Proposal “DCG-SUPPLEMENTAL-OCT22“ (Completed)Back

Title:Dash Core Group October Supplemental Funding Proposal
Owner:quantumexplorer
One-time payment: 356 DASH (10545 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:
  • 355 Dash ($14,910 USD @ $42 per Dash)
  •     1 Dash Proposal fee reimbursement
Total: 356 Dash

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
0 points,1 year ago
Sadly, this is what a dying project looks like. The team will keep getting smaller and smaller, delivering less and less, until the money runs out. The whole idea of Dash Evolution was a mistake, it is turning Dash into something that is definitely not Dash. The core team has been leading us on this wild goose chase for years as they run around directionless. This latest fiasco with high performance masternodes is a perfect example of how this whole thing is being built with popsicle sticks and elmers glue. We need to wake up and face the music. DCG has failed; the network should scrap it and find someone else to take over with a fresh vision, but at this point it might be too late to save us.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
The point of evolution was to evolve. The "wild goose chase" as you said it is coming to an end. The direction has been very focused as seen by our github activity on delivering Platform. DCG has not failed. DCG will be asking the network how they want to start Platform.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Evolve into what? What is the competitive use case other than devs geeking out about merkle trees inside trees? Other projects already have us outclassed and outfunded in terms of data storage, computation, and digital identity, because their projects were properly designed for their specific use cases from the beginning, not something haphazardly glued on top of a digital cash coin as an afterthought, winging everything on the fly because some devs thought we can just do everything and be everything to everyone. The only reason MNOs are still going along with it is because it is a desperation play, because we have nothing else to try between now and our inevitable bankruptcy. Now that HPMNs have been introduced, MNOs are finally starting to pay attention since this is something that actually affects us. We'll see where this goes, but to me the Evolution project is likely doomed to endless bugs and no real utility. The whole idea should have been scrapped when Evan left.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Please point me in the direction of decentralized projects that offers what dash does and will soon be able to deliver.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Dash is soon to deliver the wheel. The decentralized version, very complicated, and very bad at rolling.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Please point me in the direction of decentralized projects that offers what dash does and will soon be able to deliver.
Reply
4 points,1 year ago
I am pro-platform. I want to see it launched. I don't care if the fees are low, yet. No one has expectations that it will be perfect on launch. Please do not introduce added complexity at this time through different node types and related block reward allocations. Will be changing my vote depending on how I see things progress. This hpmn thing came out of no where. Feels like we are being blind-sided.

note to the network: do not rush into this decision. Please.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
No.
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.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
I also want to be clear when you say I'm a proponent of moderation of Platform content. What I have said is that I think the network should decide this, I couldn't decide this even if I wanted to. You guys run the nodes, we build the software.

What you might have misunderstood is because I said I personally would vote for banning some types of content. Basically the most vile things.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
I'm not convinced this is your full answer. At this point in time, I believe you personally would leave the dash project if the networked decided to not moderate content. Because you are a known and named person to various authorities, including Thai authorities. You do not have the luxury of being anonymous.

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.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Yes. I got it. This will most likely happen as it's going right now with HPMN: you will make a proposal and do your best to persuade voters. As a CTO you have a very high (and well deserved) persuading potential. You (and every CTO will) are not only a hired worker coding what network said to code, but also an influencer of the highest kind, deciding where the project should go. Your voice is not the only one sounds, but probably the loudest.

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.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Am I understanding that you think that there shouldn't be any type of content not allowed on platform?
Reply
6 points,1 year ago
Yes! Hell yes, No Content moderation whatsoever!
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
I want Dash to have no technical means to censorship at all. Practically - yes, it could also be said in the way you did.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Well this would lead to Platform being heavily used for many things that currently only exist on the dark web. I am very much against many of these on moral grounds, but it would also spell the death of the project as all developers would quit (either because of moral issues - or because of persecution), masternode operators would also be targeted by governments and there would most likely be a massive sell off.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Then out source this data storage to another platform and integrate with Evo. We can revisit storing data on Evo when you have the stones to go through with it.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
is this not exactly what the devs should be working on, making it more difficult for such an attack? Otherwise what is the point of being decentralized?

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.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Here is what Bloomberg is reporting of what business leaders are looking for in a system. https://imgur.com/a/edpkn6d

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.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
I wasn't calling you fragile. But your view suggests the network is fragile if not able to censor what is stored in platform. But if you do that, it destroys its value proposition. Completely. Non-starter.

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.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Yes, it would. This is very likely to happen and this phase is an inevitable part of the life cycle of a project. IF (!) a project is to be the ultimate web of the future. Free, uncensorable, anonymous-at-choice and immutable. Not the death though, but rebirth. Anonymous devs (like thor's are now), operators, validators, transactions, content and addresses are shielded by default (firo, monero, zcash have already developed a good tricks), mighty hardware all around the world paid by protocol itself (like Dash's!) - and so on. Truly decentralized and unstoppable. Oh, yeah... *dreams*

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.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
We must go to a vote on the direction of Dash Platform next month. I am a proponent of the network voting on all major decisions. If you are against this vote that means there really is nothing I or DCG can do to satisfy you while also satisfying other parties that desire a smooth rollout of Platform.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
Am voting No on all DCG proposals until Platform is sidelined and the main focus returns to Dash the Payment Network. If you love Platform so much, you are free to work on it at no cost to the network. Go fund it elsewhere.

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?
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
You have come to the wrong conclusion. Platform was decided by Evan + Andy and was the will of network. DCG is at the will of the network, it is owned by the network. We are not just going off on our own tangents. Next month we are going to propose how to start platform. If you want you can propose that platform be scrapped instead.

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.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
Oh but corners were cut, DCG decided that full throttle on Platform was at the expense of a compromised treasury system. To date DCG has not addressed the facts that masternode count is down while masternode whales are up. At this rate, it wont be long before the only proposals passing are those by a handful of masternode whales.. the very ones you are promoting in HPMNs.

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
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Well if Evan hadn't left the project in 2017 he could maybe come here and defend these ideas. I can't make good on all promises that were made by someone other than me.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
...would attempt to squeeze out MASTERnodes?

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
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
So what's up with that, masternodes can no longer afford to run the HPMNs because in June 2017 dash was 180 USD and 6 months later was 1246 USD and now barely 41 USD.

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.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
I'll agree with one thing here, the OGs were promised things that never materialized. I was one of those OGs who has done everything in his power to get those things to materialize. There is absolutely no management left from 2017. None of them were kicked out either. If you want to believe what they said instead of what I'm saying you should follow them to whatever project they are now in. I became CTO in 2021.

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.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Why is there no robust PoSe scoring system build for Dash Platform so far ? Surely a robust PoSe scoring is an essential part of Dash Platform and should have been a priority for Platform devs from the start ?
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
And why are masternode owners forced to vote on decision proposals that create a lot more centralisation for Dash and where Dash Platform was never intended to be started like that ?

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 ?
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
The vote takes place next month. DCG is presenting our options and getting the MN network to decide how to proceed. If you do not like the options presented you are free to present your own option, if it wins the vote we will respect it.

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.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
I decided to withdraw my support for DCG Supplemental budget proposals, untill DCG gets its priorities straight.

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
Reply