Proposal “DIF-funding-proposal-3months“ (Active)Back

Title:PLEASE VOTE DOWN. SEE REVISED PROPOSAL - Dash Investment Foundation (DIF) January - March funding proposal (3 months)
Monthly amount: 800 DASH (84763 USD)
Completed payments: no payments occurred yet (3 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2020-01-15 / 2020-04-13 (added on 2020-01-13)
Final voting deadline: in 7 days
Votes: 84 Yes / 300 No / 0 Abstain
Will be funded: No. This proposal needs additional 678 Yes votes to become funded.
Manually vote on this proposal (DashCore - Tools - Debugconsole):
gobject vote-many ea1fab53656818884ab24dc9644c650a632186d993860e81b70de2f67fdcfdd6 funding yes

Please login or create a new DashCentral account for comfortable one button voting!

Proposal description

Monthly ask will be 800 Dash per month for the next 3 months.

In order to maintain the USD amount of funding requested in previous cycles, our monthly ask has been revised upwards from 500D to 800D. This represents funding of $40k per month, or approximately $500k per year currently. 

What Does This Proposal Fund?

This 800D is for only two purposes: 1) reserves and 2) the service fee for fund management.

Reserves are able to represent the vast majority (think 95%+) of this allocation thanks largely to Demelza Hays offering the DIF a deeply discounted rate for fund management services.

What is the DIF’s Strategy Now That it Has a Fund Manager?

Please see Demelza’s presentation in the DIF’s Q42019 quarterly report call embedded above, which begins at minute 5:52. You’ll also hear a refinement of how the DIF measures success, how we’ll report on assets going forward, a review of our contact information, etc.

How Much Does the DIF Currently Have in Reserve?

2,012 Dash. This represents all of the reserve funding that has been allocated to the DIF so far.

Note Regarding Possible Funding Proposal Later This Year:

At time marker 30:54 in the quarterly report call above, DIF chair Michael Lewis discusses a potential shortfall in 2020’s admin fees -- the ones that were intended to be covered by DIF director Glenn Kennedy’s initial funding proposal in June 2019 when Dash was $154.
We are currently operating on the premise that the Dash price will recover enough that an additional ask to cover these fees will not be necessary, but want to give you a head’s up regarding the possibility.

We hope to answer any questions you may still have below. 
Thank you, masternode owners and shared-masternode-owners, for servicing Dash’s governance needs.

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
0 points,1 day ago
Thanks for adjusting the ask. I am eager to support the DIF and Demelza Hayes to see what she can do. But we don't want to break stuff with a big ask.
thanks, solarguy
1 point,3 days ago
My understanding was that funding the DIF should be an alternative to weak proposals and burning Dash, still voting now, I was much more comfortable with the two tranches last month.
6 points,4 days ago
Yeah however much I want the DIF to succeed this is too much.

I am fine with 500 a month but maybe you should actually do something for the network before deciding that you need an increase in funds.

Voting no, I encourage you to resubmit with a more reasonable ask.
5 points,5 days ago
Dear masternodes, please stop this insanity!
I'm serious, if we fail to stop this madness, next cycle the DIF dares to ask 2000 Dash.
Where will you masternodes draw the line?
When will you finally cry out loud "enough is enough" with this ongoing BS?
9 points,5 days ago
Sorry, i will have to vote NO on this one. I think the buildup of reserves for the DIF should be done slowly and without it having too much of an impact on our treasury. I already voted NO on the previous DIF 2nd tranche budget proposal for that reason and see no reason to change my voting behavior for this one that is even asking more Dash over three months.
5 points,5 days ago
Looks like another treasury draining scam to me.
My vote is against it, of course

The DIF should have been conceptualized with minimal running costs being able to pick up and hold some equity, if this is even possible in the real world.
Because it means companies of proposal owners need to be registered, written contracts have to be made and signed, DIF staff would probably have to travel all over the world in order to finalize such contracts. It may not be easily feasable to do - OR - it will have no legally-binding force of the law behind it.
In such a case there really is no need to spend lots of money on something we cannot legally enforce anyway (in most of the situations).
I urge all the MNO to consider this with a realistic outlook.
Contracts are only worth something, if the signatories are reachable and known(verified), if the contracts are valid and effective (in the specific jurisdiction) and if they can be enforced, and if it is even worthwhile to potentially spend lawyer fees in order to enforce them, in case of litigation or refusal to comply by the other party.

