Proposal “TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20“ (Closed)Back

Title:Block Reward Reallocation: Increasing MNO rewards - Doubling Treasury - Reducing Miner rewards 60-20-20 Split
Owner:quantumexplorer
One-time payment: 1 DASH (30 USD)
Completed payments: no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2023-09-10 / 2023-10-10 (added on 2023-09-08)
Votes: 637 Yes / 193 No / 1 Abstain

Proposal description

This proposal seeks guidance on how the community would like to proceed as we continue to develop and improve Dash through this bear market.

The Bad News

Dash Core Group’s reserves are on track to being depleted sometime in October or November. As things stand we are getting ready to reduce our manpower to get our monthly expenses from approximately 175k USD to around 125k USD per month, regardless of whether this proposal passes or not. Dash Core group is also currently short staffed in most aspects of the organization, especially on managers as roles left and were never replaced. Reducing our manpower by significantly more would have drastic consequences for the ability of Dash Core Group to service the needs of the project and would increase the time between releases. This proposal gives Masternode Owners an option to retain valuable contributors to the project through an adjustment to the block reward allocation.

Contributors inside of DCG have all agreed to a temporary reduction in pay through various means. I would like to thank them for this. Many of them are doing this despite working very long hours under very stressful conditions.

The Good News

However we do have some uplifting news. As of today we have started the testing phase of Dash Platform. This represents a big shift in our development efforts as we move away from making new features to making sure everything runs smoothly.

Another piece of good news in the fact that version 20 of Core is nearing completion. Inside this new version one of the features is that Quorums (that power Platform, Instant Send and Chain locks) no longer will use entropy from miners in their creation. I am extremely proud of this feature and achievement and would like to thank all those that contributed to it. We were working towards it for a considerable amount of time and it will be quite valuable towards the security of the system. The distribution of masternodes in quorums will now be provably random and can never be influenced by a single or portion of actors. This also means that miners will have a smaller role on the network.

Proposal

Currently (before v20 of Core) we have the following roles in the Dash ecosystem:
  • Miners propose core network blocks through proof of work and contribute to the generation of quorums.
  • Masternodes participate in facilitating Instant Send, Chain Locks and Coinjoin.
  • Dash funded organizations in the DAO develop the project and network.

In v20 of Core and v1 of Platform the roles are as follows::
  • Miners only propose core network blocks (miners will stop contributing to the generation of quorums regardless of this proposal passing or not).
  • Masternodes facilitate Instant Send, Chain Locks and Coinjoin. The Evonode version of masternodes will be paid for proposing blocks on the Platform network as well as various other features such as validating Platform to Core chain transfers.
  • Dash funded organizations in the DAO develop the project and network.

After v20 miners will have a smaller role, masternodes will have a bigger role, and development will continue to be needed.
Current allocation:
  • Miner reward: 36%
  • Masternode reward: 54%
  • Treasury: 10%

Proposed allocation, in light of the above: 
  • Miner reward: 20%
  • Masternode reward: 60%
  • Treasury: 20%

This proposal is to have this change be immediate at the activation of Core v20 and Platform v1. Platform will need to activate on mainnet for this change to take effect.

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
1 point,6 months ago
After the schism between the 1k and the 4k masternodes that caused 50 1k masternoes to leave the community, yet another "divide and conquer" method of QuantumExplorer.

77% agree with him, 23% do not. Why this 77% requires their opinion to be applied for 100% of the time? This is totally absurd! Although I also belong to the 77% of the YES voters, I will never accept the tyranny of the majority.

Lets calculate the mean average, lets discover an alternative voting outcome that does not comply to the "divide and conquer" method of QuantumExplorer, neither succumbs to the tyranny of the majority. Lets discover an alternative voting outcome that takes into account the votes of ALL the members of our community.

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/votethenumbers3/calc3.php?proposals%5B%5D=TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The semantic of this page is ( VOTED_NO=0, VOTED_ABSTAIN=1 and VOTED_YES=2)

Electorate = 3741 potential votes (Regular and Evo MNOs)
ValidVotes = 832
Voting participation = 22.24 %

---VOTING RESULTS (depends on which among the below election methods you prefer.)---

---Divisive Election Methods---
Most Voted Number = 2 (or 2 base3) was voted by 638 votes ( 76.68 % of the valid votes )

---Inclusive Election Methods---
Median Average = 2 (or 2 base3)
Mean Average = 1.53
Time Splitting = Not coded yet

Note: Multiply the number of your favorite method by the appropriate Chunk (is defined by the proposal owner) to discover the voting outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According the mean average rule, the current result is 1.53. But what about the chunk? Lets calculate.

IF 0 is (52.38/37.62/10) and 2 is (60/20/20), then 1.53 how much is it?

52.38+(60-52.38)X1.53/2=58.21
37.62+(20-37.62)X1.53/2=24.14
10+(20-10)X1.53/2=17.65

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SO IF WE ALSO RESPECT THE 23% OF THE VOTERS (and not only the 77% of them) THEN THE ALLOCATION SHOULD BECOME (58.21/24.14/17.65)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply
1 point,6 months ago
832 valid votes and this is not considering how many of those are unique individuals. Some of those are 4x votes, and the remaining may be humpbacks deliberately hiding their individuality e.g. through masternode shares.

I got to be honest here and say, this is not the first time I have found myself in this exact same position, where I was seriously considering the purchase of another masternode and yet, despite how cheap they appear, I am erring to the side of No. The last time I decided No, I was correct and made 5x more money managing other coins than if I had chosen a dash masternode. How could an OG MNO come to be in this position yet again? - it's frustrating.

Imo, the dash dao (dare I call it that) has repeatedly made the most destructive decisions. This looting from miners was predicted by myself some 9 months ago, you can see my other predictions here (go ahead, if it makes you feel better, down vote me for being correct):

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-41#post-233444

At the time of the above post, dash was 42 USD and considered "a bargain". I was called stupid for repeatedly selling dash.

Now, there is a counter argument to this that says CrowdNode has enabled hundreds of people to participate in rewards and voting without the need for hardware or collateral. I can answer this but it deserves it's own separate post. Suffice to say, CrowdNode is Level 2 poisoning in the same way Lightning Network is Level 2 poisoning. Where is the "skin in the game" if individuals aren't running nodes, providing necessary resources or providing collateral?

************

Samuel Westrich, "We are now in 2023, of the top 100 on coin market cap I believe only 10 coins are PoW. Us going down in market cap isn't because new PoW coins came in"

In the above quote, something dangerous is being suggested / communicated to the dash community; if dash moves to Proof of Stake it would somehow return to the top 100 coins by market cap. This is yet another example of insidious propaganda. When zcash promised to move to PoS, it spiked in price but is now sitting at roughly the same price as dash. When it does finally move to PoS, maybe it will spike again (who knows?), but for all the wrong reasons; big money moving in and then controlling the network. There is a saying, "easy come, easy go". As quick as fiat money flows in, it will also quickly flow out, for there was no real work taking place. Again,*who* is providing necessary resources and collateral?
Reply
3 points,6 months ago
Sooner or later the Masternodes will take over all the mining, whether you like it or not
It will reward those who deserve it the most, namely those who hold Dash,
and it will remove a great deal of regular selling pressure from the exchanges!
Reply
1 point,6 months ago
I agree, I think the move to PoS is inevitable, but it comes at the cost of further centralization. I am familiar with the counter argument - the centralization of mining - but this can be somewhat offset with changes to the mining algo, perhaps something similar to RandomX.

I suppose if PoW can print money for prison inmates then it's probably fair to say it's fulfilled it's purpose as censorship resistance. /s
Reply
2 points,6 months ago
You write as if PoW mining isn't centralized since almost a decade already.
As a miner you either need access to free or dirt-cheap electricity, or else you go broke fast.
Reply
0 points,6 months ago
Depends really. Centralized that large mining farms are difficult to hide, yet decentralized enough that the game of whac-a-mole exists. You know, it does actually cost SOMETHING to produce bitcoin whereas PoS allows for complete takeovers, and not just for 10 minutes.
Reply
1 point,6 months ago
Proof of Stake is a curse.

Fortunately the Masternodes are also Proof of Service.

The Dash community should focus on Proof of Service, in case they want to escape from the death spiral.
Reply
0 points,6 months ago
Incentivizing people to hold Dash is a pathetic rule, and one of the main reason of Dash's fall.

In order to understand how different to Dash the Encointer community is, in Encointer when you hodl your Encointer money not only you dont get any benefit or interest, but you loose your money! The Encointer Stake holders not only are not incentivized to hodl, but also they are forced to spend and this helps the money circulation.

Because money that does not circulate it is not money, it is a pathetic store of value.

Read here:

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/pre-proposal-would-you-like-this-proof-of-individuality-to-be-implemented-in-dash.15946/page-7#post-236514
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Quote of the day, Joel Valenzuela!

"If you see a promising crypto's price slowly slide away into oblivion over the years..."

...it's probably Dash lol
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Unless the stupid masternodes understand their error, and turn 180 degrees.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Sir, the masternodes are highly intteligent !!!!
You know it very well, or else you would not here
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I dunno, sometimes I think I'm pretty stupid for still being here! :D
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Either you are stupid for still being here, or you want to become a fair person.

Because, as Basil of Caesarea said, you are unfair to as many people as you could have helped and you did not.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Everything you hold will be taken from you, your cleverness, your richness, your wealth, your beauty.

Everything.

Your fairness is the only property that truly belongs to you and it will always be associated to you.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
The masternodes HAVE BEEN PROVED completely stupid. The initiatives of theirs that did NOT ended to a failure can be counted in one hand, while the proposals they voted and ended to a complete failure are countless!

But....

"The bread you store belongs to the hungry. The clothes you accumulate belong to the naked. The shoes that you have in your closet are for the barefoot. The money you bury deep into the ground to keep it safe, belongs to the poor. YOUR CLEVERNESS BELONG TO THE STUPID. Your strength and your army belongs to the defenceless. You were unfair to as many people as you could have helped and you did not." -- Basil of Caesarea
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Of course the masternodes dont want their stupidity to be exposed and measured, thats why they deny the below pre-proposal.

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/pre-proposal-let-all-the-actors-mnos-miners-stakeholders-vote-then-take-into-account-only-mnos.12735/
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Sir, the issue with this is, that all the not-invested or barely-invested would vote for somehow pouring out dividends or handouts from the capital of the invested people, which would essentially be the same as stealing.
How could you not see that flaw?
Unless of course you belong to the group who doesn´t care about the invested capital, see...
To the contrary everyone belonging to the invested group cares a lot about their investment.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
What are you talking about? Have you read the pre-proposal?

Let all the actors vote, just for statistical reasons while not all the votes count. This system is very important, because although the decision power will remain to the masternodes, the votes of all the actors will be recorded, and in the depth of times we will see which actor was the wisest one and deserves to decide.

Stop believing that the masternodes are the best to decide. Stop taking "instant faith pills".

Start knowing who deserves to decide. Let them all vote, let the masternodes decide, and let the voting history to reveal who was right and who was wrong.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Only ideas that bring up the Dash price or cause investors to flock and buy Dash are valuable.
Everything else is good for nothing. Sir, you need to handle the truth.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Sir, you need to handle the truth.

As far as a cryptocurrency relies to FIAT money's flow, this cryptocurrency is a complete loser.

The government agents can print unlimited FIAT money , and with that FIAT money they will always control whatever cryptos depends on FIAT.

The winner crypto will challenge FIAT, it will not depend on it.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Just an an example, the EncointerUBI proposal, and the vote of two actors.

Here is the vote of the masternodes.
https://mnowatch.org/encointerUBI/results.html

Here is the vote of the crowdnoders.
https://mnowatch.org/crowdnodewatch

I am recording the votes, and the history will reveal who was right and who was wrong, regarding Encointer.
Reply
-7 points,7 months ago
A bunch of ignorants, who spend their precious time to nothing.
Proof of Stake AND Proof of Work are BOTH dinosaurs of the past!
Only the Proof of Personhood stands!

THE COINS OF THE FUTURE WILL BE MINED BY MEETINGS.

Join the Encointer revolution!

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/pre-proposal-would-you-like-this-proof-of-individuality-to-be-implemented-in-dash.15946/page-6#post-236447
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Sir, the masternodes are Proof-of-Service !!!!

Proof-of-Personhood is overrated and an outdated concept already,
because we are now witnessing the dawn of AI, which will undoubtedly
result in the overwhelming majority of (future) citizens being AIs.
Persons are going to lose most of their importance and will become
superfluous and irrelevant within the next decade (except for the rich of course).

That´s the writing on the wall, whether you like it or not.
We need to have the courage to face reality!
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
>Persons are going to lose most of their importance and will become
>superfluous and irrelevant within the next decade (except for the rich of course).

Rich are going to lose most of their welfare and their money will become useless and irrelevant within the next decade (except for those who will hold the correct crypto coins of course).
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
The masternodes are a combination of Proof-of-Stake and Proof-of-Service.

And of course the Service is not well defined, because the service depends on the bandwidth, CPU and memory each masternodes offers to the network, and this essential is not measured.

Also DCG tried to confuse and they named the EvoNodes as High Performance nodes instead of name them correctly High Collateral nodes (this proves that the masternodes are more Stake than Service).

On what it concerns your arguments for AI, just one word. Bullshits!
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
ProofOfStake's roots to all those infamous persons who hold a lot of FIAT money. Whatever crypto respects itself and the crypto definition should reject the FIAT money holders, and thus whatever PoS scheme.

ProofOFWork also tends to be centralized, sometimes a waist of energy and thus against ecology.

What is the alternative road? ProofOfPersonhood/ProofOfMeetings (PoP/PoM), a method introduced by the Great Encointer community.

Fortunately whatever coins is governed can change its road and become a PoP/PoM coin. Lets vote the numbers here in Dash, and change the allocation from the current (52.38/37.62/10) to what this proposal suggests (60/20/20) and finally to (15/5/80).

A 80% budget will facilitate and will finance multiple Dash meetings in regular intervals, in order for PoP/PoM coins to be mined in these meetings.
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
Two Incubator WEEKLY shows covering this subject:

Arguments FOR the proposal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEe9oi1njFY
(guest Sam/quantumexplorer with hosts Amanda and Rion)

Arguments AGAINST the proposal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py-1MSXBwos
(guest Peter/toknormal with hosts Amanda and Rion)
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
I am FOR this proposal. I believe it more accurately reflects the contribution to network security of miners/MNs based on Dash's technological advances and also more funding is needed for development and not just DCG.

Additionally, I hope all the no voters stay around, because there will invariably be more posers that say they will develop for Dash but trust should be earned, and Dash will need you in the future to protect the value of Dash that we all seek to improve.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Following toknormal's presentation on the incubator WEEKLY show, I am now against this proposal, and I strongly encourage anyone who hasn't yet, to watch it and to consider the perspective put forward with fresh eyes: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py-1MSXBwos

Not only do we need to more fundamentally move towards having something meaningfully at stake in real-time for proposing fradulent or inaccurate blocks, which is a larger issue, but I now also understand a different point being made, that was also shared by Evan Duffield...

The only way to tell what the price of something actually is, is to look at the last price someone paid for it. The "price" is literally what the last person paid. You can see this on exchanges. That quite often also has an effect on what the next person is willing to pay.

A miner only exchanges $1000 of electricity (hash rate) for a coin because they value it more than $1000. It's proof that they value the coin by at least that amount, and they are therefore unlikely to sell it for less. Masternodes, on the other hand, might well value the new coins at a significantly lower value, and may therefore more easily sell them down to a lower price. There's no way of knowing how lowly they value the coins, because they give up very little (almost nothing) to aquire the individual new coins on the margin. They already made their more substantial sacrifice to acquire the 1,000 Dash at some other time and at some other price point, and that doesn't effect how they value each new one now after that directly. It's similar to when coins are ICO'd, there is resistance to selling them below the ICO (or "sacrifice") price, even though the coins themselves were created out of thin air. Miners are buying the new coins at the current market price in that same ICO sense using hash rate, while masternodes aren't.

From that perspective at least, reducing mining rewards can hurt the price of Dash, and even, perhaps paradoxically leave masternodes significantly out of pocket, as a $1 change in the Dash price, in either direction, is much more important to the financial health of a masternode owner than a few extra percentage points of rewards are, for a very long time.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
If a miner is willing to burn $1000 of electricity to earn a certain amount of coins, it could just as easily mean that they see the order books on exchanges and have a good idea what they can expect to be able to sell it for. Miners could be spending to accumulate, but they could also just be spending to profit from what is essentially arbitrage between the cost from mining, and the prevailing prices on exchanges. Does the on-chain data support the claim that miners predominantly accumulate, or that they predominantly sell? I think we know the answer.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
I just don't think that argument stands up to scrutiny. Miners just shut off their equipment if they aren't making back their money in short term. They don't hold the coins they just dump them on exchanges, this has been true for years. Meanwhile many masternodes keep their rewards, just look at Dashninja.pl and sort by amount in the masternode, there are many many nodes with more than required. You can argue that masternode selling pressure will be just as bad, but I think history shows us it probably wont be and to argue it will be worse would be arguing for drastic change from what we have seen before
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Maybe you're right, maybe you're not but if you voted Yes then why would you leave it to chance? I mean, let's just say it goes bad, then what? - who's going to convince all those that voted Yes that maybe they should now vote No?

