try Encointer!

In case you DONT want to give benefits to those who can prove their personhood, it means that you would like agents and corporates to infiltrate into the Dash platfrom, and control it.

Is this what you really want?
2 points,7 months ago
Personhood doesn't matter. Service to the network does. If someone does more service to the network, that someone gets more rewards. That's the most fair system
2 points,7 months ago
Personhood is THE ONLY THAT MATTERS!!!!

Because if you exclude personhood from the equation, the whole Platform network is controled by agents and corporates, and IT IS DOOMED!
0 points,7 months ago
Sir, as soon as AI develops consciousness and self-awareness the Personhood will likely become irrelevant anyway
2 points,7 months ago
AI will NEVER develop consciousness and self awareness because if it did, it wouldn't be "Artificial".

From what I've seen, AI is nothing more than a clever filter that is able to prove how stupid humans are. Which, of course, was the whole point of Eliza.

Not saying AI hasn't got a place because obviously there are many applications where it is "better" than stupid humans.

When phones were phones, analog copper wires with telephone numbers hardwired at the exchange, people would easily hold 30+ phone numbers in their head. At this point in time, many people don't even know their own number, let alone the numbers of their family members.

Every time people want something, a noisy server on the other side of the planet is mothering people, being their memory and source of knowledge. Yes, people are allowing themselves to be more stupid.
2 points,7 months ago
Proof of Personhood will never become irrelevant. Encointer will prevail. Vote the numbers!
0 points,7 months ago
So please give benefits to the 1k, 2k and 3k Masternode owners who paid for the Platform all these years, and who have been proved to be active members of the Dash community by the votes they have casted.

Those who appear as individualities in mnowatch, have been identified as unique individuals for more than 500 mnowatch reports!
-1 point,7 months ago
Sir, are you the rebel voting No, but why?
1 point,7 months ago
Have you read my arguments above? If yes, is it something you dont understand of what I have just said? Lets discuss about it.

I am not the one who voted NO, yet.

I am waiting for a decent answer , and I will cast my decisive vote at the end of the cycle.
1 point,7 months ago
Of course the same question applies to the proved individuals (that have been discovered by the oracle) that control 2 or 3 masternodes.
1 point,7 months ago
I have an idea. Perhaps we can bribe MNOs to privately reveal their masternodes to mnowatch. By identifying more owners and clusters, the remaining pools of masternodes become easier to find.