Something that looks good on paper and in theory must not necessarily be practicable in real life.
For sure there is no justification to constantly drain our treasury and eating up our budget in such vast dimensions and down its greedy throat.
-5 points,5 days ago
Hysterical FUD. The DIF is a part of, and controlled by, the DAO. Are you suggesting that we are scamming ourselves? This is an important transition. Let's give the supervisors what they are asking for. They have done a lot of work on this, and they have not been compensated one duff.
8 points,4 days ago
Yes indeed is the DIF scamming ourselves with an endless waste of funds and useless bills with no end in sight ever.
And no, i don't want a bunch of elected (let alone appointed) individuals determine on what treasury funds are being spent, because a majority of them (not all) may not even be qualified to take such decisions.
Elected means little, if the pool to choose from is very limited and isn't required to prove any kind of qualification whatsoever.
Hell, history has taught us, that the voting MNO network was often fooled and made costly wrong decisions.
But at least, we MNO have every right to make mistakes, because we own Dash and literally *pay* for every mistake we make.
The decision-makers in the DIF have little to nothing to lose when they f*ck up big time.

Fact is, the DIF is a centralizing approach to spend treasury funds.
The worst thing about this CREATURE that is the DIF is not even the endless waste of funds, but that this entity is risking Dash's status as an Utility Token and will only contribute to Dash's perception of a Security Token.
By denying this very real risk, you are deluding only yourself. Take a look what happened to Decred.
And with the DIF we too are walking over thin ice.
You can claim the narrative that the DIF is just one of many proposal owners, just like many others.
But the fact that we endow the DIF with unique and special powers tells another story.
And the SEC will sooner or later argument that the DIF turns Dash into a centralized for-profit operation where de-facto employees (because of their unique and special powers) are acting in the economic interest of shareholders (MNO) with the sole objective of maximizing profits. The very definition of a Security.
9 points,6 days ago
Even though I'm a DIF supervisor I need to point out that I'm not in favour of this proposal. This is because I think that the overall amount should be split up into at least two proposals to provide a higher flexibility.

Right now this proposal is setting established and well performing teams at risk. One might see a conflict of interest here, because I'm a proposal owner myself. This might be right to a certain extend, but it doesn't change my opinion that this aks is irresponsible.
6 points,5 days ago
Agreed, too large a lump sum and hamstrings our discretionary budget after DCG gets funded, that is over 15% of total budget and about 35% of discretionary budget, voting no.
-6 points,5 days ago
Don't you work for DashForce Andrew? I think you might have a conflict of interest here.
1 point,4 days ago
I am not even certain I want to continue as a Moderator, I am fairly burnt out after dealing with certain personalities, i get janitor's pay as a Mod, if that, so how is that an conflict of interest?
1 point,4 days ago
In this capacity, I work for my MNO, how is that a conflict of interest, Geert?
0 points,5 days ago
@essra obvious conflict of interest is obvious.

DIF and Trust are essential to our long term growth.
3 points,5 days ago
I absolutely agree that DIF and Trust are essential. What we are working on in the DIF will be a huge benefit for Dash. I just don't agree on this "whatever it costs" approach.

I don't think that the DAO can afford to loose teams like Thailand, Nigeria or DACH. But that's just my point of view.
2 points,5 days ago
Sorry for mixing accounts. It even might be good, so everyone can see that I'm part of DACH, too and by this recognize that there might be a conflict of interest.
-5 points,5 days ago
Essra, you are an incredible asset to Dash, but in this instance your dissent regarding this proposal is ill-advised and hurtful. Getting the DIF running smoothly is crucial to the long term success of the project.

It is up to the Masternode Owners to ultimately decide the relative merits of this proposal vis-a-vis the others. You should have kept silent and simply voted your Masternode(s) if you have any.
2 points,5 days ago
Thank you for the compliment, geert.

In regards to staying silent: I'm part of the DIF so I want it to succeed, but I will share my opinion and thought whenever I feel it's the right thing to do. I hope this is why MNOs voted for me to be a supervisor of the project. If not I might have misunderstood the role.
2 points,5 days ago
Sorry for mixing accounts. It even might be good, so everyone can see that I'm part of DACH, too and by this recognize that there might be a conflict of interest.
3 points,5 days ago
I'm sorry but WTF is this?
1 point,5 days ago
0 points,5 days ago
The DIF is an important part of the DAO's future. Competing proposals that are "long in the tooth," or of questionable value, should be swept away to make room for this.

"Extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms." -- Charles Darwin

"That which is falling deserves to be pushed" -- Friedrich Nietzsche