In any event, if you haven't already seen the Incubator video with Toknormal then I would recommend you do so.
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
I see you're getting down voted for clearly explaining Proof of Work. Let us consider what energy those people had to expend to click their mouse... no real energy, no real loss to click, has no real value, which is Proof of Nothing.

But alas, a relatively small group of individuals have set fate in motion, affecting the lives of many people. It's really quite disappointing.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
No, it is you that is Proof of Nothing and you that is in the minority.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Do you think, if I need to assemble a team of experts, that I would turn to a majority of people? Or do you think the experts I find might be in a minority?

In other words, you imply an average intelligence of a majority is somehow going to make better judgements. Not only is this not true, it defies all the failed projects I listed elsewhere on this page.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
And your point is?

A minority of what set of people? - a few hundred whales that choose to pay themselves first without any regard or representation for thousands of end users, is that it?

I win either way; if the price soars, thanks for the inheritance, if the price tanks, I get to keep my pride and rub your nose in it.
Reply
-5 points,7 months ago
Come on guys! There are alternative solutions!

Instead of taking the money of the miners (and put the network into risk), why dont we take the money of weejohnny (also known as TheTsar)?

https://mnowatch.org/weejohnny/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Metal/comments/fg7x7/behemoth_ov_fire_and_the_void_uncensored_vimeo/
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Stealing dormant or lost coins is even worse and is the route that BSV and other centralised and permissioned blockchains went down.
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
Not stealing lost coins or the coins of the dead is the worse thing you can do.

That is why BSV that stole Satoshi's coins is now number 57, while Dash that did not stole the coins of the dead Tsar weejohnny is number 94 (and will fall even more because of that).

IF weejohnny is not DEAD, he can easily cast 229 NO and block the confiscation of his money. If he is DEAD indeed, then for what bloody reason we do not use that money?
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Stealing is bad, m'kay
And there is no greater sin than stealing from the rich, at least not in America
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
He is likely in jail and intends to use his coins later. How do we decide enough time has passed before we can steal the coins? If so, I suggest we wait 100 years to ensure the original owner is surely dead.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Not all the wallet of weejohnny will be confiscated at once.

The community should use weejohnny's wallet to get loans.

In case weejohnny returns, we will give him back the money we confiscated with no interest.

Thats the wise plan. We should try this first, and if the confiscated money of weejohnny is not enough to keep the developers happy, then we should consider to attack the miners and put the Dash network into danger.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
"οὐδὲ διαλογίζεσθε ὅτι συμφέρει ἡμῖν ἵνα εἷς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ ἔθνος ἀπόληται"

"You dont realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish?” --- John 11:50
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
For the record, below you can see the discovery of theTsar, that was later renamed to weejohnny.

https://discord.com/channels/484546513507188745/496635238995197952/645672953580748831

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtZTFMwxgNo
Reply
10 points,7 months ago
Incubator WEEKLY is looking for someone who is AGAINST this proposal to come on the show this Monday the 18th to make their case. There's 3 Dash available as compensation, and you can do voice-only with no video if you prefer. Message me on Discord @amanda_b_johnson or reply here with your email address if you're interested.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Thanks @toknormal for being our guest this week.

Arguments AGAINST the proposal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py-1MSXBwos
(guest Peter/toknormal with hosts Amanda and Rion)

Arguments FOR the proposal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEe9oi1njFY
(guest Sam/quantumexplorer with hosts Amanda and Rion)
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Who pays for Platform operation in an 80% miner allocation?
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
The percentages aren't payments themselves, they are allocations. If 80% mining, 15% masternodes and 5% treasury caused Dash to in a short time move to $500 or $1000 and maintain that price level, would you still think the percentages were wrong?
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
<RESULT UPDATE>
https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/votethenumbers3/calc3.php?proposals%5B%5D=TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20

According the mean average rule, the current result is 1.49

IF 0 is (52.38/37.62/10) and 2 is (60/20/20), then 1.49 how much is it?

52.38+(60-52.38)X1.49/2=58.06
37.62+(20-37.62)X1.49/2=24.49
10+(20-10)X1.49/2=17.45

SO IF THE RESULT (ACCORDING THE MEAN AVERAGE) REMAINS 1.49

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/votethenumbers3/calc3.php?proposals%5B%5D=TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20

THEN THE ALLOCATION SHOULD BECOME (58.06/24.49/17.45)

</RESULT UPDATE>
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
My final comment on this decision proposal :

There is just too much risk with directly connecting the outcome of this very unexpected and totally out of the blue coming DCG decision proposal topic to meddle with the miner rewards, to the release of Dash Core v20 (which will launch Platform on Mainnet). This has mainly to do with the hard fork that is included with Dash Core v20 and requires the support of miners.

This poses a direct and unresponsible risk to the activation of Dash Platform on Dash Mainnet.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
I agree that big protocol changes needs to handled with care and not just out of the blue. Do we even have people representing the miner community or big miners to share their thoughts?
I do believe pushing or rather pissing the miners can cause problem with the chain. What it majority of them turn off their miners. Won't that halt the whole chain (if they all go into protest).
It would be more fair the the cost came from both miner + MN (i will loose on this but fair is fair) for maybe say 2 super block and when there is proper governance in place after the meetings that is planned + we have more transparency + EVO is out then we can do a more permanent change.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
"What it majority of them turn off their miners. Won't that halt the whole chain?" -> Nope, we have Dark Gravity Wave, there would be no problem.

The project has been bleeding investment capital through unneeded electricity costs. This was fine when crypto was new, but nowadays we need to reduce waste to make the project more efficient. I believe we really would have been in a better place if we had done this change earlier.

When we talk about fairness, this change is a lot more fair than firing people working very hard and more importantly providing a lot of value for the project.

An analogy would be telling an employee that you have to let them go because you want to waste electricity because reducing your electricity bill would be unfair to the electricity company.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
But obviously they were not providing value for the project, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Value is US dollars, this is the bottom line, the basis for which you publish this proposal, not "value = man hours and you happen to like their code". It was not a profitable or self-sustaining activity. And clearly, even with the new budget, the expenses are way too high.

I'm sure your natural instinct is to dismiss what I say but this is the harsh reality. What do I propose? - you mothball the project and concentrate on income generation, _nothing else_. Moving the goal posts is NOT income generation, period. You love this project to death, I'm sure, but your obsession continues to hurt others.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
No way, its too late to make any changes at this point.
The dice have been rolled and the wheel of history has turned.
Reply
7 points,7 months ago
I am going to make a new comment to address a few things that I find a little erroneous that are being repeated.

1. No accountability ->
a) On individual level -> There is accountability on an individual level. When I became head of Technology at DCG, we had 6 Platform devs. Of those 6 Platform devs, we only have 1 that is still around as of this month. I hired a lot of new people in the last two year, we got GroveDB, Tenderdash, and we now released v-1-beta-1 of Platform to Testnet, a massive achievement. Blaming the current remaining developers who were hired around 2 years ago for mistakes that happened before they were hired is wrong.
b) For DCG board -> Again, all the board has been replaced in the last 2 years and 2 months (I became a board member 2 years and 2 months ago), I will not argue if the previous board did good or bad, but I will say that blaming the current board for a long list of issues is wrong too.
c) For me personally -> I apologize on the timelines that I gave as CTO. The biggest problem that I faced is that I understood some components of the system that I was personally working on (Tenderdash/Grovedb/Drive(Storage)) and not everything as the system itself had other people on other parts of the system, I listened in calls about other parts of the system and gave estimates based on what I was being told and what I understood. After Tenderdash/GroveDB and Drive were pretty much done close to the beginning of this year I went into other parts of the code, and I just didn't think they were remotely close to being production ready, or that they were would ever be in the architecture that they were build on. If people want to see me suffer for my lack of omnisciency, well you can know I have, I have been working all the time to try to get us to on the right path and I do believe we now are finally there with the release of Beta-1. If you want to see my paycut cut, well it has been as well.

2. Good devs would line up to submit proposals if they weren't working inside of DCG -> We asked people on a survey if they would be willing to be paid in Dash if they were not already. While a few said yes, many others said no (often because of local laws/taxes etc). Having talked with most devs I expect that the network might get 1 or 2 if DCG is dissolved, but most devs just wouldn't do it.

3. Doubling the treasury would increase selling pressure -> This is provably false, we can actually see that not all Dash paid out by the treasury is converted to USD (I'm guessing that some contributors keep Dash as an investment), but we can also see that all mining rewards are sold. Also it's clear that some MNO's don't sell all their rewards. Hence this proposed reallocation would reduce selling pressure, not increase it.

4. They are just stringing us along with promises of Platform -> As I said the reallocation will happen with the release of Platform. So no Platform no Reallocation.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
What if this decision proposal passes and miners reject the real reason behind the cuts on their blockrewards, namely to keep DCG funded despite DCG misreading of the crypto market, causing the DCG reserves to deplete before Dash Platform can even be released to Mainnet.

No Platform
No reallocation
No more reserves
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
I guess DCG will then be forced to do something, they should have done way more early in this type of market : finally go into full survival mode.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
To be honest i can't think of a single reason why miners would flag support for the upcoming hard fork in Dash Core v20, when that same hard fork strips away half of their blockrewards just to support DCG.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
This is exactly what I think.
If I were a miner I would not run v20 software myself.
I'm not a miner myself but I know personally some miners though.
I'm for the reallocation of the reward but not in a way it is presented, I've left my comment already.
Looking closely what is going to happen.
Check today's Re-Allocate Dash's Block Reward? | Incubator WEEKLY
https://youtu.be/UEe9oi1njFY
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I am a miner and I will run it, it's the best outcome for the network and best chance to increase price in the coming bull market.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
I'll turn on my old miner to help out.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Girl, you cannot afford the electricity mining requires, unless you live in (northern) Sudan
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
With such a declining exchange rate, you will again not have enough of this money.
To avoid voting twice, correct the reward now 65 - 25 - 10
Masternode reward: 65%
Treasury: 25%
Miner reward: 10%
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
You recentrly voted against voting the numbers.

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/pre-proposal-would-you-like-to-be-able-to-vote-with-number-v2.52643/#post-236278

And now you are voting the numbers!!!!!

Are you insane?
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Hey Dash Community,

After contemplating this for a while, I would like to share my opinion too.
I am torn, because I like the idea of increasing treasury budget. But the rationale offered by the PO, proposed implementation timelines and new split between miners and MNOs is hardly to accept to me.
Let me briefly explain my thoughts.

1. Rationale of relatively quick change in the protocol, due to the internal problems of DCG, is not acceptable to me. Changes in the protocol should be driven by the network needs.

2. Increasing treasury budget won't resolve any problems that DCG has (since years). It will just make an ineffective company exist longer. DCG has to resolve their issues with personnel, low effectiveness, low morale, extremely low predictability. Keeping status quo is a mistake imho. If you don't know how - hire an external management consultant. It will be money very well spent (much better than keeping broken personnel imho). Stop being sentimental and compassionate, if comes to the company and team management.

3. As I understand, this change is proposed to be implemented together within the same software package as Evo. Combining change in the protocol within the same version as Evo is EXTREMELY bad idea to me.
- on one side, it looks like blackmailing ("there will be no Evo, if you won't accept this change")
- on the other side, miners have the right to not accept this change and not implement it. In case they are rejecting it, there will be no Evo neither.

4. We have no idea how the market is going to react to Evo. Let them try. If Evo is going to be a success, Dash price will be higher and the treasury budget in fiat value increases anyway. If market won't care about Evo, it means we were all wrong and it doesn't make any difference if DCG exists or not. Harsh reality that we need to accept.

5. I would rather cut the reward proportionally from MNs and miners atm. At this time we have no idea what the future is bringing. IF Evo is a success, and Evonodes will be actually needed, and miners role really lower, then I would ask for the change - based on facts. Not now, based on highly theoretical predictions.

Considering the above (and every argument I have read on the forum and Dashcentral), I intend to vote "ABSTAIN" or "NO" to this proposal.

PS. I would like to suggest to the DCG leadership implementing necessary changes in the structures and personnel immediately. Without remorse. Otherwise you won't survive, even if this proposal is accepted. Same people will be doing the same mistakes and causing the same problems - I guess you know it well after so many years.
PS2. Instead of so rushed change in the protocol, I would rather suggest asking MNOs for donations for the development efforts (and commitment to execute).
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
Can't help but ask where all this rational, outward and unafraid assessment of DCG was during your COO days? More importantly, there was actually more of a chance for you to change things internally back then than there is right now.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Hi hilawe,
Thank you for asking.
My opinion didn’t change much since around 2019. I asked for changes within the development teams MANY times. CTOs, who were at that time responsible for the devs, had different opinions and refused to apply suggested changes. Sam could confirm or deny, if he cares.
PS. As many times written already - development wasn’t my domain of responsibility within DCG. The split line is quite straight in DCG:
- CTO runs development teams.
- COO was/is responsible for the company operations and supporting functions (infra, service desk, PM/SMs)
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Hi kot,
I will absolutely confirm that when the DTPs met with you in 2021 or so, you were the most honest and objective at describing how we got to this situation in Evo. You also had the best history recollection out of anyone else we talked to in terms of a timeline. And yes, you had also advocated for some strong measures to be taken regarding Platform while you were COO.

My issue is that the network sees this side only after you left as DCG COO when the network really needed your *outward* and honest assessment long before that. My other issue is that non-DCG people who were pointing out the issues (before the RT controversy) were aggressively attacked by you. Ok I'll drop this going forward as it is important you keep being vocal but couldn't help having to point this out this last time.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I have never attacked people, who pointed out problems. I always collected problems and discussed them on the board and management meetings, if they were related to DCG.
I might have been aggressive towards people, who were attacking personally and set new lower lows in the community disputes, as e.g. "honest investigator" (unfortunately you were a very eager supporter of him), who was always so "concerned" about the project. Where is this crown jewel of Dash community now?
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
"I have never attacked people, who pointed out problems. I always collected problems and discussed them on the board and management meetings, if they were related to DCG."

Yes that is accurate, you used to be upset and say "you could just message me" instead of posting publicly about DCG. Keeping everything in-house and protected from MNO eyes.

I don't speak for Mark's immediate whereabouts/interests except that he still was invested in Dash. But he did the network a big favor by revealing the 'emperor has no clothes' as the saying goes. Remember, I didn't bring up the scary DCG boogeyman, you did.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Please elaborate about the "big favor" because I must have missed something.
Maybe recording our calls without consent?
Or blatant lies about private lives of people?
Or some other greatness, I have missed?
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
You bring him up once again when everyone else has moved on. When will he stop living rent-free in people's head? The triggering will end when people decide to for themselves.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
I also recall myself reporting these concerns to the Dash Trust Protectors, during our calls, when you were one of them. So you were very well informed about my concerns.
Reply
6 points,7 months ago
1. As I said v20 has changes that reduce reliance on miners so it makes sense we spend less on mining at the activation of v20.

2. Maybe you haven't been following: as I said before, all those developers that you might have been unhappy about while you were at DCG are gone now except 1. We are further letting go of more devs and non devs as well to get down to 125k USD from 175k USD/month (from around 400k USD 2 years ago). 90% of what Platform is today was rewritten almost from scratch in the last two years and 2 months since I became CTO (except Tenderdash that I worked on earlier). You want us to be ruthless, well we are. I don't know if you would recognize the company if you came in and saw things.

As for saying things like low effectiveness... If we just take what was achieved in the last two years I would say we were highly effective at delivering, at least for the developers still in DCG now. There is a lot there, equivalent to teams much bigger in other crypto projects. Value received vs money spent I think we did very well. Two years ago we were using 4 databases to try to mimic some functionality we wanted. Two years ago everything was written in Javascript (no other crypto project uses javascript - for good reason). The architecture was wrong, there were no working proofs, there was no fee estimation, there were no working fees, the was no state transition atomicity, there was no same block execution, and much more. The amount of achievements is actually monumental. And we just got a beta version with backend main components all in rust released.

3. As I said: this is not blackmailing, there will be Evo no matter what at this point, however without this we will have Evo, and then have to fire a decent portion of the best devs that worked hard to finally get us there. And if there is an issue, you might have just fired the people that would be able to resolve it the quickest.
As for miners: as I said before, even if they refuse this change, Masternodes by themselves can activate it. I do think miners will activate it though.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Hey Sam,
Thanks for coming and sharing your opinion. I really appreciate that.
I will not be arguing with you - we have different opinions and that's fine. Let me just share something that came to my mind after reading your comments in this entire discussion.
You wrote:
"I listened in calls about other parts of the system and gave estimates based on what I was being told and what I understood."
or
"Two years ago we were using 4 databases to try to mimic some functionality we wanted. Two years ago everything was written in Javascript (no other crypto project uses javascript - for good reason). The architecture was wrong, there were no working proofs, there was no fee estimation, there were no working fees, the was no state transition atomicity, there was no same block execution, and much more. "
And right after that you are writing: "The amount of achievements is actually monumental."

