Proposal “LP-reimbursment“ (Closed)Back

Title:Liquidity Provider reimbursement proposal
Owner:yidakee
One-time payment: 565 DASH (131942 USD)
Completed payments: no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2016-05-06 / 2016-06-21 (added on 2016-04-14)
Final voting deadline: in passed
Votes: 177 Yes / 454 No / 0 Abstain
External information: www.dashwhale.org/p/LP-reimbursment

Proposal description

Hi everyone.

Decided to submit this proposal, as I believe it is important to honor commitments.

It’s the whole reason Evan is re-writing the budgeting system in v12.1

It's called LP-reimbusrment

The Liquidity Provider initiative started on the 25th of September 2015, but only 3 payouts ever rolled out.
People have been running mix-wallets basically out of good will. 4 payments in total did not happen.

A deal is a deal, at least in my book. I hope the community is sensitive to this.

Price appreciation is surely a valid concern, and thus babygiraffe’s new proposal makes perfect sense!
There are at this moment of writing 1694 unallocated Dash in the budget system. I submitted a proposal for the total amount of non-payed months + proposal submitting costs (560 + 5)

These funds would be divided between the team of 6 = 93,34 Dash each total.

Now more than ever we need DarkSend (Soon PrivacyProtect) to operate at its fullest potential. Evan has yet again found some implementation issues that will vastly improve DarkSend, but we still need Liquidity Providers to make the network super responsive. In the near future there will be no need for Liquidity Providers at all.Now more than ever because high-level Merchants (Like ProtonMail and BolehVPN) are starting to adopt Dash.

This will be a massive help to attract more merchants in the privacy sphere (that a team is working at in the background). I’m sure everyone with privacy concerns will want to test or even stress test the efficiency of Dash.

On behalf of the Liquidity Provider team I hope you vote YES to this proposal to incentivize the magnificent work the LP team is doing, providing lots of personal funds for the mixing process, as well as monitoring all sorts of stats regarding it.Support DaskSend!

.

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
0 points,1 year ago
I can't understand why people won't vote to pay the Liquidity providers for missed payments (mostly voted out by Evan to make room for more essential needs in the budget - then forgot to reinstate the votes a couple of times) . The Liquidity Providers have been running wallets and mixing funds non-stop since September, and have only gotten a few payments (one before the current contract, 2 in this current contract) Yet they kept plugging away, exposing their wallets to the internet, running them 24/7 so that people mixing their coins don't have to wait forever to mix. This continues to be an essential service, and it would be good if everyone would vote on the new, reduced cost, contract Evan proposed as well. It looks like we'll have the funds available with no problems this month, so please consider what Liquidity Providers have been faithfully been doing for the past 7 months. Thanks :)
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
yes
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Based on this information I am inclined to vote yes because, if anything, we should always honour agreements....too bad this couldn't have been recorded on some blockchainthingamajig? Smart type contract?
perfect use case for clarity and transparency of agreements. Is there any future functionality of DASH that will implement smart contracts?
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Smart Contracts is still a very broad term, but in this sense, yes. In the upcoming V.12.1, Evan Duffield (our lead Dev) will introduce multi-month agreements, meaning that once passed they can't be down-voted or revoked. So our main focus is not like Ethtereum or Bitshares, but absolutely mature the DgBB (Dash governance by blockchain)
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
sort of new here....Could you simplify this for a noob?
Are you saying that there are payments that were committed in a proposal that were not honoured or completed to 6 devs to the tune of 93.34 DASH each?

this was previously voted on, passed and not honoured?
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Indeed. The Liquidity Providers team are not devs, just very trusted members of the community that use personal funds dedicated to improve DarkSend. There was a first proposal that passed and on 07/10/15 it payed out 127 Dash (divided by 6 team members = 21,17 each). Then there was a problem with the entire budget system and it didn't pay from then on. The budget system was rebooted around November or December. With the new proposal 140 Dash / month would be divided by the same team of 6, so 23,334 a month each. Unfortunately only 2 were ever payed out - 06/01/16 and 06/02/16. So in total only 3 payments happened since October '15 until today. But the guys kept the Liquidity Provider going anyways. The proposal is for 4 missed payments, each of 23,334, totalling 93,34. I wouldn't say the vote wasn't honoured, just that other proposals kicked this one out of the payment queue. A very similar thing happened with the PR-terpin proposal, and the whole reason Evan is re-writing the budgeting system in the up-coming v.12.1 of Dash. Multi-month agreements that can't be revoked. Than you!
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
I thought only 2 payments happened? In any case, you have my 2 votes.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
You are correct, but I'm including the very first payout. I'm talking about the initiative as a whole, not singularly about the actual proposed hash. There was a problem and it was resubmitted. So I'm including the previous (and very first) payout which was on 07/10/15. The other two where on 06/01/16 and 06/02/16. Thanks for your support!
Reply