Proposal “DCG-SUPPLEMENTAL-OCT22“ (Completed)Back
| Title: | Dash Core Group October Supplemental Funding Proposal |
| Owner: | quantumexplorer |
| One-time payment: | 356 DASH (11089 USD) |
| Completed payments: | 1 totaling in 356 DASH (0 month remaining) |
| Payment start/end: | 2022-10-11 / 2022-11-10 (added on 2022-10-16) |
| Votes: | 483 Yes / 52 No / 31 Abstain |
Proposal description
Dash Core Group October 26th Supplemental Funding Proposal
DCG already submitted 2 funding proposals for the budget cycle that pays out October 26th. This is a supplemental proposal that will fund Dash Core Group with an additional 356 Dash:
1) DCG Compensation: 2,296 Dash per month (currently in month 2/3)
2) DCG Infrastructure: 459 Dash (currently in month 2/2)
3) DCG Compensation Supplemental: 356 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 $42, 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.
Did DCG reduce staff?
Four months ago we reduced our compensated team size by about 15%, lowering our break-even price from ~$120/Dash to ~$103/Dash. It extended our compensation reserve to almost 9 months of reserve without any additional funding (though this now sits at around slightly more than 6 months).
Do you plan on more layoffs in the near future?
As communicated in the previous three months the answer is no. Dash Core Group is now mostly a technical organization with most of our business development and marketing staff having exited the project. The remaining staff is essential to us functioning at a high level. There isn’t any “fat” left to cut. We have no plans to revisit further reducing our staffing until at least January 2022, regardless of what happens with the price of Dash.
Didn’t DCG previously communicate they wouldn’t request over 60% of the total proposal system budget?
Yes. In the past, Ryan Taylor, previously CEO of Dash Core Group, made a commitment to the Dash network that DCG’s monthly ask would never exceed 60% of the total budget. This was stated after there was significant backlash against DCG requesting funding for tax-related expenses in late 2018, which caused competing proposals to be pushed off the funding list. In this cycle, the same situation is not present; no other proposals would be negatively affected by this request for supplemental funds. It therefore seems to be in the best interest of the project to remove the self-imposed 60% limit, as not doing so would effectively hurt us by having to let go of people that are providing value to the project.
Samuel Westrich (Quantum Explorer) had reached out to the Dash Trust Protectors three months ago and asked whether they would support DCG making a proposal for the rest of the available treasury this month. All responses from the Trust Protectors had come back with support for the supplemental proposal. Given this indication of support, we decided to move forward and have masternode owners vote on these supplemental proposals every month for unused treasury funds.We will continue making such supplemental proposals in the case of unused treasury funds - waiting around one week before the end of each cycle to leave time for other submissions.
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 October 26th superblock:
DCG already submitted 2 funding proposals for the budget cycle that pays out October 26th. This is a supplemental proposal that will fund Dash Core Group with an additional 356 Dash:
1) DCG Compensation: 2,296 Dash per month (currently in month 2/3)
2) DCG Infrastructure: 459 Dash (currently in month 2/2)
3) DCG Compensation Supplemental: 356 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 $42, 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.
Did DCG reduce staff?
Four months ago we reduced our compensated team size by about 15%, lowering our break-even price from ~$120/Dash to ~$103/Dash. It extended our compensation reserve to almost 9 months of reserve without any additional funding (though this now sits at around slightly more than 6 months).
Do you plan on more layoffs in the near future?
As communicated in the previous three months the answer is no. Dash Core Group is now mostly a technical organization with most of our business development and marketing staff having exited the project. The remaining staff is essential to us functioning at a high level. There isn’t any “fat” left to cut. We have no plans to revisit further reducing our staffing until at least January 2022, regardless of what happens with the price of Dash.
Didn’t DCG previously communicate they wouldn’t request over 60% of the total proposal system budget?
Yes. In the past, Ryan Taylor, previously CEO of Dash Core Group, made a commitment to the Dash network that DCG’s monthly ask would never exceed 60% of the total budget. This was stated after there was significant backlash against DCG requesting funding for tax-related expenses in late 2018, which caused competing proposals to be pushed off the funding list. In this cycle, the same situation is not present; no other proposals would be negatively affected by this request for supplemental funds. It therefore seems to be in the best interest of the project to remove the self-imposed 60% limit, as not doing so would effectively hurt us by having to let go of people that are providing value to the project.
Samuel Westrich (Quantum Explorer) had reached out to the Dash Trust Protectors three months ago and asked whether they would support DCG making a proposal for the rest of the available treasury this month. All responses from the Trust Protectors had come back with support for the supplemental proposal. Given this indication of support, we decided to move forward and have masternode owners vote on these supplemental proposals every month for unused treasury funds.We will continue making such supplemental proposals in the case of unused treasury funds - waiting around one week before the end of each cycle to leave time for other submissions.
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 October 26th superblock:
- 355 Dash ($14,910 USD @ $42 per Dash)
- 1 Dash Proposal fee reimbursement
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
|
No comments so far?
Be the first to start the discussion! |
note to the network: do not rush into this decision. Please.