They are not reliable or effective. They gave you (and others) wrong estimates for years, they have chosen wrong architecture, they have chosen wrong language, made wrong designs, fail to deliver any timeline they declared. This is not a list of monumental achievements. Those are complete failures.
Man, I know you are a great dev. I know you work hard. Probably harder than anyone in DCG.
Please just notice that your team isn't like you. Stop being sentimental.
I have no doubt devs had a great time testing different architectures, languages, designs etc. They produced a lot of code, changed everything over and over, and it was fun for devs - but they didn't produce the desired product for years (always declaring that it will take months). It is hard to consider it a success.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
I think you misunderstood, the achievements we've had that I was referring to, we've had mostly in the past two years.

As I became CTO, I think you might remember I hated a lot of things, but it's not a simple task to say: "hey we should restart from scratch". I was looking at expected timelines and I didn't see a way we could restart from scratch with the devs we had 2 years ago and get the desired result we would have wanted. Remember at that point we had a lot of fresh new devs in Platform and the ones that had built the old system that in my opinion wouldn't work close to well enough in Production.

So what did I do, I split the work into small teams of 2/3 people. Some teams succeeded, some failed. The point I'm trying to make is that those that failed are no longer developing for DCG as of September and those that succeeded are.

I view the two devs that are in the GroveDB team as having succeeded (they came to help other teams once they were done).
I view the remaining dev that is in the Tenderdash team as having succeeded (they came to help other teams once they were done).
I view the dev that was responsible for SDK, but finished most of that and came to help other teams as much as possible working long hours to fix things as having succeeded as well.
The one dev that was in the old Platform team and is still around has routinely brought very good innovations to the project and is very valuable, this is not only my view but a view shared by the entire team.

Once again of the 6 Platform devs that I had when I became CTO, only 1 dev is still around, and the rest are not. You want me to be ruthless and to stop being sentimental, but we've already almost halved the Platform team in the last 6 months already. I'm not sure what you are advocating for, fire the ones that did do their job too?
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
As CTO you have been in power now since over two years, and i admire the many accomplishments in such a relatively short time.
I am thankful for all you did so far and all your sacrifices (both overhours and donated salary), most others i am sure, could never have handled all the stress and the pressure you went through.
There is no doubt, so far you have been the best CTO this project had since a long time.

That being said, i just cannot wrap my head around, why you never offered Rango, Elbereth or other longtime and trusted stakeholders a subdomain, like for example:

ninja.dash.org
dao.dash.org or budget.dash.org or treasury.dash.org

We seem to be the only project using a myriad of different domains, even for the major key services.
And if we take a look back in time, most of such 'third-party' domains have become orphaned already.

If we want to build a successful ecosystem, we need a closer integration of the major key services, so they can be easily found from one place while visitors should get a complete overview, rather than having to look for those resources elsewhere spread across all over the web.

Also, this way we would not lose as easily such resources, if such an external domain was no longer renewed for whatever reason, and of course it would be easier for somebody else to eventually take over, without all contents & webcode having been lost already.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I'm sorry Kot for still holding a grudge, but you come from the management team that FAILED then ABANDONED DCG. YOUR team never produced and failed to deliver. Sam has delivered (it's still in testnet working out the bugs, but delivered!) Seems to me, we don't need management like we had before.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
So my failure is not staying, right?
If I would stay, simply do nothing, would I be hero of the day? Just for staying and looking at another and another broken timeline?
Reply
7 points,7 months ago
In all fairness Kot was not in charge of tech - and routinely saw issues in the tech part of DCG that he wanted to address.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
He monitored & tracked delivery schedules for years and was a DCG Board Member.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Yes. And the problems were reported, with recommendation on how to address them.
Addressing the problems within the dev teams was/is a responsibility of CTO.

It is not like you are a demigod if you are a manager or board member in any company - you cannot what you wish or hire/fire anyone at any time, just because you feel so. There are hierarchies and every manager is responsible for his/her area.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Who brought in our previous CTO, RT and team, of which Kot was a part of.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Completely disagree, not only is that a very narrow-minded view on what you think kot did during his time as member of DCG, i also doubt you even fully understand what his job was at DCG. kot was not the one failing to produce or deliver, the Platform developers failed to produce and deliver. If i am not mistaken kot worked at infrastructure and was not oversseing any developers .. period. That would be the CTO of DCG.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Furthermore people like kot and other managers were getting the full heat from the Dash community, while the developers who caused the actual failure to produce for a long time were just overlooked by the Dash community. I dont blame them for leaving, having to work in such a toxic environment.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
And yes, Sam did deliver Platform to Testnet (after a very long delay). But he also caused a Dash chain halt on a feature (BLS upgrade) that was not even essential to the release of Platform to Mainnet, has been running DCG completely out of reserves due to DCG too high runrate and is to this date unwilling to commit to any actual Platform release date. Not to mention that only halfway through the HPMN discussion he disclosed safety issues with the Platform on all nodes option that effectively ruled out that option.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Let me refrase above comment, to be a bit more nuanced and not overly hostile towards Sam :

But under Sam's leadership as CTO of DCG, also the following happened :

* a Dash chain halt on a feature (BLS upgrade) that was not even essential to the release of Platform to Mainnet
* DCG running out of reserves, due to DCG too high runrate

He has also been unwilling to commit to any actual Platform release date and only halfway through the HPMN discussion did he disclose safety issues with the Platform on all nodes option, that effectively ruled out that option.
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
At some point I can come to no other conclusion that there is some bad faith in your remarks. You know that I came into an org with a run rate far far higher than it was 2 months ago, I believe around 400k USD/month that I brought down to 220k USD then 160k USD and soon 125k USD. I let go of a lot of people, just not enough to be sustainable at a price of 25$.

As for committing to a launch date of Platform/Evo, no I can't commit to something I can't control, I could control things if I had enough redundancy in developers like big tech companies have. But with the budget I have I need to put individuals on tasks instead of groups with redundancy. Sometimes this works out, sometimes it doesn't. So far it has proven more effective than the alternative.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
DCG has reserves for only October-November and yet DCG is still not in survival mode, despite witnessing the low Dash price throughout this year and despite people like me warning you even six months ago, that this will all come to a clash with low Dash price.

I can come to no other conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with how DCG takes into account the crypto market, how it views it own runrate and issue the necessary action to keep their reserves up.

By the way : when can we expect the Financial Statement of DCG for Q2-2023 ?
(April-May-June).
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
The financials are almost done; I have a few questions/corrections that I need the new CPA to address. Really hoping to have them out this week.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Thank you.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Also putting up Evonodes on Mainnet, thereby increasing my server costs, getting involved with dashmate, all in preparation for Dash Core v20 and then getting to hear that DCG wants to change the blockreward reallocation by cutting miner rewards in half, moving it to the Treasury so DCG can request more from the Treasury and tying it all to Dash Core v20, with the real risk of miners not supporting that update and possibly delaying or even stopping activation of Dash Core v20, thats bad faith in your actions.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Again, we're on a shoe string, yet he did it! Not without a hiccup, but it was fixed and all was well. hindsight is 20/20 and that one was very unforeseen. Could have tested a year and not come across that issue!
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
That one was very unforeseen ? When Pasta even mentioned mistakes have been made by devs confusing stuff for BLS legacy with BLS basic and visa versa ?
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
There is just one simple reason behind the BLS upgrade failing : a lack of thorough testing.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
I see now, after over a year, that that's exactly where the community ire belonged. Was not with them then, am now for certain.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
I see now who those people are that causes people like kot to leave, while defending the developers that kept giving incorrect estimates to their manager and causing the actual delays and failure to deliver.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
What did management do? It wasn't until management was gone that we got Sam who actually pulled Evo off. I'm putting all my faith into Sam, thank you very much.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I very much appreciate the confidence, I will do my best to not let you or anyone else down.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Management kept DCG with higher reserves, made efforts to keep Dash relevant in the news, improved communication with Dash community through their quarterly calls.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
What we have now after most managers left : DCG running out reserves, Dash no longer relevant due to zero marketing & PR, sprint reviews that first focused on Platform developers that got very little views (often below 30) and in no way or shape match the quarterly calls.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
and very little business development
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Oh come on qwizzie...this is the most ridiculous statement i've seen from you. DCG had higher reserves? ...well no shit, Dash was worth a hell of a lot more few years ago then the last couple of years! Even with DCG being flush with cash they still got no where. Its these kind of disingenuous arguments that gets us no where. Good greif.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Do you honestly think if we still had a filled CEO position, that DCG would still be in this hot mess today, with reserves drained to just 1 or 2 months ? With DCG forcing a decision proposal upon us with a highly controversial topic, while tying the decision proposal directly to the next Dash Core update, putting that update directly at risk ?

Or would that CEO stepped in long ago to make the necessary changes that till this very day, are still not made ?

I think the lack of a filled CEO position has played a large factor with DCG running out of reserves.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Why would Dash need a CEO? Dash is not a company /s

On a more serious note, the issue is that the Dash has a good structure to not need a CEO, but the execution of that structure is not good. The community could lead any talks and step up, but apparently, there who would take on a workload, and those who would - left. So in other words, without finding a good CEO this happened.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Finding a CEO for DCG is also way more complicated, when the search for a new CEO of DCG has stopped completely by CTO of DCG. I am not sure if this was a sole decision of Sam, or if the Board of DCG decided this, but it makes finding a new CEO for DCG pretty darn difficult.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Well it was originally up to the DTPs to look for a CEO. Patrick proposed himself, and then decided to not continue past his three month evaluation period.

Saying that I stopped the search is complete nonsense, but the obvious is true: we don't have the money required to pay a CEO a 300k-500k/year salary.

If we had a qualified great candidate and the money it would be great to fill the spot.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
You know... someone needs to do the search, did you want me delivering Platform or doing the search? Would you have had us pay for an executive search (100k USD), also what's the point of doing/paying for a search when we can't afford the position?
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
After watching that sprint review and specifically that Q & A session, i got the feeling that it is not just about affording the position of a CEO for DCG, but that there is a resistance to oversight through a CEO in general.

With devs apparently doing so well on their own, that no oversight is needed and that a CEO position will not help with improving DCG performance or speed up delivery (i am summarizing here your second point, on why you feel no CEO for DCG is needed).

And i fear this second point will interfere at some point with your first point (not affording the position), when the market changes and more budget gets available to DCG.

In my opinion the last 6 months have shown there is indeed a need for a CEO for DCG. DCG perhaps can not afford one right now, but the need for one remains in my view.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
I can clearly remember a Dash community member asking during a sprint review (Q & A), if there was still a search for a CEO of DCG and that you replied that the search for a CEO for DCG was put on hold / stopped.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
See : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HhY8f0vbh0 (timestamp --> 1:09:25 (7th of March 2023)

James Doe : When new Dash Core CEO ? Any candidates ?
Sam : 'No, there are no candidates that i am aware of at least and there is no search at the moment either'
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
I can only conclude from this that someone (either Sam or DCG Board) stopped the search for a new CEO of DCG at least since march 2023, and most likely before that.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
And the reason for this was not just the salary, it was also according Sam about making such good progress by devs (remember this was 6 months ago).
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Is there still a search going on or not ?
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I understand your point, you have a sound one under the number 5, but there are other sides that this change brings. I will try to cover them one by one from your comment:

2. Increasing the treasury budget will bring many benefits to Dash not just DCG wise, but rather it will provide additional funds to organize some hackathons and bring outsiders to build on Dash and improve the network, compete for prizes, etc.

It can attract other teams to improve Dash in other ways such as through partnerships, exposure, and maybe even conferences. Right now, ~70% of the treasury goes to the DCG team and that's still not enough to cover their salaries and other expenses that come along.

Low morale is associated with lowering their paychecks and firing people due to the inability to cover them from the treasury. Yes, DCG had its issues, especially with Evo, I was the one who left because of the broken promises, changes, delays, etc, but as I took a break for some time, it gave me a chance to chill and actually look at things from different perspectives rather just mine. Dash is a DAO, at any point we as a community could chip in and work on improving Dash in one way or another, and from all of the community, I can probably count people who really worked on improving Dash on both hands, compared to thousands of people in the community that's practically nothing. Also, the treasury funds could be allocated for more useful contributions, i.e.: do you want to speed up the EVO development? Invite people to work on EVO with DCG and provide them with funding from the treasury. I can go on and on this, as it's such a wide topic.

3. There is no blackmailing, it's just the situation that they are in atm. I know this is a sudden proposal, but I believe it has a lot of upsides compared to downsides. For a short time, this could provide a boost in development not just on the DCG side, but rather for the whole community, once things get better, I believe other changes can be implemented to put back things as they were.

4. The market is such that people just don't care for any development atm since it's the bear market. People are focusing on meme coins and NFTs just to flip and make some quick buck. This is my 3rd bear market, and trust me, this is the time when you build and create partnerships that will last through the bear market and once the bull market comes we just collect the fruit of our work and development. Without the budget for partnerships, implementations and branding/marketing, no one will know about EVO outside of us. Increasing the treasury budget will increase the marketing/branding/partnership budget as well which can only bring good in the long term.

as for your P.S.: Any further cutting in personnel will only delay the development either in terms of not having manpower to implement some features or just having the rest of the team work more over time to cover the loss in personnel (considering they have the skills of one person they let go)

Let's get into the worst scenario. Let's say the treasury increase is not approved and this proposal is not passed, who would work on further development? Do you want to jump in as a CTO/lead dev and do all the development? Do you know anyone who could step in and work on EVO?

As far as I see, I see few members working on helping Dash in one way or the others, a lot of criticism for most things (many are justified), but people remember Dash is a DAO, and we need to step in and help in any way. It would be great if more people would join in this activity, but understandably, no one wants to work for free. I bet that once we see the treasury increase we will have more proposals here that will benefit Dash.

I'd let this proposal pass as it will bring far more benefits with small to no downsides. If they fail this time, we at least have more funds to find new devs and people to work on this. I doubt it will be easy and finding new people is really hard, training them, and getting them up to speed with current developments and protocols can bring more delays and pains and problems than having the current personnel do their thing even with delays.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
A boost to the treasury *could* do a lot of things, but it won't because the dash dao itself is broken. The dash dao is meant to be self-sufficient yet clear as day it is unable to be so.

The dollar value of dash is at ridiculous levels and it's absolutely nothing to do with bear markets.. I wish Sam and Co would stop pointing their fingers at the "bear market" to justify such a shit show. When the bitcoin to dash ratio was 300:1, I was outraged.. these days one bitcoin buys an entire masternode and I frankly couldn't give a shit anymore.

And I've watched other projects - such as beam - with far fewer resources and a tiny market cap Get Stuff Done; usernames, default privacy, first class privacy tokens, NFTs, DEX, ethereum bridge, privacy stable coin and more.

Nearly all the great dash projects fell apart. Dash Central is *still* the center of the universe because, well, the alternatives failed.

Dash Direct, gone.

Trust Protectors, gone.

Dash Invests (DIF), website down, "Error establishing a database connection"

Thorchain, prolonged then dropped and handed over to Maya Protocol.

5x lower proposals fees.. and still outsiders don't come. Even the spammers stay away!

Bitrefill, dash right at the bottom of their list of coins. There is no real alternative to bitrefill with the range of vouchers and countries.. if they ever drop dash, then what?

Failed regulatory dialogue, including Japan.

Country specific dash embassies, gone.

Coin Mixing still takes hours.

A marketing hub that refuses to publish analytics.

No presence on the decred DEX.

Next to zero press coverage / regular trading analysis.

6 months academic ZKP research for dash dao voting, never materialized.

This kind of failure is systemic.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Well said, Grandmasterdash!
Truth hurts!
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
what are the downsides to beam as you see it?
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Probably coverage / recognition, small social footprint, and it's on very few exchanges. For sure, it's not perfect but I wanted to highlight that in the past 3 - 4 years I've watched as they built this stuff out and it makes me question, if such a small group of people can get all this done, then wtf is dash doing wrong?

I try to keep tabs on beam and grin because I'm one of the few people that still believes MimbleWimble is genius. Litecoin is a close cousin and also gets my attention for being a payment coin with good daily volume.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
The systemic failure is actually the very individuals themselves, those who hold the governance of Dash . They deny new persons to come and govenrn the community.

Dash urgently needs to merge with another community, and new blood must flood in Dash's veins.

Please vote in https://mnowatch.org/encointerUBI

For the Dash community to merge with the Encointer community, or any other vivid community of REAL PERSONS.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
'As I understand, this change is proposed to be implemented together within the same software package as Evo. Combining change in the protocol within the same version as Evo is EXTREMELY bad idea to me.'

That was my first thought as well. This decision proposal should have been introduced (together with a thorough pre-proposal discussion), after the release of Dash Core v20 to Dash Mainnet and after Platform activates on Dash Mainnet.

It just shows how desparate DCG has become with regards to its budget and also shows a severe mistreatment of that budget this year (mistreatment due to not switching to survival mode this year, knowing fully well that this would mean a depletion of their reserves this year).

If DCG can not be trusted to keep its reserves up with a treasury formed from 10% of the block rewards, how can we trust that DCG can keep its reserves up with a treasury formed from 20% of the block rewards ?

Then there is the timeline : if this passes then it would at least be 3 months or more before DCG can see any effect of this proposal (remember that Dash Core v20 has a 2 months testing time reserved on Testnet and also includes a hard fork that brings additional time with it). I doubt they even have 3 months of reserves.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
If miners really do not want to support this and cause Dash Core v20 to not activate on Mainnet, then Sam will be directly responsible for this, by including this in Dash Core v20 in the first place.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Your talk is vague a fuzzy.

