Welcome!

> We estimate that a policy that provides $500,000 - $1,000,000 of coverage will cost $50,000 - $100,000

Why is the insurance policy so expensive?

From this site:

https://howmuch.net/costs/directors-and-officers-insurance

> Lower risk businesses could pay as little as $250 a year for $1 million in coverage, while companies with a higher risk might pay more than $10,000 a year. However, the average cost of Directors and Officers Insurance is around $600 for $1 million in coverage.

$100,000 is quite a few orders of magnitude greater than the average cost... is crypto/DCG really that risky?

I would like to see a re-organization of DCG. In particular, I want to see Dash Platform as a separately funded DFO.

It seems to me, even with recent price increases, Dash Platform eats up so much resource and time, that little is left for other essential functions such as governance and marketing.

if Dash Platform gets the success we imagine, there will be plenty of work to do. A Dash Platform Group will, hopefully, be in a continuous dialogue with developers, new and old. Educational material / resources, community building, further development to deal with scaling and decentralization, sharding etc.

With two separately funded DFOs - Dash Core Group and Dash Platform Group - with their own budget, we would clearly see the limitations and what balance was necessary. Then we could say, there is no excuse to postpone work on governance or marketing etc. I understand there is a lot of cross-over between the various groups and that can continue if these were two separate DFOs.

Separate proposals for things like legal etc don't make much sense to me. It seems far more informative to say, "here are two different DFOs with two different and clearly defined objectives".

In my last proposal - Set Your Price Proposals - there was no feedback from DCG. This void lead MNOs to speculate that DCG was too busy with more important things to do i.e. fully focused on Dash Platform. it was also argued that other projects (Dash Central, Dash Nexus and DMT) would not have the resources to make the necessary modifications, albeit minor modifications.

Ryan seems to recognize these issues but does not give it the priority I believe it deserves. Imo, a 60% ask from DCG with so much focus on Dash Platform is throttling *essential* work on governance and marketing. I accept moving governance to Dash Platform would be a massive boost but this should not prevent us from making important, but relatively minor, changes now.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Splitting out the Platform team specifically would likely not have the impact you are describing here. There are 6 individuals on the Platform development team as can be seen in the appendix of each of our quarterly calls. Splitting them out as a separate entity would entail some potentially negative aspects:
1) Administrative tasks (e.g., finances, HR, company structure / governance) would require duplication, meaning those developers would need to allocate a portion of their time to legal / HR / governance / reporting / financial tasks OR would need to hire those roles. This would likely mean less time dedicated to development given the small size of the team wouldn't justify hiring outside help for each of the administrative tasks. Frankly, these are likely not items the devs want to spend their time working on. Other cost efficiencies like infrastructure and tools would need to be separated into different contracts leading to a more expensive footprint overall.
2) The 2021 price increase has already allowed us to hire additional roles in the Core, BD, and Marketing functions. We have a number of roles already posted to expand those functions, and more job descriptions nearing completion (will post soon) which are the functions that would work on the aspects you are expressing we expend more resources on. Splitting out Platform would not accelerate this effort in any way. In fact, splitting everything would be an enormous project for DCG to separate assets, remove access to our systems, etc.
3) Separate organizations would erode the abilities of the two teams to collaborate (and any conflicting efforts to be resolved efficiently), and Core, Platform, and Mobile are all interdependent technologies. For example, making a technical design decision in Platform that makes Platform easier to develop, but to the detriment of Mobile or Core and the development effort they would need to support it would likely lead to suboptimal decision making, as each team would be incentivized to make the decision that is best approach for their own supported components of the overall system. This would result in greater tension between teams, and genuine disagreements over the "best" overall approach would risk being unresolved.

We receive many requests and ideas from community members like yourself, and while we appreciate them, we simply cannot act on everything (whether you were to separate out Platform devs or not). Even if we could, many of the ideas we hear are completely incompatible with one another regardless, so it is impossible to please everyone even with infinite resources. Separating out Platform would not change this and - for example - allow us to prioritize the "Set Your Price" proposal or other specific ideas you would like to see implemented. We do work on and make improvements to the system outside of Platform with every release. These are debated and prioritized within the Core, Platform, and Mobile teams. While we can't always address the item at the top of each community member's priority list, we do capture ideas, weigh the pros and cons of many of the best ideas we hear, and assign a subset of those features for integration. We do listen carefully for features that are widely-requested as well (as opposed to ideas we hear occasionally).

Hopefully, this helps frame why we wouldn't recommend separating out Platform devs into a separate entity, certainly not if the intended purpose is to accelerate development of non-Platform features. It simply wouldn't have that effect.

It seems you are justifying centralization. Other DFO's seem to manage with less than 6 staff.

The current limitations are easily tested, for if there were sufficient resources, DCG could expand on governance right now instead of deferring it.

The problem, in my view, is that while DCG is being paid by a comfortable margin, it does not see any pressing need to work on governance. This cycle went two full weeks without a single proposal because governance has stagnated and become uncompetitive to the broader market.

Thanks for taking the discussion to DashCentral. I'll have Ryan comment on your specific ideas.

Separately, I agree that separate proposals for things like legal doesn't make much sense. I have been brainstorming alternative ways to structuring proposals for funding.