Proposal “core-team-legal-april“ (Completed)Back

Title:Core Team Legal (April)
Owner:glennaustin
One-time payment: 610 DASH (101181 USD)
Completed payments: 1 totaling in 610 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2019-03-18 / 2019-04-16 (added on 2019-03-09)
Final voting deadline: in passed
Votes: 27 Yes / 0 No / 0 Abstain
External information: app.dashnexus.org/proposals/db4b0f17-835e-4078-883f-2391e0810525/overview

Proposal description

Dash Core Group April 1st Funding Proposals
DCG is submitting 2 funding proposals for the April 1st budget cycle:
1) DCG Compensation: $249,240
2) DCG Legal: $49,000

This Proposal
This proposal funds Dash Core Group’s planned legal expenses. DCG has been pursuing a number of legal initiatives utilizing existing legal budget funding for the benefit of the Dash network. In the immediate future we will require additional funding to complete these projects. Current projects include:

1) Funding Dash Core Group’s regular course of business legal expenses for integration contracts, vendor agreements, non-disclosure agreements, and other general company legal needs
2) Seeking a no-action letter from the SEC (in progress), confirming that Dash is not a security.  The bulk of expenses have already been incurred but additional expenses may be necessary to complete the process
3) Formation of a “Dash Ventures” investment vehicle capable of generating returns and distributing gains to the masternode network. The complexity of forming this entity required adding domain-specific expertise which was not anticipated at the project outset. The work is now in final stages; the cost of the creation of the legal entity will soon be submitted to the Dash network as a separate funding proposal
4) Fees related to a tax accountant to assist in optimizing and filing required federal and state taxes
5) Directors and Officers insurance. Our current insurance policy expires on June 30, 2019 and DCG will look to enter into a new contract providing us with coverage commencing on July 1st, 2019. We project these costs will be comparable to the previous contract.
6) Privatesend initiative. A number of regulators and jurisdictions have expressed concern with Dash’s ability to provide users with enhanced privacy measures. Dash Core Group believes the ability to provide its users with privacy is a fundamental feature of the Dash network. That said, the technology underpinning privatesend is indistinguishable, at the protocol level, between Dash and Bitcoin. DCG is in the process of undertaking an exercise and accompanying legal argument to demonstrate that PrivateSend transactions are analogous on the Dash and Bitcoin networks and the only differentiation between these transactions on the two networks is the cost and effort in providing the mixing service. This will allow Dash network to respond to a number of regulatory bodies that have expressed concern including JFSA, NYSDFS and other legal authorities, as well as exchanges, payment processors, or other entities that may be concerned with regulatory implications of the PrivateSend feature.

As mentioned in previous legal budget proposals, determining the exact costs for legal projects at the outset is impossible, and determining a likely range for many items is highly variable.  This means we can’t assign a specific price-tag against any of the initiatives we are undertaking. We tend to request a conservative figure and may request a supplement if it becomes necessary. We also apply any unused budget toward other legal expenses.

We last funded the legal budget on September 1st 2018.  That budget is currently being used to support our run-rate including expenses for day-to-day legal work such as drawing up and reviewing vendor agreements and partner integrations, creating one-off legal opinions to ensure DCG is in compliance with rules and regulations, etc. It is also supporting ongoing costs associated with the projects listed above.

If you have any questions, please direct them to @RyanTaylor here to ensure we are notified of your request.

Requested funding is as follows for the April 1st budget cycle:
· 605 Dash for legal expenses ($49,000 USD @ $80.4 per Dash)
·    5 Dash proposal reimbursement
Total: 610 Dash

Note: Any unused budget will be applied toward other legal expenses.

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
0 points,1 month ago
What was the original motive for getting the No Action Letter? Considering Dash is already listed on Bittrex, Kraken and Poloniex in the US what were the goals of getting the No Action Letter? How does it benefit Dash and in DCG views what do you perceive as the risks pursuing attaining this?
Reply
0 points,1 month ago
On behalf of the Dash Core Group Business Development Team, please see the following response:

The original motive(s) for us to proactively reach out to the SEC to attain a No Action Letter were to help remove any impediments to mass adoption. A security token is subject to the same regulations as an investment which would harm our ultimate goal of being used as a form of payment. Additional benefits include:
o Quicker compliance reviews as exchange compliance teams would not need to go through the sometimes lengthy process of assessing whether we are a security
o Some of the larger exchanges are rightfully cautious about making these decisions, and thus a No Action Letter would remove uncertainty, leading to more positive responses from the larger exchanges.
o As regulations are put in place globally as well, a No Action Letter from the SEC puts us in a good position.

There is no risk in pursuing the No Action Letter proactively, as regulation will come to the crypto world sooner or later, and we will undoubtedly be going through this process then if we did not do it now. The result would unlikely change in either approach.
Reply
0 points,2 months ago
We gotten use to 3100 per month, now again+ 600 this really eating into some other solid projects !

Question
Should Proposal owner assume that this is will be the trend moving forward coming months ? I am asking because I am pretty sure some proposal owners did not take this into account.
Reply