@kot, if not the current (52.38/37.62/10), if not the proposed (60/20/20), what is the allocation you suggest?

Could you please be more specific on the numbers?
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
100% behind Sam with this long overdue reallocation.
In fact, this proposal is one of the very best since a long time now!
He is the best CTO we ever had, and he even took the time to explain you guys time and time again, the many advantages of his course of action.
Nobody else would have had such great patience with the many UNGRATEFUL FOOLS among the MNO.
Sam made sure that not only the treasury will double, but that we MNO also get our well deserved raise.
Yet so many illiterate, stupid and uneducated MNO are still voting No and in doing so are hurting their own pockets.

Therefore stop voting No to all you BRAIN-AMPUTATED MORONS & STUPID DUMBASSES out there.
Nobody with only half a brain would hurt his own pocket and willingly reduce his own income, its beyond stupid!

VOTE ALL YES YES YES
Together we will push this baby through!
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Unless, of course, they were thinking of the end users first instead of their own pockets..
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
glug glug glug
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
If you don't advertise, the treasury will continue to shrink.
To avoid voting a second time later, adjust the reward.
Masternode reward: 65%.
Treasury reward: 25%
Miner's reward: 10%
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
You recentrly voted against voting the numbers.

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/pre-proposal-would-you-like-to-be-able-to-vote-with-number-v2.52643/#post-236278

And now you are voting the numbers!!!!!

Are you insane?
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
I feel it quite appropriate to point y'all to my predictions of Dec 4, 2022 and Dec 26, 2022:

"Will they also dump PoW to steal the remains?"

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-38#post-233246

"[step] 4. Move completely to Proof of Stake, HPMNs being the largest controlling share holders."

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-41#post-233444

You do realize, getting rid of redundant 1K masternodes is also on their radar? - because they too won't be contributing enough.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
I already shared these comments on Discord but as I know not everyone is present on that medium, wanted to share them here as well.

There's been no accountability for the many years of unkept promises by DCG personnel. The managers -- who communicated expectations, and failed to deliver, time after time after time, without apology, were either incompetent or outright lying. Discontent was expressed by community members but the Trust Protectors -- who are tasked with overseeing DCG -- never booted any manager. Is that a track record that demands such a drastic change to the Dash allocation? Constraints can be good. It can cause focus. It can encourage the jettisoning of attributes that don't add value. Alternatively, the productive people within DCG could parcel off and put forth their own proposal.

Perhaps another way to consider this is: would the allocation of Dash be contemplated, yet alone changed, at the request of another treasury-funded group? If the Alt36 peeps said, "Hey, we need more money to complete this. We're getting close. Just shift your allocation so we can request more funds!" would that garner much support? Further, if another DAO-funded group had promised a deliverable for years but failed to deliver, would they continue to be funded, month after month, year after year? Perhaps one reason we're in this situation is that MNOs have viewed DCG as being different than other DAO-funded orgs. Maybe it's time that stopped.

The good people, the people bringing value that are currently part of DCG can still bring value outside of DCG. Doing their own thing. Getting paid in Dash. Not relying on complicated legal structures to "oversee", etc.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
You said,
1) "Discontent was expressed by community members but the Trust Protectors -- who are tasked with overseeing DCG -- never booted any manager."
and also said,
2) "Not relying on complicated legal structures to 'oversee', etc."

Agreed this structure has been shown to not work. DTPs that actually tried to make meaningful changes (the same changes people now support like separation of DCG proposals) were swiftly removed and replaced by loyal supporters by the will of the network (MNO votes).
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
The Dash Trust Protectors initiated a decision proposal on behalf of an unknown group of MNO's to impose changes on DCG, while DCG still had full support on their budget proposals and the decision proposal itself was interfering with DCG operations. This went directly against the internal rules of the Dash Trust Protectors themselves (not to interfere with DCG operations in a time when their budget proposals are still getting funded and only take appropriate action after a decision proposal passes the 10% treshold).

The right course of action back then was for that unknown group of MNO's to launch their own decision proposal. If such a decision proposal would have passed the 10% treshold, the DTP would have be required according their own rules to take action.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
On Feb. 23, 2022, I had already shown you on Discord the following post by Ryan Taylor, the originator of the Dash Irrevocable Trust, saying that DTPs did not need a network vote to remove anyone or make changes to how DCG Board operated. And if you see the Trust language, it gives trust protectors the power to make a lot of changes including replacing the trustee if necessary. Here's the screenshot again since you're no longer on Discord. This whole we-need-a-network-decision-to-make-changes was floated by another DTP as their opinion on how to do things, but it's not a rule anywhere: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/484546513935269918/946267572897214524/Screen_Shot_2022-02-23_at_11.47.06_PM.png?width=1774&height=926
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/dash-core-group-legal-structure-details.39848/

quoting :

Governance Mechanics

The masternodes will continue to leverage proposal funding as the primary mechanism to influence DCG. As long as DCG is performing to the satisfaction of the masternodes, no other action is required and the trust protectors are compelled to not interfere with the normal operation of DCG.

However, at any time, the DCG board can be evaluated and / or replaced by the trust protectors via direction from the masternodes. This process can be initiated at any time by the masternodes by submitting a proposal to the network which - if approved - triggers this process. The proposal must pass with a 10% threshold, just like other decision proposals posted to the network in the past. If a decision proposal passes instructing the trust protectors to either evaluate or explicitly replace all or some of the DCG board members specified in the proposal, the trust protectors must initiate that process. The trust protectors are ultimately tasked with representing the best interests of the Dash masternodes.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Further quoting :

Similar to a normal corporate board, executive selection, compensation, and strategic decisions reside with the DCG board. If there are DCG performance issues not addressed by DCG’s board to the satisfaction of the masternodes, their recourse is to instruct the trust to fire and replace the DCG board, or a subset of board members specified in the decision proposal.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
This is coming directly from Ryan Taylor.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
quoting :

The purpose of this memo is to summarize these details to arm the community with the tools needed to hold DCG accountable to the network.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
In my opinion this formalized memo is a guide for both Dash community members and for the Dash Trust Protectors. Nothing good comes from the Dash Trust Protectors disregarding this formalized memo.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Correction (trying to fix my broken english) : If such a decision proposal passes the 10% treshold, the DTP are required (according to their own rules) to take action.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
If i remember correctly, another reason for the DTP to take action, while DCG still have their DCG budget proposals funded :

* if they get alerted by MNO's that DCG is committing acts of fraude

DTP can start an investigation then.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
I've been reading along and still have an open mind about this proposal, but I am leaning towards not supporting.

1. Reducing the mining allocation on short notice is unethical. Back when we implemented the current reward allocation, it was done gradually over years for this reason. Miners have invested in equipment with an expected lifespan and made plans according to the current schedule. Cutting their pay drastically and on short notice is a bait-and-switch that doesn't sit well with me. It wouldn't surprise me if the miners refuse to upgrade even if this passes.

2. This plan is only kicking the can down the road, and it might not even be kicking it very far down the road. DCG is having to make cuts regardless of whether this proposal passes. Even if DCG did not have to make any cuts at all, if we take an honest look at Platform, including its track record on testnet, the development progress over the last 2 years, and the level of interest in it in the broader market, can we have confidence that it is likely to have a significant impact on the market demand for Dash in say, the first year, or before we face an even deeper financial crunch?

3. I don't agree with increasing masternode pay, not to mention bundling an increase in MNO pay with this proposal. In my opinion masternodes are already overpaid for what they actually provide. I reject the idea that masternode rewards as a form of passive income are a sufficient incentive when the value of the collateral is an extremely volatile asset in the first place. The change in value of your collateral over the next one, two, five years is likely to absolutely eclipse whatever you are earning in masternode payouts such that the payouts are trivially insignificant by comparison, even if we were to double, triple, or quadruple them. People should be buying up Dash and spinning up masternodes because they believe in the project, not because they can earn 7% ROI on an asset that is likely to go up 200% or down 80% in a year. Anyone who is only a MNO for the ROI would be doing themselves a favor by leaving to get out of such a ridiculous investment thesis. That being said, bundling the masternode pay with this treasury increase is like the kind of pork barrel carrot dangling I would expect out of Congress, not here.

I do agree in general with reducing miner pay, or even planning to migrate off PoW fully in the long term. But this proposal to me is a desperation play that is a consequence of a long series of inadequate foresight and underperformance. Rather than continue down this road, I'd prefer to have the trust protectors take a more active role in planning the next steps for Dash, whether that means restructuring or winding down DCG, updating the vision, or something else altogether. I'm glad these discussions are being had though, and I will remain open to new ideas or changing my mind on this as the talks continue.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
"In my opinion Masternodes are already overpaid for what they actually provide."

Response: Remember that in Platform, Platform is run exclusively on Evonodes (which take 50% of the block reward). Hence it makes sense to increase the reward that is allocated to Masternodes/Evonodes as they are doing more for the network.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
According to github FAQ and HPMN/Evonodes rewards point 31, Evonodes should get 25% from L1 and 75% from Platform. You are writing here that Evonodes will get 50%.
https://github.com/dashpay/FAQs/blob/master/Platform/platform-activation-hpmn-faq.md#economic-1
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
See reply from xkcd : https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-43#post-235444
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Basically it is a 50%/50% divide of the masternode rewards between normal masternodes and Evonodes. Then that portion of Evonodes also changes, once Dash Core v20 activates. Leading to 37.5% of the Evonodes portion of the block rewards getting moved to Platform.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Ohh, thank you. Now I get it. Thnx for the clearance.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Just noticed there is a numbering error too in points....
Still nr 31 is valid in regards for the above.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
If the work the masternodes are doing is actually valuable, then people will pay for it in the form of fees. The higher the percentage of rewards come from block subsidies, the less MNOs will care about increasing demand for the core product.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
"I'd prefer to have the trust protectors take a more active role in planning the next steps for Dash, whether that means restructuring or winding down DCG, updating the vision, or something else altogether."

The last Dash Trust Protectors did not hold the required annual election and they are not running again out of frustration, so technically there are no DTPs. Ash has shown interest in being a new DTP. That's why there's discussion about winding down the trust entity. The MNOs-oversee-DCG experiment is basically over at this time.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
"The MNOs-oversee-DCG experiment is basically over at this time"

Meant to say here that the experiment of adding a layer of protection & bureaucracy is over.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Never before has it occurred that the Miners were punished all of a sudden with a nearly 45% cut in their revenue.
Miners get punished for the failure of DCG and the sins of the PO.
The former leadership would never have done anything like it.

If the PO only a had minimum of cautiousness and decency, he would:

1) Have proposed this necessary evil as a TEMPORARY emergency measure, to be reversed whenever Dash price recovers to a certain level
2) Given the fact MNO already enjoy preferential treatment (60:40 higher reward than Miners, voting rights etc.) he could have proposed a MN-only-cut by reducing the MN Reward from 54% down to 44% (during the emergency period)
3) Or could have proposed a 60:40 cut amounting to an additional 10% extension (doubling) of the treasury (during the emergency period)

But sadly, the greed knows no boundaries.
Its easier and more convenient to rape the helpless.

To all the Yes voters:
Are you aware that the passing of this abomination will herald the end of POW and the downfall of Dash?
Your ignorance-is-bliss attitude will bring about the ruin of this project, but so be it.
Now pray that half of the disappointed (and rightly so) No voters aren´t going to dump their coins into the market.
Because with no buying demand whatsoever, price will then be half of what it is now, and your 30 pieces of silver bribe won´t bail you out.

This will not end well.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
A few things: remember miners pay for electricity, often with razor thin margins. I doubt there are small miners able to operate right now, as to be able to compete for blocks very cheap electricity is required.

Dash as a whole is currently paying around 13000 USD in electricity costs a day for mining. There were reasons in the past where this made sense. We are now in 2023, of the top 100 on coin market cap I believe only 10 coins are PoW. Us going down in market cap isn't because new PoW coins came in.

This isn't greed, this is common sense, we don't need to pay as much to miners anymore because of our technological improvements, so we should cut the amount they receive.

We are not a charity. Money should be given in exchange for value. Mining and PoW does provide value, but we don't need to spend as much as we once did on it.

I feel like you want to want to advance greed as a reason for this proposal. What greed are you talking about? Do you think people shouldn't get paid for their work?

I am at the same time asking to double the treasury so we don't have to let go of developers and contributors that have deep knowledge in their domain and can't be easily replaced. That's not greed... that's trying to do what I believe is best for the network. I'm not going to increase my pay if this proposal passes. However I am volunteering a lot of my pay right now to not have to let go of more people, I would eventually stop volunteering a portion of my pay if DCG's financial situation improves. I'm here to serve the network and I want what is best for it.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Have you alerted Miners and given them notice of what is likely going to happen with their revenue?
I guess you didn´t want to take away the happy surprise moment, when you throw them under the bus.

What will happen if the Hashrate collapses by more than 45% ?
How much cheaper will it make a 51% attack against the most-recent 1-2 blocks which lack a ChainLock?
You provide no figures, no studies and yet you advocate such a radical and sudden cut of nearly 45%.

What will be next?
How long before you find out that the new 20% is wayyy too generous a pay for Miners?
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
As I understand things, we pay 14500 USD to miners per day, 13000 gets spent in electricity costs and they get 1500. So for the biggest mining pool doing 1/3rd of mining they get 500$/day.

`How much cheaper will it make a 51% attack against the most-recent 1-2 blocks which lack a ChainLock?`

I will reply for 2 blocks with chain locks disabled. It won't make it cheaper, because the 51% attack you actually tend to make money by having all blocks. To successfully launch the attack if you have over 50% of the hashpower would currently cost around 25$ (the mining reward of 1 block), but in the end you would get that 25$ back.

If we went to 20% mining it would be around 14$. I think we both can agree that 11$/block won't make a difference here.

Chain locks and instant send really are innovations that protect the network and users of Dash.

So we then want to ask ourselves... why do miners not carry out such attacks against each other if chain locks go down. There are three possibilities:
- They are honest.
- It's not worth writing custom software.
- All mining is owned by one or close to one entity.
- (a combination of above)
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
>All mining is owned by one or close to one entity.

The only way I know where someone can start investigating how many individuals are involved into the Dash mining, is this page:

https://mnowatch.org/blocks/
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
it is greed that you coupled this proposal with an increase to the MN rewards. Something you conveniently don't address in this comment.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
The community has been clearly discussing slowly getting rid of miners due to their drain on the system since way before RT’s reduction implemented years ago now. In fact it was suggested when chain locks were only an idea! I’ve been shocked that mining equipment was still being developed for X11. Anyone buying, unless equipment was so cheap, they could make their money back in a week, is mad or planning to scam “investors “ with rentals!
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
> Have proposed this necessary evil as a TEMPORARY emergency measure, to be reversed whenever Dash price recovers to a certain level

Exactly. Maybe 60-20-20 will be proved again the wrong number. And we are not allowed to change it.

DCG SHOULD PROVIDE THE CODE THAT GIVES THE RIGHT TO THE MASTERNODES TO VOTE AND DYNAMICALLY CHANGE THE ALLOCATION NUMBER.

THIS CAN BE EASILY IMPLEMENTED WITH A SPORK. THEY KNOW HOW TO DO IT, BUT THEY REFUSE TO DO IT! MAYBE THEY WANT TO TRAP US TO ANOTHER STUPID NUMBER!!!

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/docs/user/developers/sporks.html
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
why do you think this proposal gives a MN reward increase if not to help pass the controversial treasury increase?
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Reasons I'm supporting this proposal:

1. It increases MNO yield.

Keeping your savings in Dash is very risky. The purchasing power of 1 DASH has dropped by nearly 50% over the past year. An annual yield of 100% would be required to make up for that inflation rate, and yet our yield is only around 8%. We need to offset Dash's high risk with high rewards. People acquiring and holding Dash is the very foundation of why it has any value. MNOs are the first class citizens in Dash - with justified voting power over decisions like this - because they acquire and hold the asset. This primary role in Dash needs to be highly compensated, especially when much lower risk assets like US bonds and money market funds now offer yields approaching or exceeding Dash's yield, as Agnew and others have pointed out.

2. It increases the treasury cap.

Note that it's the *cap* that's increasing, not the amount that treasury will pay out, not the amount that DCG will ask for, not the amount that DCG will get, just the cap. MNOs will have full discretion to keep the treasury payout to 10% or even less after this change, as we've always had. This is not a big change in that sense.

MNOs have historically entrusted DCG with the main development of Dash, and DCG has out-innovated the space in return. But suppose you are upset with DCG's failed promises and slow delivery. What would you want in order to punish them for this? You would want to double the treasury cap and recruit more developers to compete with DCG. This proposal facilitates that.

Developers are key to innovation and utility, but they cost money. We need a much higher treasury to support this.
<insert Steve Ballmer meme here>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhh_GeBPOhs

3. It decreases mining rewards.

Reducing mining rewards does not mean reducing security or utility. The proposed change *increases* Dash's overall security and utility. Dash's chain is secured primarily by masternodes. Transactions are locked by masternodes (InstantSend), blocks are locked by masternodes (ChainLocks), and in platform, quorums are created using masternode random number generation. The main function mining is performing starting from v20 is proposing blocks (which, as a side note can likely also be performed by masternodes at some point, but that would be a later development). Sam and I will discuss this further tomorrow on the Incubator Weekly show.

