Proposal “coreteamcomp0818“ (Completed)Back

Title:Core Team Compensation (August)
Owner:glennaustin
One-time payment: 2453 DASH (499806 USD)
Completed payments: 1 totaling in 2453 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2018-07-18 / 2018-08-17 (added on 2018-07-08)
Votes: 1003 Yes / 106 No / 0 Abstain

Proposal description

This proposal is cross-posted from: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-core-team-compensation-august.39328/

Background

We expect proposing a funding request related to compensation to the Dash network every month for the foreseeable future until DCG has a buffer in place equal to 2-3 months of compensation expense.

The team has 69 paid team members, and we have 3 critical open positions that will further expand this over the coming several months to ~72. The current run-rate is ~$445,000 monthly. This is an average of ~$6,500 / month / contributor.

As of end of June, the breakdown of the number of staff we have working in each department is as follows:
- Marketing / International Outreach - 11 staff - plans to expand to 12
- Development - 29 staff - plans to expand to 33
- Project Management - 4 staff - plans to expand to 5
- Infrastructure - 2 staff - no further expansion planned
- Support - 1 staff - no further expansion planned
- Quality Assurance - 4 staff - no further expansion planned
- Leadership and Admin - 9 staff - plans to expand to 10
- Strategy - 4 staff - no further expansion planned
- Human Resources - 1 staff - no further expansion planned
- Business Development - 4 staff - no further expansion planned

These numbers do not include an additional 11 freelancers that are also issued payments and/or stipends for work performed.

Last month we requested $600,000 and due to the fluctuation of Dash received only ~$475,000. We expect to be more exposed to currency fluctuation risk than in the past since we are now submitting our proposals at the beginning of the budget cycle (instead of the middle or latter half of a budget cycle) to provide the rest of the community earlier visibility into our funding requests. This month we are requesting $600,000 again. As previously communicated, the need for this specific amount is three-fold:

1) Our current run-rate including benefits is ~ $445,000 monthly.

2) One-time deposits to initiate conversion of international subcontractors to full-time status. The international professional employer organization (PEO) requires a first month and last month deposit of employee’s salary and benefits to initiate the conversion. We are asking for $80,000 to onboard the first handful of employees. This will provide the following professional management services to Dash core employees outside of the U.S.: employee benefits, payroll and workers' compensation, recruiting, risk/safety management, and training & development. We wanted to onboard the first handful of employees in July, but the sharp decrease in the price of Dash in June effectively eliminated the deposit requested for this purpose.

3) To rebuild a buffer in the Core Team Compensation budget to account for potential Dash volatility. This is the second month where we have requested additional Dash to rebuild the buffer. Similarly to our budget for the PEO, the buffer request from last month was completely eliminated by a sharp decrease in the price of Dash during the month of June. The current buffer requested is in the amount of $75,000.

What does this proposal fund?
This proposal funds Dash Core Group's ongoing compensation costs - including all developers, administrative, and support staff - at market rates for base pay, including some benefits which we are now beginning to roll out as certain contractors are converted to employee status. By extending employment and benefits to our key contributors, we aim to improve the sustainability of working for the Dash Core Group by providing compensation and benefits commensurate with the market. Providing these benefits greatly improves retention and provides a more stable workforce to the network.

The run-rate has increased in the past few months and we expect it to increase further due to a number of factors including:

a) Extending benefits to staff that are transitioning from contractors to permanent employees of Dash Core Group Inc. We temporarily ceased converting contractors to employees due to the recent decreases in the price of Dash.

b) Increase in the total number of employees/subcontractors as open positions are filled. Our rate of growth has slowed significantly recently as we seek to contain the expansion of our fixed costs. We currently have 7 open positions for DCG, however, as aforementioned,we have decided to only fill 3 critical positions in the near future. We will consider reopening our hiring plans if 2 conditions are met: 1) A fiat buffer at least equal to 1 month of expenses is present and 2) The price increases over the $300 / Dash level.

c) Targeted salary increases for employees and subcontractors to align with market rates including adjustments to account for blockchain experience (temporarily on hold).

d) New administrative deposits required by our global employment, payroll, and benefits provider for servicing employees (temporarily on hold due to lack of one-time transition funding).

If you have any questions, please direct them to @glennaustin in this Dash Forum post to ensure we are notified of your request.

