Proposal “DCG-SUPPLEMENTAL-AUG23“ (Completed)Back

Title:Dash Core Group August Supplemental Funding Proposal
Owner:quantumexplorer
One-time payment: 652 DASH (18910 USD)
Completed payments: 1 totaling in 652 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2023-08-11 / 2023-09-10 (added on 2023-08-16)
Votes: 501 Yes / 29 No / 8 Abstain

Proposal description

Dash Core Group August 26th Supplemental Funding Proposal

DCG already submitted 1 funding proposals for the budget cycle that pays out August 26th. This is a supplemental proposal that will fund Dash Core Group with an additional 652 Dash:
1) DCG Compensation: 2,558 Dash per month (currently in month 3/3)
2) DCG Compensation Supplemental: 652 Dash (currently in month 1/1)

What does this specific proposal fund?


Assuming DCG’s current compensation proposal passes, with the price of Dash at $29, our funding for compensation will represent a significant gap from our actual compensation expense. This proposal will look to reduce some of the gap between our compensation revenue and our compensation expense.

 How bad are things?

While things are worrying, development currently is still continuing unaffected by the price. I believe that our community is strong and that we will find solutions together that will allow almost all paid contributors on the project to remain.  Right now my energy is focused on getting v0.25 to Testnet, after than my aim will then be to give options to the network to vote on.

Did DCG reduce staff?

We recently reduced our compensated team size by about 10%, our current break even price sits at around 70$/Dash. Our compensation reserve now sits around 1.5 months (if no additional funds - and around 3 months considering current level of funding).

Did DCG reduce costs?

Yes, through various means we temporarily reduced spending by between 20 and 30% for the upcoming few months. We have a lot of contributors who strongly believe in our project and want to see things through.

How much of an impact do the supplemental proposals have?

A big impact. The supplemental proposals leave us in a much better state to hold off being forced to cut vital employees as the bear market lasts longer.

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 August 26th superblock:
  • 651 Dash ($21,483 USD @ $33 per Dash)
  •     1 Dash Proposal fee reimbursement
Total: 652 Dash

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
2 points,11 months ago
Decided to change my votes from Abstain to No.
Reply
2 points,11 months ago
Any rationale behind this? Is it just to punish for slow delivery?
Reply
1 point,11 months ago
There is DCG inability to get a handle on their constant Platform delays, coupled with DCG inability to make operational changes for DCG, that could actually lower their operational costs considerably.

Waiting for Platform 0.25 to hit testnet, before getting some options from Sam to vote on, is just way too late of a reaction to current market situation, in my view. Maybe it is the lack of a CEO of DCG or maybe it is something else, but i am not seeing decisive leadership here, or any kind of strategy on how to deal with this market situation.
Reply
3 points,11 months ago
As said in this post through various means we have reduced our operational costs by about 30%. It's since increased from around 25%. It's easy to allude to "operational changes" that are needed, without being concrete on anything.
Reply
1 point,11 months ago
I already commented five months ago on Dash Central on one of your previous DCG Supplemental budget proposals about this situation of DCG potentially running out of funding (due to Dash price below $100 for more than a year and DCG slowly losing support on their budget proposals) and hoping that you would have a plan in place. Five months passed by and nothing happened, just one pointless DCG supplemental budget proposal after another.

Now DCG is frantically looking for ways to cut their operational costs, as the end is really coming in sight with regards to DCG available budget versus their running rate. At this point, all i can say is : too little, too late.

I was planning to not actively vote no on DCg budget proposals, but witnessing how your devs made fun of my comment-blocking situation during latest sprint edition, i don't really see any point in supporting them at this point.
Reply
2 points,11 months ago
By the way, this was my auto-blocked question during latest sprint edition :