A useful exercise for anyone wondering about security is to ask yourself, what does security in a blockchain context even mean. I think few people have gone through this thought process fully. I welcome anyone to post here about attacks that miners prevent. Please be specific. Sam, or I, or anyone else can then discuss/address the security aspects around that specific example, and how transactions can be secured with much lower mining rewards than we presently have.

One other thing about security. The best security is a high market capitalization. This proposal achieves that - see items 1 and 2 above.

4. It only activates when DCG delivers Evolution.

For those of you who think that this proposal is rewarding bad behavior - giving DCG *more* money to work with, despite their non-delivery, first, see item 2 above, but also consider that this proposal might actually be exactly what we need for DCG to finish the task. This proposal makes it explicit that DCG can only continue operations if and when v20 activates on mainnet. This dangles a carrot in front of them. It makes no sense to beat them with a stick and defund them as punishment for not delivering. If we do that then the horse stops walking: we don't get Evo and we've wasted 8 years of development. If you want DCG to get on the move, dangle this carrot.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Banks and governments interfere with economies, usually creating skewed outcomes. If something looks free, it usually isn't and someone elsewhere is giving up economic freedom or being robbed of their time and labor. This is the beauty bitcoin gave us; an economic policy known well in advance. No one coming along and tinkering with it because things aren't going quite as well.

And that there is a reason for rejecting this proposal, it was made in bad faith; things aren't going quite so well for the organization that proposed this. In my experience, those kind of decisions introduce higher than normal risks, potentially with really bad outcomes. It's no different than someone getting rekt by trading and drinking alcohol at the same time. Or lack of sleep, or arguing with their family, and so on. NEVER TRADE when you can't keep your emotions in check, or avoid distractions, and your brain alert.

Evidence of bad faith can be found in this proposal:

1. A sweetener / bribe to MNOs without clear evidence of it's need. Shouldn't such justification be made in a separate proposal?

2. In absolute terms, HCMNs will receive far more income than OG nodes; greater disposable income without any evidence of it's need e.g. new data to suggest higher operating costs.

3. Misdirection, the inclusion of "uplifting news" to encourage "one final push" (once again) before the baby is delivered.

I think we are both interested in the idea of locking in collateral and payments, in all DAO functions to be honest. That, in my mind, could bring more benefit than this proposal could ever wish for.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
An increase in the treasury is good, because... the number of new ideas and opportunities will increase.

1) DCG is the only team that does anything, without it the project will be very bad. There are no alternative teams, and even if there will be, it's better to fund DCG than a team of nothing. And DCG can't make money out of thin air and needs money from the Dash coffers.
2) Most miners pour dash on exchanges, I myself am the owner of a hotel, where all customers with asics x11 do not hold dash, they dump it as soon as they accumulated. In the best case they go to bitcoin in the worst case they need only cache. None of the industrial miners did not listen to my opinion to raise the masternode. And even if the block reward for miners decreases, I will locally on my server, where the masternode is running, I will turn on mining and will be happy. Other node holders will support me... Which will benefit the network, because it's better to have 1000 solo miners than 7 pools, 2 of which are leaders. After all, now the majority of miners are people who are only hungry for profit, not people who want to make money and at the same time support crypto projects that interest them....
3) No matter how you look at it, the platform is almost ready, it would be good to "build" other products under the platform, 20% in favor of the treasury is an investment in the development of the Dash ecosystem, not just in DCG.

If it was proposed to increase the reward for miners, I would definitely be against it, as there is no use for them, except burning electricity, pouring dash on the exchange and paying the energy companies for electricity.
In the case that the percentage for the treasury will be raised, no one forces the owners of masternodes, vote and provide all 20% Dash, but the reserve to fund useful projects will be much larger, and it should not bring harm to the network.

Therefore, I will support the proposal to increase the treasury to 20%! And I advise you to follow my example.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Striking similarity in name between you and kot (former member of DCG) on Dash Central.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
A lot of really good points here.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
I can't say I am entirely happy about this proposal and in an ideal world it would never have been a necessity. However the reality is that if Evo isn't delivered then Dash has failed on pretty much its entire premise for the last 7 years.

It would be great to hear what the alternative is to those opposed to this, how they intend for Dash to earn any place in todays much more competitive ecosystem. I suppose there are a few positions we could consider:

- DCG can still deliver Evo without changes to the block reward.
Probably, but they will definitely run out of funding and more developers will be let go or seek other more lucrative prospects. There aren't volunteers waiting in the wings and losing those developers would set further development of Evo back years. V1 isn't sufficient on its own, it's a start and could start to turn around our trajectory but unless that fire is stoked and Evo is built upon then it will falter.

- Dash is great how it is right now, we don't need Evo (or 'this isn't the Evo we were promised').
Instant finality POW is great, but its not enough. That's obvious because we already have it and have had it for a long time, it doesn't turn heads, it doesn't win us market share nor advocacy and volunteers. If this Evo isn't what you thought it was supposed to be, I don't know what to tell you. My view is that platform enables all aspects of Evo and forms a small part of what I at least envisioned it to be.

- This is the wrong approach, we should be considering X/Y/Z
Decision proposals cost 1 Dash, if you have more sound economic or other reasoning please give the community the chance to support that instead.

Dash is at a precipice... if the community cant align behind Evo any more, whether that's because it's jaded from the all the crap it has taken to get here, disillusionment with the current product, or otherwise then it is in serious danger of falling into complete obscurity.

Obviously this is just my opinion, it would be great to hear counterpoints and have an actual debate about this like a semi-functioning DAO so we can work towards some actual positive resolution going forwards.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
The most sound counter-point thus far is for DCG to deliver without reallocation, to make cuts as necessary. This isn't something that should be considered lightly as losing that expertise will set Dash back significantly. I'm not confident in the ability of a basic Evo release to change Dash's trajectory without it being built further upon and quickly. To get noticed and earn confidence then something has to change, it has to take action and break the mold.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
You seriously think that DCG has the capacity to "build further upon" Evo enough to make any kind of dent whatsoever? The first year will inevitably be nothing but fixing bugs and instability problems. We're building something that no one wants, and even if there was value in it, it would just be copied by another project that actually has serious investors and the ability to properly market itself. This is a no-win situation for Dash.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
''The most sound counter-point thus far is for DCG to deliver without reallocation, to make cuts as necessary.''

I think that is currently DCG only option left. I don't think DCG has the luxury anymore to both release Dash Platform to Mainnet in its basic release and keep a large number of paid Platform devs to build upon that basic release. Their financial situation is just too dire for that.

If you ask me :

Put DCG in pure survival mode
Release Platform to Dash Mainnet in its basic form
Reorganise DCG so that DCG runrate will match the current market situation (low dash price)
Evaluate interest in Platform, if enough interest then build upon Platform
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Pure survival mode is 125k/month, at that amount there are significant things that people will be used to from DCG that will no longer happen. Going lower than that means losing developers who's expertise would take months to rebuild. It would really be bad.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
'DCG can still deliver Evo without changes to the block reward.
Probably, but they will definitely run out of funding and more developers will be let go or seek other more lucrative prospects.''

Why is DCG running out of funding at this point ? Lets take the following into account :

* the Dash price has been below $100 for a very very long time now (since may 2022)
* DCG runrate has been too high for a very long time as well and only now (with 1 or 2 months of reserves to go), Sam announced he is getting ready to lower DCG runrate from $175,000 to $125,000 (which is frankly way way way too late at this point)
* Dash Platform has been delayed and delayed and delayed, not just by previous CTO's of DCG but by Sam as well. If Dash Platform was delivered early this year as Sam said he would do and then ultimately did not do, DCG would have more options to work with and would not be forced to introduce a highly controversial decision proposal to the network to increase the Treasury, so DCG can ask for more funding from the Treasury.

It feels like DCG is on a train that has been slowly but inevitable moving towards the abyss (out of reserves), and only the last few months efforts are made to locate the breaks.

At this point DCG is already letting go of devs left and right or they are leaving by themselves. DCG went from 35 paid devs, to 33 paid devs 5 days ago (see comments Dash Core Group Compensation October - December budget proposal) to 29 paid staff now.

I would still like to know how many paid staff DCG had at the beginning of 2023 in comparison with the current 29 paid staff now, so we can see if there was a significant reduction in manpower or if costs were reduced in other ways.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
I need to make a correction on my previous comment ''At this point DCG is already letting go of devs left and right or they are leaving by themselves.''

2 Platform devs left according Sam in his latest DCG Compensation proposal. Not sure if those were 2 paid devs or not.

33 paid staff / 29 paid staff according Sam in his latest DCG Compensation proposal (he revised his proposal text from 33 to 29). Not sure if that decline of 4 paid staff members means those 4 are now not-paid staff or that those 4 left Dash or if it was just an error in the orginal proposal text).
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I did not revise the text: `29 paid staff at full time/close to full time associated with the project and 4 part time contributors`, So 33 if you include part time. You can check over time from previous proposals, the number has been going steadily down. It's easy to tell me that my first action as board member should have to let go of half the org, hindsight is 20/20, but if I had done that I'm not sure we have gone to Testnet a few days ago, actually I'm almost sure we would not have.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
So how many paid staff did DCG have at the start of 2023 ? (1-1-2023)
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
I think i found the answer : 39 paid staff associated with the project and a runrate of $220,000

Source : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/DCG-COMP-JAN-MAR23

So this year DCG paid staf was reduced from 39 to 29 employees and DCG runrate was reduced from $220,000 to $175,000 (with another reduction coming up to $125,000)
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
and DCG currently only has reserves left for 1 or 2 months.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
I hate to say the obvious, but those reductions were never gonna cut it this way for DCG.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
At this point, I'm starting to think, it might be a good idea if this proposal passes, because I think I would be happy to see a spin-off with significantly overhauled tokenomics, such as locked collateral and payments.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
At this point i am starting to think if this proposal passes, there will be a lot of pissed off miners who will not that easily flag support for the upcoming hard fork in Dash Core v20 and Dash Platform will gety stuck in its activation phase.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
But at least the devs are still getting paid and DCG can continue with their high runrate.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Good outcome for DCG, not so good outcome for the Dash community.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
I like the idea to increase the treasury and support the idea, but i'm not a fan of making drastic changes without understanding the risks and giving people affected ample time to give feedback and react.
Some immediate risks:
1) What if say half the network shut down their miners? what would this cause? (i don't want replies like no this won't happen, but what if it does!!!)
2) worst case 90% turn off their miners in either protest or low profitability. what would this cause?(i don't want replies like no this won't happen, but what if it does!!!)

Beside that we all know that DCG doesn't really deliver on time and isn't super transparent. With double the budget how does DCG plan to change any of that?

I proposed in Discord a drastic move to even change this so that we have another independent team all together called DCG2.
This will create a competition between the teams that in the end will be good for the project. Also more decentralized. 2 team is better than 1 team.
I reallize this would take time but its fully possible. I'm also willing to make it happen! I have many teams, devs and companies with good devs. I know a thing or two about building dev teams too. With help from Sam and existing people this will not be hard to achieve and will gain us more long term.
Maybe 1 team goes for Core and another team for mobile+desktop app or something like that. Details can be nailed down if people think this could be a good idea.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
1) We use Dark Gravity Wave, which will stabilize the network difficulty within 1 hour. If half the network shut down their miners instantly, I would expect 24 blocks to take about 1h30 instead of about an hour. Not a big deal.

2) Again Dark Gravity Wave would stabilize things pretty fast, we would see one block take about 25 mins, then the next block would immediately get a much lower difficulty, things would adjust very fast after that.

I try to make DCG as transparent as possible, I'm an open book to questions, so please ask away!
Reply
9 points,7 months ago
Treasury reallocation or block reward reallocation are definitely delicate subject.
I honestly do not like changing the fundamentals, and especially just because of the DCG running short of funds.
As Qwizzie said below, I'd not change the rules of the game while we are still in the game.
Let the current allocation of the rewards finish first which is in 2025.
Finish Evo first, even if that means making it out later, which is not something I honestly expect to happen.
Let Evo run, then make it stable, then we can talk about further reward reallocation, based on the data where we can see that MNs/Evonodes have usage, traffic and enough requests.
In case we changing anything, I'd not take only from miners but rather split the reduction between MNs and miners adequately (in favor of treasury fund)
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
Will you accept the average rule?

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/votethenumbers3/calc3.php?proposals%5B%5D=TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20

So, if we want to be inclusive and respect ALL opinions, then within the range NO=0 wich represents (52.38/37.62/10) and YES=2 wich represents (60/20/20), and in case the average result remains 1.14, Then the REALLOCATION shoud become (56.72/27.58/15.7).

Do you accept the REALLOCATION (56.72/27.58/15.7) that respects and calculates all opinions, or do you want the majoritarian tyranny to prevail?
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
I'd accept this more than what is proposed by Sam where the rewards are taken only from miners.
Best would be to take a portion of 10% total which should be allocated toward DAO from MNs and miners in proportion of 60/40.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
In that case, you need to cast 2 numerical proposals, having 3 digits granularity each. It will cost you 6 dash.

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/prepnumvote3/prep3.php?minnum=0&maxnum=100&proposals%5B%5D=governance_budget-Digit1&proposals%5B%5D=governance_budget-Digit2&proposals%5B%5D=governance_budget-Range-0-100-Digit3

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/prepnumvote3/prep3.php?minnum=0&maxnum=100&proposals%5B%5D=mno_reward-Digit1&proposals%5B%5D=mno_reward-Digit2&proposals%5B%5D=mno_reward-Range-0-100-Digit3
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Obviously I do not agree to the way @QuantumExplorer casted his proposal, but I still vote YES=2 to it because this proposal is a good start.

The correct thing to do is to cast 2 numerical proposals. The first proposal will define the percentage of the governance budget compared to the rewards (you just need to vote only for the budget, so the remaining percentage is the rewards) and the second proposal (that will depend on the result of the previous remaining percentage of the rewards) that will define the inner percentage among the miners and the masternodes (you just need to vote for the masternodes, so the remaining percentage is for the miners). The above method is an alternative way to implement voting numbers by using sliders.

In mnowatch.og (if we are asked to do it) we can customize the above two numerical proposals to look as shown below . The below image shows a possible vote for the reallocation (50/25/25), after the mnowatch customization.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/7GUb2.png
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
From Joèl
“ I support this proposal. With 99.95% of the Dash network's overhead being paid by investors (through inflation), it makes no sense to spend 90% of our issuance on maintaining a network that essentially no one uses, while only 10% building and marketing a product necessary to gain users. It also makes no sense to allocate so much towards mining when Dash's flagship innovation, Evolution, won't involve miners at all. Thanks for putting in this proposal Quantum!”

After reading this entire shit show of shit flinging, he makes it crystal clear. I can’t argue with that logic.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
The higher MN rewards won’t help MNOs, because real roi will be brought back down via more MNs being turned on until roi comes to the same point where we started. On the good side of that, more dash will be taken out of circulation.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Exactly!! I wish people would understand this.

Reallocating funds to pay masternodes ultimately DOES NOT change/increase the yield per masternode; it increases the number of masternodes! Yield per masternode stays ~constant because the greater incentives attract new collateralizers - the queue of masternodes gets longer; more 1000s of Dash get collateralized and removed from circulating supply.

The people who oppose this proposal for MNO-self-enrichment/greed/ethical concerns are misunderstanding how our economic collateralization-yield incentives work. This is actually not a self-enriching cash-grab of higher yield for MNOs; it's a longer queue of masternodes, all getting (approximately) the same yield as before.

The way that MNOs actually will be enriched is because of a price rise. :)
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
lol, when!? lol

Go ahead, show me a graph that correlates rewards to masternode count! Perhaps you forget how many masternodes there were before RT increased MNO rewards.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Yes, in fact I've recently made 5 slides, which I shared on discord. They illustrate the numbers, with graphs and charts of masternode count (a.k.a. masternode-queue-length) over time, yield per 1,000 Dash collateral over time, and circulating-supply inflation and the effect that uncollateralization has been having over the past 5 years.

The charts clearly show that the total amount of rewards/funds offered to masternodes is strongly correlated to the length of the queue of masternodes -- which means the yield per masternode ultimately doesn't change that much, but the count (queue-length) changes depending on incentives to invest. In the past 5 years, masternode yield has stayed within a fairly narrow range of ~6% to ~8% demanded by the market: that means, if yield goes up high then more new masternodes will become collateralized, and if yield goes down low then some masternodes become uncollateralized. That is what we have seen happening since 2018. The incentives do decide masternode-count.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Anyone who's been here long enough knows that is BS. In previous times, there were longer queues (higher masternode counts) AND PROPORTIONALLY MUCH HIGHER dollar values. Ffs, the price of dash is 26 USD, if you tripled the rewards you'd still be way off the target what DCG needs.

Just love how people pick and choose when and how they are talking about dash rewards or dollar value.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
why do you think the MN rewards are being increased with this proposal?
The focus seems to be on miners and treasury.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Why are you ignoramuses who oppose this proposal (Quizzie, GMD, Socrates, itsdemo) unwilling to join the weekly Afterparty jitsi discussion that we have every Friday afternoon to come talk about this?

It is objectively absolutely a completely better use of Dash's excess (wasteful) portion of block reward, which is currently overfunding mining, to instead go toward incentivizing productive, value-creation (Treasury; optionally-approved, otherwise those Dash funds are not created) and supply collateralization & proof-of-service (Masternodes).