Requested funding is as follows for the August 2nd budget cycle:
· 2,447.88 Dash for core team compensation ($600,000 USD @ $245.11 per Dash)
· 5.00 Dash proposal reimbursement
Total: 2,452.88 Dash

Note: Should any funding remain, we will apply it toward future compensation expenses.

Please note that as part of security improvements to our financial operations, we have changed the wallet address for Core Team Compensation. The new wallet address is: XuLHt4TN6CinfMM2zHfy7Rsb4terC1MRX5

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
0 points,1 month ago
I'm inclined to oppose this proposal due to the fact that MNOs bear the risk of sunk costs as opposed to Core. It is true that almost all proposals require MNOs to absorb the risk, but in my view that is suboptimal.
We keep paying CDG to produce the Evolution code upgrade and then we discover that they are doing all sorts of other things that may distract them from achieving that goal. I actually like some of the other things Core is doing, but they should submit separate proposals for separate functions if maximum accountability is to be achieved.
Reply
2 points,1 month ago
Please stop making just a single proposal for compensation. MNOs need to be able to vote on DCG's direction. Of course I want people who work for DCG to be compensated. But DCG has grown irresponsibly fast and currently my only way to signal that DCG is too big is to vote no.
Reply
0 points,1 month ago
I'm searching through all comments but I can't find the answer - why is DCG hiring more people with the budget being so scarce? Honest question, not criticism; it does make sense if it brings the best value per buck.

Also, while we all believe in Dash as a currency, are there efforts (and which) inside DCG to alleviate price swings and assure continued liquidity of DCG? This would fall under CFO responsibilities, but I would expect DCG to also employ a professional trader who could hedge some of the funds. For example, dedicating some money to shorting funds requested in proposals during bear trend would completely eliminate the need for buffers in proposals. Earnings (or losses) from short would offset any difference in price no matter how early DCG submits proposals. Leveraged it could be as little as 1/100 or 1/50 of proposal amount (obviously I'm not proposing to go full margin to cushion against volatility a bit).
Reply
0 points,1 month ago
Protections against volatility produce asymmetric downside risk. For example, there is zero risk in shorting USD Tether. Value will never go over one dollar, so you can just keep shorting it until it breaks. To a lesser degree, volatility buffers create the same sort of perverse incentives.
Reply
1 point,1 month ago
Core is expanding while the price falls? I'm voting no. Sorry, seems like centralization (Core) is a failure and should be looked at eliminating or major reduction/restructuring.
Reply
4 points,2 months ago
Yes to core. I would like to see a run down as to where and what marketing, marketing funds go to.
Reply
4 points,2 months ago
Why did core post 2 core proposals then wait before posting the new "Core Tax" proposal? Once you had posted your 2 proposals many of the small community projects like Venezuela projects saw some funds left in the budget and put their proposal in. Then, without any notice, core drops the Core TAX proposal. Why didn't core give notice you were going to to that. You do realise that you have just wiped out essential funds from small Venezuela projects?

Very poor play by Core. Very poor play indeed, causing unnecessary damage to small community projects. If they were given notice they could have saved their 5 DASH if they saw you were going to take all the budget like this.

I am not happy with how core has handled the submission of their proposals this month. Damaging our work again on the community projects. Either this was done deliberately to cause damage or it was done due to inept management. Either way it is out of order and it has been noted.
Reply
5 points,2 months ago
11 staff in Marketing? I made a comment previously that Core is expanding into marketing in the Waschman proposal and I got cut down by a core members saying that it is minimal. 11 Staff expanding to 12 is not minimal - that is a sizeable marketing team. Could you provide a list of results achieved from the core marketing team so that we can see what 11 people are achieving for promoting DASH? What involvement does the core marketing team have with Waschman? What type of marketing are you doing? Is this the promotion of DASH as a crypotcurrency or is it marketing of another nature.

Core competency is software development I'm not so sure building the core marketing department is such a good idea. I feel we should have a separately funded DAO for marketing and find specialists in the area with a proven track record in Marketing.