To Sam, for Q & A later on : can we have your feedback on pshenmic proposal on dash.org/forum to enable DAPI on Evonodes operating on Mainnet, before the official release of Dash Platform on Mainnet ?
Reply
2 points,11 months ago
Auto-blocked in the sense that i could still see my comment / question, but others could not.
Reply
1 point,11 months ago
and eventually we did get an answer on this, they said they don't see value in it because the data is only from the full node and cannot be verified and their no incentive for the full node to run the additional services. There are also some comments on the forum thread, it is probably better to keep the conversation there.
Reply
0 points,11 months ago
I didn't see the devs making fun of your blocked comment and if it happens next time, drop it in the discord and ask someone else to read it out.
Reply
2 points,11 months ago
Congratz by the way : of all currently passing budget proposals, DCG budget proposals rank lowest.
Reply
0 points,11 months ago
Tentatively voting yes. I am aggressively against the idea of us increasing the treasury amount %. Seeing as Sam does not seem to be advocating for this and is perhaps expressing this interest as an MNO, I will overlook this transgression.
Reply
2 points,11 months ago
The deterministic payment queue has a length of 3583 blocks currently.
Yet DashCentral is calculating the 10% voting threshold to be 343 votes right now.
It does help with the low voting adherence from the MNO though, but anyways something seems to be off...

Can you confirm that DashCore´s governance is calculating the 10% voting threshold correctly?
Like calculating the voting threshold based on 10% of the overall bound (payout-entitled) collateral, irrespective of the MN type?
Reply
3 points,11 months ago
Hi Robby, I can confirm that Core and MNOwatch are giving the correct passing threshold for the governance system. The bug on this site is that the admin is treating Evonodes as though they have one vote, this is in fact incorrect, they vote with 4 votes. Please refer to MNOwatch from now on for correct tallies. Cheers!

https://mnowatch.org/leaderboard/?20230818100003
Reply
4 points,11 months ago
Thanks for answering Lysergic. This is correct.
Reply
2 points,11 months ago
It remains the question, whether upcoming v20.0 will calculate the voting threshold based on 10% of the overall bound (payout-entitled) collateral, irrespective of the MN type?

I will make an example to illustrate what i specifically mean.
For the sake of simplicity, lets assume the following numbers upon release of v20.0:

Number of payout-entitled HPMN live on mainnet: 100
Number of payout-entitled regular MN live on mainnet: 3200
Deterministic payment queue length (after HPMN receive only 1 Core reward): 3300

In my opinion the correct calculation of the 10% voting threshold would therefore be:
100 x 4,000 = 400,000 (HPMN collateral)
3200 x 1,000 = 3,200,000 (regular 1K collateral)
Sum = 3,600,000 x 10percent = 360,000 (voting threshold in collateral) = 360 votes

If the voting threshold calculation of DashCore´s governance in v20.0 would deviate a lot from these 360 votes in this example,
it would be worrying because it would seem to follow that it would be incorrect.
Reply
3 points,11 months ago
v20 doesn't change this, so yes "10% of the overall bound (payout-entitled) collateral, irrespective of the MN type"
Reply
2 points,11 months ago
Hi RobbyDash,

See shoutbox. Dash Central currently has two issues :

* nextpay indicator not taking into account number of masternodes + (number of Evonodes*4). (in particular the *4). Looks like this also affect the 10% voting threshold on Dash Central.
* Dash Central does not always fetch all 4 MN rewards in their consecutive blocks from Evonodes, sometimes it does and some times it does not.

Both issues will be worked on after rango returns from his holiday.
Reply
1 point,11 months ago
Not sure if the nextpay indicator affects the 10% voting threshold.
Because the deterministic payment queue length of 3584 blocks already contains all the 4 consecutive payouts of the HPMN.
So there is in fact a discrepancy between 343 votes (DashCentral) and what should be 358 or 359 votes.
Perhaps, it could be a separate, third issue here on DashCentral.

And MNOwatch seems to calculate the 10% voting threshold to be 362 votes, it only seems to be a 'better guess'.
It would be less prone to errors, if fetching the correct figure over an API command from DashCore,
rather than having each website calculate their own (potentially inaccurate and invalid) numbers.
Reply
2 points,11 months ago
It's not a guess, it is 100% accurate.
Reply
1 point,11 months ago
Maybe best for you to send an email to support@dashcentral.org to indeed raise it as third issue.
Reply
2 points,11 months ago
God bless!
Reply