Chain-locks provide extremely reliable security from a 51% mining attack on Dash. Therefore, paying for excess hashing power (above the minimum amount we need) is very unnecessary and completely counterproductive to Dash's success. The excess Dash funds become pure selling-pressure on the price of Dash: they are sold/dumped to pay for mining equipment and operational costs. This is very simple logic: the excess allocation of block reward that overfunds mining HARMS DASH. (It also unnecessarily wastes energy.)

As a DAO, Dash is able to effectively alter and optimize itself to be better. This is a right idea. And it is VERY important. We MUST vote yes. We need this now.

Circulating-supply inflation is what has been killing us. In the past 5 years our circulating supply went from 3.6 Million Dash to 8 Million Dash. Do you realize what a relative disadvantage that has given us? We've faced the burden of swimming against a river with a very strong current: Dash's circulating supply is only a fraction of all the Dash that exists, but it has been facing the full inflation issued upon the greater entire supply. Plus even more - because there is an annual 7% reduction in masternode-count (because of 7%-declining rewards), so hundreds of thousands of more Dash get uncollateralized and sold into circulating supply each year. It's quite a daunting flow.

In order to revive the price of Dash, we need to succeed in creating demand for buying-pressure, AND we also critically need to reduce the constant selling pressure from Dash's heavily-inflating circulating supply. Especially from the completely wasteful excess allocation to mining. This proposal moves us in the right direction. Vote yes.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Don't kid yourself. Masternodes are part of the circulating supply and they always have been. We should force MNOs to lock their coins for 2 goddamn years, then talk to me about increasing masternode pay and saying we are not in the circulating supply. I used to run several MNs, now I only have one, all of that dash was very much "circulating"
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
I am opposing @Quantumexplorer, who challenges the status quo in a wrong way.

But I am not opposing this proposal, this is a good start to vote the numbers.

So I am voting YES=2.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
There are a lot more people that publicly objected in the Dash forum to raising the treasury to 20% by taking 10% away from miners, then just the people you mentioned.

See : https://imgur.com/flxJGNo
Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/miner-reallocation2-dao-refill.53874/page-4#post-236319

I still think a proposal owner himself should do the pre-discussion of his own decision proposal, specially in case of DCG decision proposals. And it should be done on different Dash channels (Reddit, Discord, Dash.org) to attract more partipants.
23 is a bit low for a poll or for pre-discussion on a major topic that DCG wants direction on.

We will see how the voting goes.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
There is virtually nonexistent demand for Dash in the marketplace,
and in such a market environment you want to double treasury-related selling pressure,
from monthly 4260 Dash to a monthly 8520 Dash? Seriously?

Do you realize, after Dash price crashes down to $12.50 the effect of this robbery from the Miners will be completely vaporized, and the treasury will then be in the same situation as it is right now, but with the difference that our market-cap will have halved just like the worth of our coins.
With what ingenious idea will Sammyboy come up then?
Will Sammyboy then cut Miners further down from 20% to 10% or even to 5% ?

Weak price has already demolished and nearly killed the Miners, they are still licking their wounds.
And now you are plotting and conspiring to kill the Miners off entirely, by abruptly cutting their revenue by a staggering 44.44%
Nothing comparable has ever been done before, to stakeholders and pilars of Dash and our network security.

Its not just gross negligence, its reckless and irresponsible.
Of course voting no.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Gonzo, you marvellous fool! What do you think the miners do with the Dash they receive them? Do, you think they HODL it, or maybe burn it? Are you so stupid that you don't realise it is immediately sold for fiat? Now, consider this proposal passes, the Dash diverted to the DAO may not even be created in the first instance and that which is created is often received by people that strongly believe in the project and are more likely to hold the coin than the miners. This will reduce selling pressure. Same too for the masternodes, if we can increase the APY for masternode owners, we may see more new money enter the system seeking higher yields and that could actually increase demand for Dash boosting the price higher!

This proposal does not change the overall supply target of Dash which is about 19 million coins, nor does it change the rate of emission, all it does is shift Dash from non-productive hands, into more productive hands.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
You don´t care about the Miners, their capital investment in the equipment and how much they already suffered from the poor price performance. That is not your concern of course.
You also don´t care that Miners are defenseless and hence more vulnerable because we never granted them any voting rights.

According to your reasoning, there is no good reason to pay Miners anything at all.
Why don´t you submit a proposal for abolishing Proof-of-Work altogether and go full POS(E)?
That would allow you to squeeze out some more bucks, while allowing DCG to continue with their lavish and wasteful squandering of treasury funds.

Abolishing Proof-of-Work would cause a selling wave of epic proportions, you can´t even imagine.
It would turn Dash into PIVX 2.0 and our project would end up just like theirs.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
> You don´t care about the Miners

Gonzo, Dash is not social welfare, it is an economy, we have to carefully allocate funds to where they will have the most benefit for the network.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
with no notice so as to cause the maximum amount of chaos so as to enrich those with a vote at the expense of those that do not. Does that sound right?

Put forth a rational justification why the MNs need more so as to generate careful benefit.

You can't because there is no reason. The only reason the MN increase is part of this proposal is as a form of vote buying
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Yes, exactly, this is how I came to a price target of $14, which is mildly more valuable than Decred, whom also threw miners under the bus.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
very scary times
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Indeed, what's scary is that fools like you don't support this proposal to optimise our expenditure in a time we sorely need to.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
shut your decrepit hypocritical mouth.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
@Socrates: you sound exactly like Mr. DashQueen when he's upset as I've been on the receiving end of that rage as have many others. Maybe you should get on a podcast, make your own video or ask to speak remotely at the Dash Retreat to make your case.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
you don't want to know what you sound like
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Sevan, is that you? I thought it was!
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
starting a baseless assertion with the word "objectively" does not make it so. Using the word "effectively" does not make it so.

These are all baseless assertions. They are not based on historical evidence.

This is nothing more than a smash and grab and you want to justify it so you can earn more in the short term.

Dash finally lost its scam moniker. Not for long. This is such massive bullshit.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Really do not like the potential doubling of the Treasury as it kind of rewards past DCG performance issues and also how sudden the change will take effect.

The mitigating circumstance is that this version of DCG, minus most of the original problematic Platform devs, actually has something to deliver in Q4/Q1. The second part is that DCG is now an dev/tech organization so at least Treasury funds are no longer going towards failed DCG marketing/outreach efforts, which the rest of the community or other DFOs should really be championing. Thirdly, there are other DFOs that could have a chance to put up dev-related proposals now.

Otherwise, I think the miner reallocation changes will still provide enough PoW security while encouraging more Dash to be held in collateral in MNs.

Voting YES.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
you think it will still provide enough POW security? Can you quantify this is claim. Or is it a gut instinct?
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Let's say in the worst case scenario a large number of miners stop running their machines, there will still be a number of miners behind them to scoop up the leftover and it could actually still be profitable. Also Dash has already departed from the traditional PoW security model (like BTC's) because of Chainlocks. See the latest Incubator Weekly with QuantumExplorer as they discuss these points and your concerns in better detail than I can.
Reply
6 points,7 months ago
While it's abundantly clear that our present circumstances, prompting this proposal, approach the worst conceivable scenario for both Dash and DCG, the continuity of Dash's development is paramount.

I've been with Dash for approximately five years, and I'm now responsible for the core dev team. Under my leadership, we've managed to position our team exceptionally well. Currently, we boast a team of 4-5 developers, namely Me, Ody, Knst, Kittywiskers, with Udjin as a volunteer. Together, we've produced invaluable changes to Dash Core, releasing major versions roughly every six months and interspersing them with minor versions. Due to the present funding constraints at DCG, we're letting go of one developer, and another will scale down to a mere 10 hours weekly. This leaves only two full-time paid developers for Dash Core, which will inevitably impact our capacity to roll out meaningful and regular updates.

In the upcoming months, we aim to introduce several significant features, with collaborative or shared master nodes leading the charge. However, if DCG fails to secure the necessary funding, retaining our current talent pool becomes increasingly challenging. This could jeopardize our ability to achieve these objectives.

The treasury should never serve as an unlimited resource for DCG or other DFOs. That said, the current funds are insufficient to support the essential ongoing development of Dash Core and Platform.

The success of this proposal is instrumental in preserving our existing team and realizing our envisioned milestones.

I seldom comment on proposals. However, given the circumstances, I'd like to ardently urge all MNOs to vote 'Yes'.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Maybe DCG should think about changing how they request funding from us. Instead of requesting funding for the Core team, the Platform teams, Infrastructure and other teams in one budget proposal, they should request budget funding seperately again.

I am willing to continue to support the Core Team and Infrastrucure with regards to budget funding, but i don't see much point in contuing as is with the Platform teams, when those teams are behind a lot of the Dash Platform delays from the past 5 years and are the cause of DCG current high runrate.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Foolish. You're literally advocating throwing away years of work and spent Dash.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
everyone should be clear, the present circumstances are likely because of the chain halt. Dash lost more compared to its peers in this current drop. This is a situation entirely of DCGs own creation.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Thanks Pasta, I appreciate all your work you've done to date, I will be voting YES on this proposal, though I would urge you to ditch further effort on the shared masternodes, if $25k is still too expensive for someone to buy a MN, they will never buy. ;)
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
was it your team responsible for the chain halt? Is that exceptional positioning?

Why do we need a core dev team if hashrate is not important? Have you communicated this theft with Miners? How will they react?
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Perhaps we should increase the funding to DCG so they can hire more devs for Core, but in particular have the money to hire a testing team, which currently does not exist. Think for a moment the impact on code stability if we do not pass this proposal, you seem to want your cake and eat it too, not possible without some 'give' on your end too.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
perhaps rewarding failure begets failure. This is about common sense incentives. Accountability. Trust. Honor.

Things that are increasingly uncommon these days.
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
And what if 60-20-20 is proved again the wrong number? Are we allowed to change it?

If we are NOT allowed to change it, YOUR GOAL IS TO TRAP THE DASH COMMUNITY TO YET ANOTHER STUPID NUMBER.

SO YOU SHOULD FIRST CODE AND GIVE THE RIGHT TO THE MASTERNODES TO VOTE AND DYNAMICALLY CHANGE THAT NUMBER.

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
I will be voting YES on this proposal, the money we spend on mining is giving us precisely zero additional benefit, however, that money can be directed to other entities where we can get back more value. We've also seen other projects make similar changes without impact to their network, Dash will be just fine when we fork this in.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Unlike your complete cluelessness about PrivateSend topic, you finally seem to come to your senses, boy
Looks like you are growing up, albeit slowly. Am very proud of you now!
Reply
-4 points,7 months ago
Nothing like coming to a bad proposal and seeing why I almost always disagree with your braindead and stupid takes.
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
is your claim POW does not produce benefit?
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Consider our security quota is like a glass, now we start to pour water into that glass, at first it goes from empty to not empty and value is being captured in that glass, as we continue to pour we capture more value as the glass becomes fuller. Eventually, the glass is full and begins to overflow, at that point we are no longer capturing any additional value, but rather wasting water.

This analogy is similar to what is happening in Dash right now, we simply don't need so many gigajoules of power spent on hashing when we have finality coming from the CLISG for every block (similar to checkpoints) and the entropy for quorum formation coming from those mined signatures.

So, while POW does produce a lot of benefit, namely the ability to mine any transaction, including so called illegal transactions, unlike Bitcoin, Dash's security model does not depend on the never ending arms race between mining pools to prevent 51% attacks. We've solved that problem years ago.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
What percentage of POW value is entropy creation?
You completely gloss over (deceitfully) the non-encryption security that POW provides. Lemmings parrot you as if you are an authority.

If you require a certain amount of water to survive and someone comes and suggest you drink half as much water, do you take them at their word on faith?

If you believe dash is a unicorn, then it will be attacked. it needs security. it is its great differentiator. just because parasites think the dash differentiator is a free money spicket and you and some nerds think it is a database improvement does not make it so.

You forget dash's reason to be, at the expense of what makes Dash interesting in the first place.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Following v20 the entropy coming from miners will no longer be used, with chainlocks, there is no real attack that can be done on the Dash network, other than not mining transactions.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
really, no other attack? You don't think that sounds foolish.

What if chainlocks is attacked and fails. This has happened before, not even theoretical.

You are not this stupid, you know POW does more than simply produce blocks and entropy. Why are you misleading people? You become a DCG cheerleader when they will up your rewards. You are that cheap?
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Voting no.

I can't justify a change in the reward split. I think that there should be other options sought to make up for DCG's shortfall. I don't understand why DCG can't request a higher portion of the budget for their proposals for even a couple months to get their coffers back up.

Most of the other DAOs have successfully been shot down by our negative infiltrators spinning yarns to justify why they're constantly dismantling our growth and adoption right in front of our faces. I mean just comparing the community and proposals from before to now you can see the results of this.

Remember, there is no limit to the treasury, it renews itself every month. Dash literally prints money. There is no reason why our critical DAOs should be running out of funding.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Raising the Treasury allocation does not mean all that extra Dash would go to DCG, other DFOs would also have access to those funds and maybe Dash can have a decent marketing budget again.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Sir, are you the Mastermind behind this proposal?
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
If DCG had no intention of asking more, then why would they put forth this proposal? There are no hard upper limits in the code, so in theory they will ask the maximum to fill the void they created. Perhaps Sam can tell us now how much DCG will be asking from the treasury?
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
it is cope to make it look like this isn't a vote buying scheme when it is clearly is.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
So this is DCG 'brilliant' plan to cope with the market situation that Dash has been facing for awhile now and where Sam for a very long time was unwilling to address DCG high runrate, by cutting back on their number of paid devs (33 !!), untill their reserves came down to a mere 2 months, before being completely drained.

I really thought Sam would come up with a solid plan that would address their high runrate and high number of paid devs (33), but instead we get this rather dull reward grabbing from miners (-20%).

* No to increasing Treasury from 10% to 20%

We will undoubtly continue to see DCG project delays, despite their large (33) developer group, because they never addressed the issues that led to those project delays in the first place.

* No to blatantly grabbing blockrewards from miners to realise a higher Treasury, so that DCG can operate as usual and is not forced to cut on its rather large number of paid developers which is causing a high runrate for DCG, in a time (crypto winter) DCG should not have a high runrate to begin with.

* No to once again changing the miner-masternode rewards, when we have not even finished our current miner-masternode rewards thats is scheduled to to run till 2025
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
We are letting go of a significant amount of people regardless of if this proposal passes. Down from 175k USD to 125k USD. This is going to be bad, the network in my opinion gets a lot from spending that 50k, but when we can't pay people we have no choice. Right now, we receive approximately the equivalent of 90k USD from the treasury per month. Having to further reduce our run rate from 125k to 90k USD would be where things end up catastrophic as I would not have anyone to let go of that isn't doing something vital for delivery.

Also you quote 'brilliant', but please show me where I wrote 'brilliant' please. I wrote: "We will be making another proposal within a few days that if passes should improve the outlook dramatically for continued funded development of the project." Maybe you thought it would be brilliant because that's what you expect of me :)

Look, I hate this situation, but this is the situation we find ourselves in. The people that are against this proposal are also generally the people who want to see DCG defunded. They also don't have an MNO badge, you do, which is why I will try to always reply to you here.

In the end I personally am trying to do what I think is best for the network. I also have that MNO badge and as someone who provably owns at least a Masternode I think this proposal passing would be much better for my investment over not funding it. I think funding people that have a proven track record of delivery is a better idea than spending that money on electricity to fund Hashrate that is no longer needed.

Another thing, we don't have 33 developers. And when you write "they never addressed the issues that led to those project delays in the first place". Well actually I did, I changed structure inside developer groups of DCG a few times, and let go of a lot of people who were not delivering, sadly the price followed these events and I did not have the ability to replace people.

I truly want to ask you, how would you solve the situation we are in?
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
JFYI
The MNO badge on here is kinda bogus. I switched my nodes to new addresses many years ago and my MNO badge on here still shows up.
The Dash forum MNO badge is however updated in real time and I lost my badge there when I switched over to new addresses.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Test
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
''I truly want to ask you, how would you solve the situation we are in?''

At this point i think you placed yourself pretty much out of options (other then trying to get more of the blockrewards to Treasury, so DCG can request more budget from the Treasury).
So i do not see a solution to the situation that you created for yourself here.

The things that you are forced to do now (cutting your runrate from $200,000 to $180,000 to $125,000) should in my opinion have happened 6 months ago, maybe even more early then that. You would most likely ended up having more reserves for DCG and you would have increased DCG ability to outlive this bear market.

23 Nov 2022 was the last time that a DCG released a Financial Statement on dash.org/forum (https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/dcg-q3-2022-financial-statements.53438/), after that things became eerily quiet with regards to DCG financial status. Then a few months ago when Dash Incubator launched some budget proposals, the news broke out about DCG bad financial status (high runrate, getting low on reserves) and Dash Incubator members had to scramble to fit their budget proposals to this new situation (some redrawn them).