Could you give your reasons why you think DASH is falling down the ranking on coinmarketap month on month. We have fallen from 4th to 14th position and it seems we are continuing to fall. We have been overtaken by lesser coins such as Monero which offers a fraction of the features we offer even though we also offer a more flexible form of privacy than they do. And IOTA and Cardano which are backed by a tech team and a whitepaper. DASH meanwhile is undertaking work in places like Venezuela to establish a stable currency. But even with these projects we are slipping down the coinmarketcap charts each month and are now on a par with Etherium Classic. Can you demonstrate how your marketing efforts with 11 people is having its effect? Since DASH treasury has sponsored so many top class real world projects such as DASH HELP Venezuela etc how is it that we are continuing to fall in rankings? I don't even think that IOTA or Monero have their own marketing departments so I would have thought with us having both a PR company and Marketing team of 11 people would could have done a better job that these other coins?

Also could you please state the connection Core Marketing has with Waschman PR and what your involvement is with the in terms of co-coordinating their PR activities.
Reply
3 points,2 months ago
I agree that there may be too much scope creep under the DCG umbrella, and that some things, such as marketing and bizdev ought to be handled under a separate DAO and with their own proposals.
The MNOs should be able to replace separate components as necessary. It is unlikely we would ever fire our devs, so ineffective marketing groups/strategies should not be shielded by being under the same budget as the devs.
Reply
1 point,2 months ago
I agree that having a separate sub-DAO or "department" (because those aren't really DAOs or the DAO, technically) would be an interesting and maybe more favorable way to structure the operations fulfilled by DCG, but now is hardly the time to begin restructuring our primary development contractors, let alone trying to micro-manage their internal operations.

I also agree that we should have discussions about these sorts of things, but waiting until they're needing funding on their proposal page is probably not the place to propose these sorts of major changes to how the DAO operates either. We have a plethora of discussion platforms to facilitate those discussions, and Nexus may even be an ideal place for that, but continually these idealistic notions are brought up at these critical junctures and then go unspoken the rest of the time and fizzle out.

So instead of making drastic changes this month, why don't we all--as MNOs--commit to hashing these things out on some agreed-upon platform when time is not of the essence, because I genuinely do want us all to arrive at the best possible solutions to these widely identified problems.
Reply
0 points,1 month ago
If now is not the time to restructure, when would be a good time?
Reply
1 point,2 months ago
Thread opened:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dcg-and-non-core-functions.39457/#post-192446
Reply
0 points,2 months ago
You make a good point that this is not the place to be proposing drastic changes. I would participate in a discussion on the dash.org forums.
Since we're here now anyway I'd like to make a few counterpoints.

First is that it will never be a good time to have these discussions. When the price is low, maybe we're all a bit stressed, trying to remain patient, and hesitant to lose any momentum.

However, when the price is high, everybody's happy, nobody wants to rock the boat, nor lose any momentum, and we also do a lot more spraying and praying, and we can afford it, everyone is fat and happy.

But when the price is low is when we should be taking a hard look at what we're doing and if we are being as efficient as we can, while our minds are sharpened by the hunger.

Just my opinion on the psychology of the situation, for what it's worth. Two duffs, likely.

I would further argue that this moment is time is perfect for us to address it. Ryan and has served us well by identifying, attracting, and onboarding top talent to the C-suite. Now that Ryan has brought on a wonderful CFO, CMO, and CTO, it is only now possible for them to be structured as an independent Dash Marketing Group, a Dash BizDev Group, etc. Unshielded and wholly accountable to the MNOs, along with the reponsiveness and reasonable transparency we need to develop trust in their abilities. Perhaps the idea is pushed too far with a Dash Financial Group.

But I think it's true that the DCG ought to remain focused on the tech.

I meant to go on but I'll just say I'm in 100% agreement with what DeepBlue said in his reply.
Reply
0 points,2 months ago
I agree that no one wants to have these sorts of discussions and that implementing them will be an unpleasant process, but I think for the health of the project and its future and the staff and community members that contributed to it, any sort of changes of this magnitude have to be done gradually and with great care. Like I've said before, you don't rip pieces out of a complex machine while it's in operation and expect its performance to improve. Non-critical processes have to wind down to maintain a seamless transition.

We've had all sorts of ideas and opinions come up the last few months--many of which I'm actually in favor--but there are still many distinct camps within the DAO with different goals and values and sticking points. That dialectic will have to be synthesized, and while we can provoke a vote with the protocol, we have to consider the long-term implications of doing so. I feel that many suggestions are made with the wrong motivations based on the wrong algorithms with a very short-sighted view toward addressing an immediate problem in a reactionary way. These things require careful, dispassionate planning.
Reply
4 points,2 months ago
I have asked many questions about these core proposals and to date I have never received a reply. Why is that?