When Sam kicked in the idea of HPMNs and, furthermore, revealed himself as a proponent of moderation team on Platform's content, it turned out to me that DCG is not exactly building the Dash I want to be built. So, NOs from me, NOs to the direction Dash is suddenly turned to.
What you might have misunderstood is because I said I personally would vote for banning some types of content. Basically the most vile things.
I understand the moral judgement though, which is why I think large data blobs should be stored elsewhere. Just stick to the database functions.
I am wondering if this cost of storing large data blobs in why you even brought up Platform fee reduction, because you are comparing the payments side to the Platform side as though they are equal when they are not. Platform fees relative to the payments side can be higher because the use case is different. Try to remove the technical side from your head, we are selling a use case.
To me, you started to lead the project into the wrong direction, to centralization and censorship. Thus, I'm trying to revert this with the humble tools I possess.
if you want to develop a solution that minimizes the content risk, create moderation/filtration tools for apps. That will be the legal basis for non-persecution. That you cannot censor but you provide the tools for app devs to moderate what content they pull into their applications.
Very disturbed by this fragile view of yours.
So there are a lot of points of being decentralized.
"if you want to develop a solution that minimizes the content risk, create moderation/filtration tools for apps" -> What I'm arguing is that this is for the network to decide, if you are against that viewpoint then you should have some self reflection about who's viewpoint is more fragile.
The people risk of dash outweighs the technical risk considerably for dash more generally. It is the most fragile part of dash. The dash governance system directing a costly mistake is the concern.
The network deciding could be good. Could be suboptimal.
Bloomberg business leaders have not operated in a decentralized world like what is being built here.
Yes, yes, I know. No need to explain. Idealistic and unrealistic, open your eyes and return to the ground - save our time.
If you see a protocol better designed for this than Dash right now - please tell me, that's very much welcome.
I refuse to be emotionally blackmailed anymore with replies like, "we've come so far, we're so close to the finish line, it would be madness to stop now". Enough is enough. The finish line has constantly moved and now you want to cut corners with just a few lines of code to create HPMNs. You want to deliver Platform fully admitting it has no robust Proof of Service, because that would be more than a few lines of code and delay it's release further.
If you insist on cutting corners then why didn't DCG do so with usernames? You've had 7+ years to deliver usernames and migrate to Platform later. And now, suddenly, you don''t mind cutting corners?
About cutting corners, I only cut corners that don't hurt security or anonymity. Getting usernames where everyone can see who is paying whom is just the wrong solution. I am not completely sure using a carrot instead of the stick which is the PoSe system is really cutting corners? It's more that one system takes a few days to build and the other multiple months. If you want us to deliver faster these are the kind of tradeoffs that you should be happy with.
For some reference:
Jun 29, 2017 - How To Enable On-Chain Scaling
https://medium.com/@eduffield222/how-to-enabling-on-chain-scaling-2ffab5997f8b
Ah, this is a cracker!
"Because companies are interested in Dash now, we realize that we must begin scaling immediately. When the first version of Dash Evolution is released next year,"
"First, we must ensure that each masternode is running on hardware powerful enough to rapidly process each block. Secondly, we must make sure that each masternode has enough bandwidth to propagate blocks to the network quickly enough. Third, we must ensure the second-tier masternode network is highly interconnected and able to relay blocks amongst itself at incredibly high speeds."
Wait, "*each* masternode"? Surely he meant a few HPMNs? I mean, surely no one at dash would attempt to s
But let's see...
Jun 28, 2017 - Interview with Evan Duffield on Dash Evolution’s Roadmap
https://dashnews.org/interview-with-evan-duffield-on-dash-evolutions-roadmap/
Nov 30, 2016 - Evolution's Marketplace, Masternode Shares, & DAPI: Evan Duffield Expounds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7T-a2xm5c0
Running this project into the ground because of a single minded focus at the expense of losing mindshare. Platform has nothing to do with payments, it just happens to be a tool with a few payment use cases. In that case, just go use ZenCash / Horizen because they already have the two tier network you strive for.
Dash is a payment network. The OGs here were promised things that never materialized. We have expectations that are currently being hijacked.
I'm not responsible for the decline in Dash price and I can't create miracles. When I effectively became CTO there were about 5 people in the platform team and many solutions were impossible to make into production level software. I hired a lot. Our consensus engine is now almost done, our database solution using multidimentional rotating autobalancing trees is almost done. I am extremely proud of the work that was achieved this last year. This is the minimum level that we needed to be before.
The only reason why there is now a need to start Dash Platform this way is because it lacks a robust PoSe solution for Platform. And whose fault is that ?
If you are against DCG for asking the masternode network what it wants then there is no way I can help in this regard. On contentious issues the network must decide how to proceed.
As said before a robust Proof of Service is something that no other project that I know of has. All other projects jump start chains with rewards. Expecting DCG with 1/10th of other team budgets to do multiple things that no other chain has is suicide, and we would never release anything.
Proof of Service will be done when we have the capacity to do it, but we need to get something out the door first that draws attention and provides value for the network.
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-9#post-232446