Overall the lack of Financial Statements and the vagueness on when we can expect Platform to be released on Mainnet, are to me signs that DCG communication with the Dash community / MNO's has gone backwards.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Correction : it seems that there is also a Financial Statement of DCG Q1 2023, but because the 23 nov 2022 is stickied to the forum, it gets a bit drown out. My suggestion is to sticky the most recent Financial Statement.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Or create a specific DCG Financial Statement thread and place all Financial Statements in there, instead of using the 'Official Development News and Information' thread.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Well this is incorrect: From what I can tell it was actually 4 months ago, not last year: https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/dcg-q1-2023-financial-statements.53718/

I am not CEO, some may see me as such, but that is only because we could not find a qualified candidate who wanted a full time position without a massive amount of pay. Pay that didn't make sense to our organization.

I have been letting go of people routinely, when I became CTO I think our run rate was well over 350k. A lot of people were let go since then. It's always easy to say : you should have cut more or done this or you should have done that. Hindsight is always 20/20. It's also not always easy letting people go, as it means generally that you don't get something important, and then you would probably be here blaming me for not having that this or that service to the network or feature.

As you don't have another solution does this mean you are saying it's best to let go of vital devs causing significant delays and harm to DCG's ability to deliver than to reduce miner allocation?
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Even with such a large number of devs there already was significant delays of Platform, which harmed DCG's ability to deliver (which is why Platform is not on Mainnet right now).

Regardless of this decision proposal passing or not, at this point i fully expect significant delays to continue, impairing DCG ability to deliver in the future. And unless changes are made to DCG, i also fully expect Dash community members to never get a straight answer with regards to questions about estimations on when a certain update will be released.

I really do not want to mess with the miner blockrewards, when we are still in a miner-masternode reallocation schedule that runs till 2025.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Just for clarification :

How many paid devs did DCG have, start of this year ?
How many paid devs does DCG currently have ?
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Imo, someone in your position of power and influence, has a duty to be clear of how many masternodes / HPMNs you carry votes for. If you don't do it, the FBI / CSD may do it for you. I wouldn't want to think a single humpback - or a collusion among us - has the power to change the outcome of a vote.

I assume you support transparency of voting as much as you support the transparency of every financial transaction on the dash blockchain.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
As a reminder to MNO's, our current miner-masternode blockreward re-allocation schedule leads to a 40% miners / 60% masternodes in 2025, while Treasury remains on 10%.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
''This proposal is to have this change be immediate at the activation of Core v20 and Platform v1''

Looks like someone is finally starting to feel the pressure, skips any pre-discussion on this very important topic (to be honest there were previous attempts to raise the Treasury to 20% but they have failed, so i can see why pre-discussion is skipped here) and just decided to just dump the decision proposal on the network.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
No, I've felt the pressure for a long long time. I also don't think a pre-discussion on this topic would be valuable, as most MNOs will understand this proposal very easily and will either be for or against it.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Who gave you the permission to replace the Quorum formation randomness obtained from Miner PoW entropy with an unknown, likely inferior, randomness mechanism?
Certainly not the MNO network. You singlehandedly decided to take the project down this desolate route.
Everyone with a background in math or IT knows, that true real randomness is very difficult to achieve,
and that most all so-called random methods or functions provide pseudo-randomness at best.
Quorums are at the core of the services provided by the Masternodes.
How come you think, you alone have the right to make a decision of such large magnitude?

You continune to overstep in your pride and arrogance.
If you are executing a secret agenda whose endgoal is a full transition to 100% PoS, then at least be so honest and sincere to admit it.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
I'm no mathematician but I too would be curious to learn: How is appropriate randomness thought to be achieved via the new, suggested scheme?
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I worked on building the quorums in the first place, I was part of discussions when we decided to use miner entropy. Do you think we should have had a vote for that as well?

In the end DCG's role is propose software, if enough miners and MNOs run that software it becomes active, if they don't it doesn't.

These proposals are to gage the wishes of the network so we don't write software that goes against those wishes.

As for a transition to full PoS, maybe... but at this stage that's not on the table.

Going to PoS is not my agenda, my agenda is to create the best, most decentralized, most resilient systems possible to give our users the best experience possible. Could I believe that going to PoS in the future would advance that goal? Maybe, but it would have to be done in such a way the payment transactions could not be censorable which imo is currently the biggest drawback of going to PoS. But to say that this problem could never be solved is synonymous to people who don't believe in technological progress.

May I ask, other than what I said above, what do you dislike about PoS?
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
It's not what HE dislikes about PoS, it's about YOUR arrogance to change the status quo through less than desirable voter participation. You could just inform us of a code change and let the MNOs upgrade, or not, without de-funding the non-compliant like you did with HPMNs.

You are lying through percentages, magnifying the absolute reward to HPMNs; widening the gap between OG nodes and the upper class HPMNs. *** Where is your justification that HPMN servers require greater expenses? *** Can you show us where the extra disposable income will be used? - perhaps they will use it to buy more bitcoin / shitcoins.
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
you are not offering leadership. This is not leadership. This is a fear based smash and grab.

You've given no consideration to any negative implications of this.

You've offered no justification for the claim that hashrate is not needed. I suppose it is because you intend to fulfill your stated objective of being able to censor the network.

SHAME ON YOU

THIS IS HOW YOU REWARD US FOR STICKING IT OUT WITH YOU?

The trolls were right! Dash is a scam.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
You seem to be a miner.

I think you should also vote that number.

Try to bring the miners to the governance of dash, and give them voting rights.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
I'm not a miner

I am someone who has principles.

I don't believe in being part of something where we have vote buying
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
More like enforcement, when he writes code to de-fund the non-compliant - re: HPMNs.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
There was a pre-discussion!!!!!!

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/miner-reallocation2-dao-refill.53874/#post-235262
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I forgot about that discussion. I did not see a whole of support there among the 23 participants for increasing the Treasury to 20% (by taking 10% away from miners) and that discussion dissolved pretty quickly into off-topic territory and into one very very long rant.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
You can also see the voting history of the pre-discussion

https://www.dash.org/forum/index.php?threads/miner-reallocation2-dao-refill.53874/page-4#post-236319

<vote history>
====Boost the DAO to 20% from miner rewards​===

=== yes​ Votes: 5 - 21.7%
QuantumExplorer
rion
xkcd
vazaki3
vampyren

=== no​ Votes: 15 - 65.2%
aleix
splawik21
Nthelight
mastermined
qwizzie
Bridgewater
kot
GrandMasterDash
Hilawe
greatwolf
forro
MN1
TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou
VONCAN
pshenmic

=== Meep meep​ Votes: 3 - 13.0%
bigrcanada
AgnewPickens
Monotoko

===Total voters 23
</vote history>
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
So are you (vazaki3 / itsdemo) for this proposal to raise the Treasury to 20% or against it ?
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
I would like people to be able to vote this number.
https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/

The voting outcome should be extracted by using the average rule.
https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/votethenumbers3/calc3.php?proposals%5B%5D=TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20

I would like also people to be able to change their vote, and this vote change to reflect immediatly to the decided number.

Finnaly I would also like the individuals who hold miner farms to be able to vote too. But where can we these miners, how can they prove their individuality? Maybe in an Encointer meeting?
https://mnowatch.org/encointerUBI/

As long as I would like people to vote that number, and this number is voted somehow, I vote yes for this proposal, despite all the above problems.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Let me explain what I mean by saying that the average rule should be used.

Currenty we have 52.38 - 37.62-10

A total YES vote means 60 - 20 -20. A total NO vote means 52.38 - 37.62-10. But we dont have a total YES vote neither a total NO vote! We have 1.14, as you can see in the below link.

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/votethenumbers3/calc3.php?proposals%5B%5D=TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20

So if 2 is 60, and 0 is 52.38 then 1.14 how much is it?

60 -52,38=7.62

If 2 is 7,62 then 1.14 is how much?
1.14X7,62/2=4.34

So the masternode reward should become 56.72

I leave the rest calculation to you, as an exercise. Here is the wisdom, and whoever has a mind in him, let him vote and calculate the number of the beast.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Well, the above calculations (and maybe logic) is wrong, but I think you got the point and the method. Change the semantics!

NO_VOTE=0 (status quo remains 52.38 - 37.62-10)

ABSTAIN_VOTE=1 (slighlty change status quo)

YES_VOTE (push to the limits (60-20-20).
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
YES_VOTE =2 (push to the limits 60-20-20).
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
So if 0 is (52.38 - 37.62-10) and 2 is (60-20-20), then 1.14 how much is it?

Here is the wisdom, and whoever has a mind in him, let him vote and calculate the number of the beast.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Ok, let me reveal the number of the beast.

IF 0 is (52.38 - 37.62-10) and 2 is (60-20-20), then 1.14 how much is it?

52.38+(60-52.38)X1.14/2=56.72
37.62+(20-37.62)X1.14/2=27.58
10+(20-10)X1.14/2=15.7

SO IF ACCORDING THE AVERAGE RULE, THE RESULT REMAINS AS NOW 1.14

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/votethenumbers3/calc3.php?proposals%5B%5D=TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20

THEN THE ALLOCATION SHOULD BE (56.72-27.58-15.7)
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
>But where can we these miners, how can they prove their individuality?

But where can we FIND these miners, how can they prove their individuality?
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Let me also explain how to vote that number. You need TWO NUMERICAL VOTES.

The first will decide the Decentralized Governance Budget.
Current: 90% Mining and Masternode Reward -- 10% Decentralized Governance Budget
https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/prepnumvote3/prep3.php?minnum=0&maxnum=100&proposals%5B%5D=governance_budget-Digit1&proposals%5B%5D=governance_budget-Digit2&proposals%5B%5Dgovernance_budget-Range-0-100-Digit3

And the second will decide about the mining and Masternode reward.
Current: 41.8% MINERS - 58.2% Masternodes
https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/prepnumvote3/prep3.php?minnum=0&maxnum=100&proposals%5B%5D=mno_reward-Digit1&proposals%5B%5D=mno_reward-Digit2&proposals%5B%5Dmno_reward-Range-0-100-Digit3
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Opps, wrong link! The correct links are:

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/prepnumvote3/prep3.php?minnum=0&maxnum=100&proposals%5B%5D=governance_budget-Digit1&proposals%5B%5D=governance_budget-Digit2&proposals%5B%5D=governance_budget-Range-0-100-Digit3

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/prepnumvote3/prep3.php?minnum=0&maxnum=100&proposals%5B%5D=mno_reward-Digit1&proposals%5B%5D=mno_reward-Digit2&proposals%5B%5D=mno_reward-Range-0-100-Digit3
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
You need 6 dash to cast the above 6 proposals that correspond to 2 numerical votes.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
It is now very clear that you are not participathing in our Dash Governance system by voting yes / no / abstain.

I therefore consider you a non-voter.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
It is YES=2. And because I want the mean average outcome to become more than 1.14, I keep my vote to 2.

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/votethenumbers3/calc3.php?proposals%5B%5D=TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20

When the mean average outcome will reach my desired number (which I do not reveal) I will change my vote to ABSTAIN=1.

And if it exceeds, I will change my vote to NO=0.

But for now on my vote remains YES=2 .

Although I have a vote, I have not cast my vote yet. I I will cast my decisive vote at the end of the cycle.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
this is a vote buying scheme. Plain and simple. This is a scam being perpetrated by the largest organization in the dash ecosystem.

We need a hard reset. Stop everything (not the blocks pasta, keeps those moving if you can)
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
This Proposal is unlikely to obtain greater participation as a result but, in fact, it even risks achieving the opposite in addition to making miners flee. It is understandable that it is necessary to continue to subsidize the DCG to complete the launch of the Platform, but I think that the objective must be to create greater value and this can only be achieved by creating participation, otherwise we risk continuing, out of fear, towards requests like those of this Proposal.

Why instead, for example, are we not asked to modify the ROI of the MNs by giving greater advantages to those who vote compared to those who do not vote? Perhaps also finding a way to ensure that before voting it is necessary to read the contents of the Proposal for a minimum amount of time, for example.
Those who don't vote would find themselves with a much lower ROI and would lead them to make choices such as abandoning Dash (it doesn't make much sense to have so many MNs who don't actively participate and it often emerges in the various comments that there are many MNs of this kind , interested exclusively in ROI), stay with a lower ROI, start reading and voting.
And perhaps, furthermore, allocate a part of the ROI of the MNs who do not vote to the treasury. In this way many positive results would be obtained, one of which is exactly what this Proposal seeks.

These are just ideas and I don't know what it would mean to make changes like this... but it could be a way to bring some life and active people back into the community.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
LOL and this coming from a self confessed socialist, I would have thought you would be in support of this change since it is more likely your attempts at building a socialist state in Italy would more likely be funded should this change go through.

and TBH, if we had the choice to either,
A) Fund your socialism in Italy, or
B) Throw it at more hash rate.

I would vote for A) since at least there is the tiniest slither of a chance the network gets some value from that eg in the good will of the people and some free marketing and press for example. With B) we get precisely nothing.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
It is reiterated, in case it is not clear to the reader and to avoid misunderstandings, that Dash Italia does not have any kind of political ideology.
It is unknown to us why Mr Lysergic continually refers to us as "socialists", even falsely saying "self-confessed".
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
yes this proposal is very socialist. Thank you for admitting so.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Nonsense, it is quite the opposite, instead of voting for UBI for the miner class, it aims to increase the amount of capital available to DFOs competing in a market for budget. Pull your head out of your arse the next time you try to speak.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
the budget is not the problem. Results are the problem. You seek to reward failure by voting yourself wealth. Ask every other socialist experiment how that worked out.

Just vote harder and it will work this time.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
In the past, I suggested that MNOs should decide if they want voting rights or greater rewards, not both. Of course, it was rejected.

Unfortunately, you can not just demand voter participation, such tasks can be automated or via AI bots. The answer is to simply let MNOs choose voting or ROI. Maintaining principles should always come at a price.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
I support this proposal. With 99.95% of the Dash network's overhead being paid by investors (through inflation), it makes no sense to spend 90% of our issuance on maintaining a network that essentially no one uses, while only 10% building and marketing a product necessary to gain users. It also makes no sense to allocate so much towards mining when Dash's flagship innovation, Evolution, won't involve miners at all. Thanks for putting in this proposal Quantum!
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
cute use of numbers.

1. get paid to drive adoption so people use the network
2. fail
3. request more money
4. point to noone using the network as evidence that you need more money

At least you are being honest and thanking Quantum for enabling you to feed off the network some more.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Changing the entire economic foundation of the coin because they want to keep bringing in the easy money?
Just to keep overfeeding the same team that is years behind? This is a really bad idea! How brazen!!
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Who exactly do you think wants easy money? The people in DCG that have all agreed to massive pay cuts? That are all being offered much more than they are currently making and continue to stick things out because the want to finish what they started? I am probably the least paid CTO for any top 100 coin, why? Because I believe in this project and want to see it succeed. It's honestly very painful to hear complete uninformed comments like yours.

You say we shouldn't overfeed a team that is years behind but did you know we only have 1 platform dev that had been in DCG from before my hiring spree when I became CTO. Platform beta 1 is on Testnet, if you want to fire the hardworking people who got it there, well go ahead. It's not good for the network, but it's your choice to vote that way as a MNO.

My role is to give the MN community the ability to vote on this decision.

We have changed the distribution 4 times in the past. It is not holy.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
After all these years there is only ONE VIABLE dashd masternode daemon (the Go version is not production ready or truly independent). You do not have a protocol, no matter how hard you wish otherwise. Not like mining where there are multiple options. You wouldn't want competing protocol implementations because you use this tool to de-fund those who do not comply to your own code.

And, obviously, when you only have only one viable dashd masternode daemon, there is a single point of attack that is capable of taking down the entire network for 16+ hours.

So yes, easy money - ASSURED MONEY - from overfeeding incompetence.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
"My role is to give the MN community the ability to vote on this decision."

No you are participating in vote buying. An illegal activity
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Look I 'get it', you want to punish DCG for perceived non-delivery and this proposal makes you furious because it seems to reward the very same people that you think hurt you, but look at it the other way, it this proposal does not pass and the core team is dissolved this coin will truly have no value and even $25 will be expensive as holders fee en-masse from the abandoned project. There are still 4 million Dash in the masternode network yet to be sold, do the math, what might the resultant price be?

So, you see, like it or not, we really have no choice here, we must pass this proposal. The coin is non-viable without a core team.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Was tempted to upvote you when you admit dash is just one step away from oblivion :D
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
this proposal is vote buying. It is illegal. You are salivating so hard at the thought of free money you can't see this.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Sam, what justification do you have to include a MN allocation increase?

It looks like vote buying.

Show me how I am wrong.

I can disagree about the treasury increasing (I do), I can't wrap my head around how you think this is MN increase is ok.

If you argue the emissions are superfluous to the Miners, the coherent response would be to minimize the inflation emission entirely by reducing the block reward making every dash holder richer. Why preferential treatment for just the MNs and treasury?

In the past when Ryan tinkered with emissions he reached out to Miners to see how they would react. I presume so there would not be an unwanted hardfork of the network. Have you done so as well. How did they react? What was the feedback? You surely wouldn't propose such a radical change without minimizing the risks, right?
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Sadly, this is what a dying project looks like. I am mostly expecting to hold my Dash to zero and use it as a tax writeoff as the DAO continues to become unable to sustain itself and generate enough demand to justify its existence. The best course for Dash would be to find another project or VC willing to bring Dash holders in to their ecosystem via airdrop claim, and then we can all just leave Dash for dead and let it R.I.P. instead of continuing to use CPR on something that has been dead for years.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
No other project in the space is pushing the technology forward in the same way Dash is, there is nothing dying in this project at a technical level, we are on a high having just released v0.25 of Platform to testnet, published GroveDB to crates and innovating the Masternode concept beyond Evan's wildest dreams !