I do not think the Marketing, and Business Dev, etc should be grouped in with Software Dev. They should be separated into separate funding requests so that we can independently vote on them based on their performance. Because no information regarding my questions are forthcoming I'm now raising this for the attention of other MNOs . We cannot fulfil our role as MNOs without this information.

From the limited information I have on the results of Core Marketing I would say that the core marketing is not that successful based on the fact that DASH has fallen from 4 th position to 14th position and we are still falling against other lesser coins such as monero and Cardano. I think an independently funded sub DAO for marketing and PR would work better for the DASH network. If core are to keep their marketing then it should complete against other marketing proposals and we can select the best proposal based on ideas and potential results.

I have asked many questions of core and I invite all MNOS to review all past core proposals in the last few months and you will see that core has not once answered any of my questions. The one exception was from Fernando for his marketing proposal where Fernando did respond. All other core funding proposals after this I've received no answer to my questions for more information so that I could provide feedback or assess the proposal to see if it was value for money.

I think the core software development team are doing a fantastic job since we can see this from the software itself. Their salaries for certain should be funded. The rest however are not related to software development and as @Unstoppable points out these other salaries such as core marketing, core PR, core business Dev etc that provide us with very little information on performance are being shielded and getting their funding included with the core software funding requests. I feel this has to stop. Funding for Core Marketing, Core business, Core PR etc should be separated from funding for core Devs, so that we have a fair chance to comment on them and if necessary replace them. But by grouping them altogether like this they could be shielding potentially under performing groups in core. We need to weed out all inefficiencies if DASH is to be successful. I feel we would get considerably better service in Marketing if it was a separate sub DAO because we could grill them and also make contributions. We would also GET DETAILED INFORMATION instead of being stonewalled when we ask questions about the funding. That is the only way DASH is going to start climbing back up the charts where we rightly belong. We should be in 1st position. We are better than bitcoin, Ripple, Bitcoin cash so what why are we sinking down to 14th position.

In my opinion the reason DASH moved up to 4th was down to the efforts of Amanda B. Johnson that was regularly providing information for investors. That was great PR for DASH and since the DASH product is such an easy sell it just requires quality PR and Marketing to send us to the top. If we are falling in Market Cap month on month that suggests that the Marketing and PR for DASH is not getting the results we deserve. If we keep group funding all these core salaries we are not going to be able to weed out the poor performing divisions in core. My opinion is that core should be software development and software strategy only. Business dev, Marketing, PR should be separate from core and take that responsibility away from the devs so they can focus on what they do best.
Reply
1 point,2 months ago
"Because no information regarding my questions are forthcoming I'm now raising this for the attention of other MNOs . We cannot fulfil our role as MNOs without this information."

If all MNO's paid attention to half the degree that you did, this would all be a non-issue.
Reply
1 point,2 months ago
@craigmason thank you for the vote of support. I do feel I'm alone in my comments in the core proposals and it seems I'm missing something somewhere. It seems core is expecting MNOs to fulfill our role as MNOs for all other proposals *except* for core proposals where I am assuming they think we should trust their decisions without question, debate or feedback on proposals such as core salaries. Other MNOs protect core asking what is my "beef" with core. For the record I have no "beef" with core. I admire and respect what core have done and are doing. However there is no question there are areas that can be improved Improvements come from openness transparency and debate. Other MNOs say we can't "rip apart a finely tuned evolutionary development". Well for the record there I'm not trying to "rip it out" I'm trying to make it better by more clearly defining the roles for core marketing and PR and making sure we understand what those roles are and replace roles that are not working so well in a time frame that is not going to cause damage. It seems people think that if I question core proposals to get information or to make criticisms this is perceived as unhelpful, yet if I do this in any other proposal it is seen as helpful. What is it called when you expect one thing for others and not for yourself? That's a bit like the EU making everyone in Europe paying high taxes and yet they exclude themselves and pay absolute minimal to no tax. Its good enough for other proposals but not good enough for core proposals. How can that be right? Then there are other arguments as they are "too busy" to reply. Maybe, but they are not too busy to ask for the money. Core proposals should and must be treated with the same standards as any other proposal otherwise we are leaving ourselves open to greater problems down the line.

I had Fernando and Ryan Taylor say to me that their intentions for funding were made well in advanced. Well that may be true (or not true) I don't know because I didn't hear that they were going to post 3 proposals this month and neither did all the other small proposal owners. One MNO gave me a link with the core's intentions I read it but still could not see where they were going to post 3 proposals this month, or the exact timings of those proposals. I put forward a suggestion on how this could be prevented in the future however nobody commented on that constructive suggestion. The fact is these small projects did not know core would post that 3rd proposal this month so whatever means of informing the community core used was not effective.

Now that the DASH HELP got hit they are vulnerable due to lack of funding. However it is possible that some funds will get freed up from past proposals, provided core does not put in another proposal to take that money as well.

What I think would be a terrible blow to the DASH network would be to have core attempt to make DASH HELP part of core and control their activities - I hope this attempt to control DASH HELP does not happen due to the lack of funding they are going through and the burn out they had this month from lack of funds in the treasury. The right way would be for core to pay for the additional services they need from DASH HELP e.g. marketing information, problems and bugs and issues people are having, just in the same way they would pay for any other external service e.g PR from Wachsman or Ogilvy and Matthey. The original agreement was they would provide information for free to core for 3 months, after that core could pay for that market intelligence. This could be a way for DASH HELP to be self funding. I think the very reason DASH HELP has done so well is because they are independently managed from core. They have there finger on the pulse and they know what is happening and how best to manage the support centre. The support centre is now global. They have re branded from DASH HELP Venezuela to DASH HELP. They will be the support centre for the world. For the record I support core team and what they have done and what they continue to do for us but that does not mean things could not be better. Before I raised questions about the Wachsman PR I think everyone thought that the PR was to boost DASH's profile, when in fact is it more to take away day to day PR issues from core and to deal with crisis and day to day activities. Wachsman is clearly not working for the network to boost DASH's profile as I think everyone thought it was. That has made clear we need a different PR and marketing group to do that. But that only became apparent after a heated debate based on questions that I raised. So was that a bad thing ? Whether it be for Salaries, premises or taxes we need to question and challenge and find out more. Without this we are simply living to double standards and we are not fulfilling our role as MNOs.

We need to stop protecting and coming up with reasons not to do our role as MNOs here. This is a proposal, just the same as any other proposal. I I have a "beef" it is not with core, it is with other MNOs that are not fulfilling their part. They are just voting in and giving positive comments to core and letting proposals like this sale through without reasonable debate, feedback or constructive criticism.
Reply
1 point,2 months ago
Just pointing out that I did reply to you last month.
Reply
1 point,2 months ago
I am referring to the proposal owners. They are not giving answers to my questions on the proposal.
Reply
0 points,2 months ago
8 are in international outreach. These are contributors in local countries that spend time on building grassroots support. These contributors are long-standing members of the community and are frequently not full-time. The reason they are listed is because they do get some compensation (typically stipends) from the network for their efforts.
Reply
3 points,2 months ago
Questions asked but unanswered:
1. What connection DASH Core Marketing have with Wachsman PR.
2. List of achievements from marketing?
3. What is core marketing response as to why we have fallen from 4th position to 14th position compared to lesser coins such as lightcoin, bitcoin cash, Cardano et al, Neo, IOTA that don't have a governance, don't have privacy, don't have community projects, don't have evolution equivalent, don't have treasury to fund projects and development, don't have the speed Dash offers, don't have two tier network, don't have fees as low as DASH, Don't have a marketing department, don't have 29 developers, don't have 76 people working in core etc yet DASH keeps falling in ranking compared to them?
4. What exactly are core marketing doing and what are their responsibilities?

These questions were posted in my original question above and are still unanswered by the proposal owner.
Reply
5 points,2 months ago
You better scrap the idea of expanding staff that makes no sense with our current budget and the need for a buffer.
Reply
0 points,2 months ago
Hiring and project and integration freezes are all mentioned in the Bi-Weekly communiques: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/whats-going-on-at-dash.35432/page-4#post-192327
Reply
2 points,2 months ago
I've looked at that URL it is not at all obvious where it mentions 3 proposals by core in this month. Someone can look at that page and not even see any mention of fund requests. Could you show me the section where it states they will post 3 proposals this month. I looked but could not see it.