Keep the dream alive! Help us redistribute the security budget to where it will have the most impact, you said it yourself, you are a unicorn, holding to zero, so what do you have to lose at this point? Vote YES !
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
No other project is pushing "the technology" forward in the same way as Dash? What does that even mean? DCG tells us this is the best thing since sliced bread and you just believe it? Even though no one is buying it, no one is using it, no one is writing about it, no one is peer reviewing it? Who is going to build something on Platform? Anything? Other than a couple in-house developers who hsve no serious plan and are just after treasury money to feed their pet projects? Dash needs to clean house. I don't even want to know about Evan's wildest drug-induced dreams.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
In past times, I always used to say dash was the first fully working DAO. These days it is clear the dash DAO is unable to sustain itself. This is why I now just consider dash a payment coin which is unable to compete with litecoin on daily volume.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
That's not clear at all. The Dash DAO works the best in cryptocurrency. However, it is not perfect. It is vulnerable to price shocks and manipulation. And since you and many here would rather bury your heads in the sand rather than address the ACTUAL ROOT of the problem (I allege this is because you're an agent who is not looking for solutions but to cause chaos and the eventual dissolution of the project), the problem continues.

The issue is that Dash has aggressive competition that are too stubborn to admit that their coins failed while Dash succeeded. Because of this, their only response is to LITERALLY RIG THE ENTIRE CRYPTOCURRENCY MARKET against Dash. There's a reason Monero is only on a couple exchanges, because that makes it easier to manipulate its price. Since nobody actually uses or likes Monero, this is necessary to make it seem like Dash is less liked and popular in the marketplace.

So quibbling over numbers in here, or whatever tweaks is not going to solve the problem. The problem must be addressed at the source. Price manipulation from exchange pricing is why Dash is not properly represented in the market. Even if this weapon is impossible to defeat, defeating it must be our focus if we're to make any progress.

Its a technique that requires ignorance to work, so we in the community have considerable power to stop it by our words and actions.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
are you familiar with the daily dash transaction count?
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Completely irrelevant. 10k transactions a day for 30 days is 300,000 transactions a month, dozens of which are my own. Unfortunately for you, you rely on stupidity and superficial metrics that you have no quanitification or qualification for. Only 6% of BTC's transactions are actually payments, that's less than Dash's actual monthly payments. That was the case in 2018-21 and it is most likely to still be the case.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
can you find me a single service that lists its percentage of sales/txs by coin that lists Dash as #1? How bout even top 3?
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
there is no evidence at all that Dash is succeeding.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Even if this doesn't pass, this is a major wake up call.

The Dash beneficiary is not the fucking masternode.

Masternodes are service providers to the network.

You need to drive demand for dash users, not demand for dash infrastructure providers. How is this not obvious?!

This corruption needs to end
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
Will the miners have legal standing against DCG and the MNOs for defrauding them?

What happens if/when miners don't accept the new code stealing from them?

Are you preparing the network for a fork sam? Is DCG more important than the network?
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
> Will the miners have legal standing against DCG and the MNOs for defrauding them?

No, show me the contract where it says Dash will always maintain a certain price or the subsidy will always pay out a certain amount. The precedent has been set in numerous other coins and this case Dash is just a slow follower. Stop being so dramatic!
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
no, this is vote buying. Plain and simple. This is illegal.
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
Dash is a DAO. DCG is a legal entity. This vote buying is illegal.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Wrong, this is re-distribution of rewards to where they will have the most beneficial impact for the network and ultimately price, but you are too thick to see that.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Why not make this 2 separate proposals then?
One to steal from miners to fund the treasury more (and reward failure)
One to steal from miners to fund MNOs (for ....)

The answer is obvious. I am not thick.

The reason Sam and his collaborators are putting forth this proposal in this way is because he is buying yes votes. He expects morons like Bernardo to consider this a "paycheck raise" (yes, his words).
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Do you understand the stupidity of this proposal? THIS PROPOSAL CHALLENGES A 9 YEARS ESTABLISHED STATUS QUO BY USING ONE MONTH DEADLINE!!! THIS IS ABSURD!!!!

You should not start by a governance question demanding for something new to happen. Supposely your proposal barely passes the required 10% net votes and it is approved. Does this makes it stronger than the status quo? The proponents of the status quo may claim that the status quo is supported by a silent majority of much more than 10%, and you cannot prove them wrong. So If you want a change to occur, YOU SHOULD FIRST FORM A PROPOSAL ASKING THE MASTERNODES TO CONFIRM THE STATUS QUO. That way you expose the Dash status quo, which has NEVER been voted.

Steps for a decent governance proposal that may lead to a change.

1) You put a governance question asking the voters to confirm the status quo.
2) If the status quo is not confirmed, obviously a change is needed, so you search someone to fund and/or to code the change.
3) After coding the change, you put into vote your governance proposal along with the required code.

When I say "put a governance question asking the voters to confirm the status quo" I obviously mean that this question should last long (at least 24 months, if not permanent). So that the supporters of the status quo do not have the excuse that they did not have time to vote. They should not be able to claim that the status quo issue did not reach the required minimum participation due to a limited voting period.


QUANTUMEXPLORED SHOULD STOP HIS DIVIDE A CONQUER METHOD, AND TRY TO UNITE THE DASH MEMBERS. HE STARTED WITH THE PLATFORM, WHEN HE EXCLUDED THE 1-2-3k MASTERNODES FROM THE FEAST. NOW HE ATTACKS THE MINERS!!!

DIVIDE AND CONQUER, THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO!!!
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
And what if 60-20-20 is proved again the wrong number? Are we allowed to change it?

If we are NOT allowed to change it, QUANTUMEXPLORER's GOAL IS TO TRAP THE DASH COMMUNITY TO YET ANOTHER STUPID NUMBER.

SO DCG SHOULD FIRST CODE AND GIVE THE RIGHT TO THE MASTERNODES TO VOTE AND DYNAMICALLY CHANGE THAT NUMBER.

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
Why would anyone in their right mind refuse a paycheck raise?
IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE TO REJECT MORE MONEY FOR US MNO, YOU STUPID FOOLS AND DUMBFUCKS !!!!

Together we can succeed in approving this, lets all vote YES YES YES
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
morals, ethical standards, long-term vision, empathy, high IQ. Those are all reasons. Sorry you came up short in these traits.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
There are many awful things to say about this, not least that I said this would happen way back in the HCMN "discussion". For now I will start with the math.

Care must be taken when people talk in percentages, they enable the biggest lies to be told. In this instance, a 6% increase in masternode rewards is also 24% for a HCMN (6x4). This is the process of network gentrification, a larger pay rise to the richest without any attempt to justify it at the server level.

Fortunately, evidence of thinly veiled misdirection is present. First, this proposal could of asked to reduce the miner reward from 36% to 20%, the 16% difference could of been burned or never produced, thus increasing scarcity, which in turn makes dash more attractive to ALL investors. The obvious response to this would be "we don't want to mess with the supply" but clearly they are because they are saying MNO DISPOSABLE INCOME is more important than miner PoW.

Secondly, there was absolutely no need or relevance to tease voters with "uplifting news". This proposal has nothing to do with development updates, it's sole purpose is to distract the voter with the "almost there, just one more push" before the baby is delivered.

To date, Sam has made it quite clear that the dollar value of dash is of no concern to him, only that someone somewhere foot the bill for DCG incompetence.and impotence.

This is the path if you want dash to go to 14 USD. The publishing of this proposal alone could start that process.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
i receive more money taken from the superfluous miners = Easy YES from me
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
MNO's are not receiving more, then what they are planned to receive through the miner-masternode blockreward reallocation schedule. That schedule leads to a 40/60 ratio in blockrewards between miners and masternodes.

This is nothing more then grabbing blockrewards from miners, shifting them to the Treasury, so that DCG can claim more budget (undoubtly backed by whales) without having to deal with their high runrate due to their large devs group and without having to address their constant Platform delays and take some accountability there.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
your money will be worth less after the selling frenzy.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Show me!
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Parasitic behavior. No wonder no one wants Dash.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Is it obvious this has nothing to do with the value Miners produce for the network?

Ryan sold changing the block rewards as a get rich scheme that would drive the price higher based on some shitty charts. It did not work.

Sam attempts to sell this by saying DCG won't deliver without it. Extortion.

If you want DCG to have more money, invest in them yourself. Any yes-voting MNO, you are putting your hands in the pockets of the Miners to do what you would not do personally.

Don't conflate the issue and think this is about mining.

It is about the treasury.

Has the treasury produced you value? Would more treasury produce more value?

The treasury has been a source of getting dumped on and lied to. If you want more of this, double the treasury.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
This is NOT Extortion at all, as Sam submitted this beautiful proposal so we MNO have free choice and face the consequence of what we vote for.
Anyone voting no is just plain stupid, because in doing so he hurts his own pocket and income.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
The facts tell a completely different story. MNOs previously voted for a pay rise, the masternode count dropped and the price of dash is now $26.

What I want to know is, are you going to be here admitting you was wrong when dash goes to $14? For me, I would be happy to be wrong and see the price soar. Realistically though, it's not going to happen because the MNOs will be selling more and buying other bitcoin as their insurance.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Wrong are all the MORONS who are voting No, they vote against a paycheck raise and they sabotage themselves
No voters are the real stupid DUMBFUCKS, because they ignore the huge benefit we get for voting YES

100% behind Sam with his proposal !
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
What should we call all the Yes voters to the last masternode pay rise? Because we can all see - quite embarrassingly - where it got them.

Dumbfucks are the ones that continue to deny the facts in front of them.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Vote yes if you want thousands of Dash being sold now- at the worse possible time. Be clear that is what you are voting for.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Can you explain how this would increase sell pressure? Miners sell immediately to offset electricity costs. If anything this would reduce sell pressure.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
We don't need to relieve selling pressure. Networks grow because of selling pressure as well as buying pressure. It is the both that we need. You're focused on the wrong end of the equation. This is the same error that Decred made and their mining was devastated by this move. We need to focus on increasing buying pressure. The MNOs are holding. Miners selling is A GOOD THING as it increases the velocity of the currency, which is necessary for adoption.

You have to find a way to counter the price manipulation that I have proven is being enacted against Dash. Decreasing selling pressure will just result in the manipulators increasing their selling pressure. Notice that Dash always makes lower lowers since the ATH. Dash went up to $1600 and just steadily trickled back down and rarely if ever pumps again.

Why? Because that pump was artificial and designed to give "false hope". A dastardly technique being used by the enemies of cryptocurrency is emotional manipulation. You see it with the prices. Since 2018 Monero's price NEVER goes under Dash. Dash's price NEVER PUMPS seriously. Even though in a rational market, a technology leader should see high adoption (see BTC and ETH). Dash is clearly a technology leader, but the enemies of cryptocurrency are attacking us using PRICE MANIPULATION. Okay? So we can't "react" in ways that reinforces this. We have to cut off the problem at the source, or we'll just end up wasting our efforts.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
> Miners selling is A GOOD THING as it increases the velocity of the currency, which is necessary for adoption.

You really are below average intelligence, aren't you?
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Higher Treasury --> Higher amount of request budget funding from DCG (after all this is coming from DCG as they are running out of reserves) --> More sell pressure as DCG will convert that dash to fiat to pay its developer salaries or as developers themselves convert it to their own fiat currency. I don't see this in any way reduding sell pressure, rather the opposite.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
I will be selling my dash. Others who understand why dash is interesting I assume will also be selling their dash.

You are destroying the security model for short term "benefit"

This is a back stabbing of the highest order.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
> I will be selling my dash.

Empty threat, we've heard it before.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
We've heard it before and the dash price is $25 now. I suspect those people saying this- the smart ones sold at much better prices than this.

This is an eye opener for me. It is hard to admit being wrong for this long, but it appears I likely was.

At least you'll get a few cents more each cycle with your vote payoff. It won't make your life any less miserable but you can say you helped destroy Dash, so that is something
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
Can you example how the security model is "destroyed"?

I think you deeply misunderstood this proposal as well.

As I can't print money, (and wouldn't want to if I could), in DCG we are letting go of a significant amount of people. What I'm trying to do here is follow the masternode network's wishes. Does the network want to fire more people to the point that DCG can not function? Maybe that's what the masternodes want to do, and that's fine, but MNOs get to choose, not me.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
you are so disingenuous.

"follow the MN network wishes" to support you, by paying them off.

You act as if it is forgone conclusion the funding could come from the miners. There are many formulations that you could have offered to prop up your failing organization. You did not.

You chose the one combo that would incentivize yes votes. THIS IS A FUCKING SCAM.

You are a liar and fraud.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Ryan set the precedent that mining isn't valuable. We now have people parroting these lines.

It is not acceptable

Will this proposal destroy the network exactly 14 days from now. No. It is slightly parabolic. Will it weaken the security model, yes. Will the moron MNOs who vote yes for this do it again, when this fails and dash is again in a "crisis". Yes, almost certainly. Then Dash conveniently goes full POS and the powers that be win.

Mining provides security by being expensive. Making it less expensive makes it less secure.

This reality is being cloaked by saying oh well in return for weakening the network you get this shiny new stuff. The shiny new stuff is meaningless without the security.

You are extorting the network. Saying you must weaken the network or dcg cannot function.

DCG cannot function... too bad. Wait until price goes up then. Or get rid of some unnecessary functions.

It is DCGs job to drive demand through development. Has DCG been successful in this? No, obviously not. Or we wouldn't have this conversation where you are asking MNOs to vote to pay themselves more and oh, happy coincidence, DCG also gets more too.

This is a sickness. I don't know who you surround yourself with that you think any of this is acceptable. Rewarding non-success does not beget success. Stealing from honest network participants does not beget success. Weakening the main value proposition of Dash (permissionless, trustless money) does not beget sucess.

You claim to not be able to print yourself money (which is hilarious because you literally do every block reward) but it is not enough money and instead of asking the network for more you are cloaking this very straightforward request by targeting the voiceless network participants. It is so dishonest. Again, the only way you can't see this is by surrounding yourself with low IQ and low character people.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
No way.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
GOD BLESS
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
This proposal is a disaster.

For those of us who understand why Dash is interesting- we don't want censorship. We don't want an insecure network.

None of the cool features you promise matter without strong POW.

You have no leg to stand on to offer this proposal. DCG has failed up until now massively. Face the consequences.

MNOs are not the end user of Dash. We are offering a proposal to steal from miners to fund MNOs. It is so wrong.

Pathetic. Gross.

So disappointing.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
You are obviously incapable of correctly understanding this proposal.
We just take from the miners, to give more to us MNO who deserve it more, its gonna make it more fair, easy as that.
And business as usual btw.
The miners can never win this war, you will see.

Vote YES guys and push this baby through nomatterwhat !!!!
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
no i understand this plently clear.

We are rewarding failed proposal owners by doubling the treasury.

And what does the network get in return?

Weakened security.

Instead of producing demand to raise price, the MNOs are resorting to voting themselves a bigger paycheck.

This is totally unacceptable.

If it passes, I wish all you who vote yes nothing but the worst as you will have set the pathway for the destruction of something beautiful.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Obviously you are a miner secretly, i am able to read between your lines.
With all due respect, you have no brains and are simply not intteligent enough to understand this proposal.
And its by far the best proposal that has come up since a long time now.

After this proposal gets easily approved by on overwhelming landslide, i will laugh in your face.
Then you will know the MNO are more powerful than the evil, greedy miners!
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
I am not a miner.

I understand the value of POW.

You will laugh while turning dash, the strongest crypto in existence, into a compliance coin.

This proposal is so absolutely disrespectful.
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
The only network participants that have upheld their bargain have been the miners.

The MNOs have voted so so poorly.

The dash funded organizations have produced a block freeze, half-decade long delays, and a near total loss in investor confidence. All enabled by the MNOs.

What have the Miners done? Invested in the security of the network.

When the devs aren't pushing code that breaks the network, one could argue dash is one of the strongest, if not *the* strongest network in the world.

Apparently that is not good enough.

The miners should be punished.

This is such an disingenuous money grab!

The problem is not with the miners.

The problem is DCG and the other funded organizations want $$$

This is so corrupt!

This is a thinly veiled money grab.

Put another proposal to take money from the MNOs to fund the treasury. Have some fucking honor.
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
*THE BAD NEWS*
We've been unable to drive demand for Dash
*THE GOOD NEWS*
We can vote ourselves rich

HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?!

From the highs to now, I've never regretted holding Dash. I am now so ashamed.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
You should really be ashamed of yourself !!
Reply
-3 points,7 months ago
At least I have my principles. What do you have? You scared piece of shit.
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
You should apology to me on your knees!
Or else i'm gonna ask Rango to disable your dashwhale account, how do you like that?

I have 2,000 Dash and you have not even 1,000 Dash
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
you are a cheap whore. Ask Daddy Sam for a bigger payoff. Why do you settle for such a small pay off and allow him to grow the treasury. Maybe you can take more, pay yourself more. You are worth it baby
Reply