Secondly not everyone reads the forums. I rarely use the forums due to time constraints. I've posted only one forum posting in the last few months I also do not use Discord - both due to time constraints.

The information regarding core intention when posting more than 2 requests should be posted in all proposals themselves clearly at the top of each proposal so we don't have to root around trying to find the information.

Core posted 2 proposals then left several days without posting anything. This then led other proposal owners to think core had finished posting their proposals and saw there were still some funds in the budget. The proposal owners then posted their projects thinking they had a chance for the remaining funds. Then core posted again
another proposal which is now going to result in these proposal owners losing their 5 DASH proposal fee. This is not just happening once or twice this is a repeated action by core.

This issue could be completely prevented by Core clearly and prominently posting in each of their proposals the intention to post 3 funding requests (or however many) at the very top of each proposal. Even if the actual value could not be determined the very fact they state that there is another core proposal going to be posted in a few days would be enough for small proposal owners to wait before posting their proposal.

Something like this right at the top of each of their proposals:

Something like this at the top of each of your proposals:

e.g. Core Proposal 1 of 3 for this month's funding: CORE Salaries: DASH 2453 (posted)
Core Proposal 2 of 3 for this month's funding: CORE Premises: DASH: 123 (posted)
Core Proposal 3 of 3 for this month funding: CORE TAX: DASH: Unknown amount. Will be posting in a few days time.


I spoke with the Venezuela proposal leaders and they did not have the first clue core was going to post a 3rd proposal. This in effect has wiped out their 5 DASH funds. Money they desperately need.

This is a repeating issue with core posting their proposals and it is causing real damage to small proposal owners. It also seems that core don't really consider the damage. They are stating we gave notice. However if that notice is not being seeing because it is being posted in places where people are not aware of it then what is the point. Even if it is posted in a place that people are aware of it the example URL you gave above it is still not *immediately* visible, at least I could not see it mentioned myself even with the URL. There are so many other related comments in amongst everything it is too easy to miss this critical information.
Reply
0 points,2 months ago
Thread opened:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dcg-and-non-core-functions.39457/#post-192446
Reply
0 points,2 months ago
I specifically referenced hiring freezes, and then you went on a tangent about proposals. Only so much blame can be laid at the feet of Core for you not taking the time to do your due diligence for the job you're being paid to do. Their efforts toward communication, transparency, and forewarning about budget requests have all improved significantly after MNO requests. Clearly more needs to be done to ensure that MNOs are making informed decisions--something which I hope Dash Nexus will do to help close that gap--but there have been several times this cycle when the information you were requesting was already available and known to the community. Your predilections for not using any other platform but DC are not the responsibility of Core or any other community member but you. We should definitely be working toward making important information more accessible, but if you're going to make all these lengthy posts and demands of other people who have jobs to do besides answering your beck and call, you're going to have to start meeting people halfway.

Core's other two proposals were posted in a timely fashion and this one only less so. I spend a great deal of time every month forewarning proposal owners in pre-proposal about possible budget constraints and pitfalls, and Core's budget plans are a primary point of reference for those. One of the troubles is that proposal owners don't always take the time to post pre-proposals, and thus I don't have the opportunity to offer timing suggestions, and secondly, many of those that do often wait several months after posting their pre-proposal to randomly post a full proposal without fully understanding the concerns that change from month to month. Another common problem is that DC doesn't list the budget as allocated until a proposal is in "passing" stage, so even though Core's proposals were very close to passing, DC registers this as not passing at all, and so proposal owners think there's still 3000+ Dash left in the budget, and while that's technically the case, pragmatically it's not.

There are a lot of problems here that have more to do with your lack of effort relative to requests for labor than the failures of Core or other community members. Suggestions to improve efficiency and efficacy are helpful, but pointing to logistic problems as errors or failures on the part of others are not.
Reply
1 point,2 months ago
This is an obvious yes. Still trusting Ryan to pace things in the current environment.
Reply
-8 points,2 months ago
How irresponsible was DCG's management for not having built a buffer before, especially when it has $445,000 of monthly expenses. If they didn't have their heads up their asses and paid attention to what was going on they wouldn't have allowed the masternodes to spend $2 million on Ben Swann and so many other useless projects, and would have built a buffer instead.

Glenn, if you're going to request funds only until you have 2-3 months of expenses then you have learned nothing from this situation. This number should be *very clearly and very obviously* no less than 12, preferably 18 months.
Reply
11 points,2 months ago
If we were to build a buffer that large, the tax implications would be extensive. This would create a large expense with no benefit to the network. There are much better uses for that cash that could help the network grow (which would help expand the budget in future periods). It is because of the budget available to the community that we see grass-roots efforts in locations around the world gaining traction. Many of these efforts would go unfunded if the budget were directed at huge core reserves and associated taxes.

We also feel that pre-funding the core team to the extent you suggest is both unnecessary and counter to the intent of the budget system. As the budget system is the primary governance mechanism, such a large buffer would prevent the masternodes from discontinuing core team operations through future funding allocations, and thus would have less control over core.

Lastly, any size buffer does not eliminate the impact of a low price. If the price of Dash is low and stays low, no matter how large a buffer is, it will erode and disappear. We therefore need to operate within the bounds of a sustainable expense run-rate. Buffers will not prevent that from being the case. We therefore aim to have enough buffer against short-term price fluctuation risk.
Reply
-7 points,2 months ago
What exactly is the problem in paying taxes? Would you rather risk bankrupting the company you manage or not being able to pay the employees you’re responsible for, instead of paying 15%, 30% corporate tax?

No, there is no better use for the Dash budget than paying the salaries of our programmers, project managers and everyone else that work for us.

Masternodes can still control DCG through freaking simple voting (should we fire Ryan Taylor and get an experienced CEO?). If we need to defund DCG in order to control it, then what was that whole thing about the New Zealand trust about? We clearly don’t need to control it though immediate “future funding allocation”, and even if we did we can cut funds after 12 months, not after 2.

Don’t strawman my argument. If price declines and stay down, a 12 month buffer is objectively better than a 2 month one. You are being irresponsible by managing a company in a way that it can only survive extreme adversity for 2 months and you should know better.
Reply
1 point,2 months ago
This is an obviously efficient tax strategy that maximizes the value of the treasury budget while simultaneously protecting Core's critical operations. It's also a new strategy implemented by the new CFO rather than something cobbled together by a CEO that's hitherto had to wear all the other C-Level hats. If the market wasn't down, this would be a non-issue, and you would continue to be a relative recluse who sits back, collects their rewards, and only occasionally shows up to be rude to proposal owners every few months as you've always been. That's the extent of your expertise and contributions to the network.

The point of not building up a year's worth of funding from a control standpoint--apart from tax considerations--is that it would allow Core's operations to become more inscrutable with less oversight. It's not conducive to the vision most of us have for the network. It's not fiscally responsible. There's literally no reason to adopt your proposed "solutions." This is not "extreme adversity." Dash is not in any danger of being unfunded.
Reply
5 points,2 months ago
re: ' ... they wouldn't have allowed the masternodes ... ' Allowed? You've failed to grasp how decentralisation works - and it's just laughable that your silly authoritarian mindset prevents you from seeing the value Ben Swann provided by associating with Dash.
Reply
-12 points,2 months ago
Yes, allowed you moron. Do you need a dictionary? If they had put a proposal to build a buffer it would have passed instead of Ben Swann.
Reply
2 points,2 months ago
Fellow MNOs, let's please not resort to ad hominems.
Reply
7 points,2 months ago
“Moron”, “idiot”, “kids”, etc. We obviously need a courageous, anonymous insulting random guy to take over Dash Core Group and apply his brilliant management skills. Please request budget funding to set up some highly efficient competitor to DCG. Or shut the fuck up and go away. Hint: XMR seems a better fit for your personality.
Reply
4 points,2 months ago
Hello dashed. Can you link to the proposal in which you requested core build a larger buffer.

https://dashvotetracker.com/past.php


We were all taken aback by the dramatic rise and fall of Dash value. People creating their own global currency has never been done before. This is uncharted waters we are sailing.
Reply
-12 points,2 months ago
I’m not managing DCG you idiot
Reply
3 points,2 months ago
Of course NOT (fortunately). Neither you should be a masternode. You can go away to other crypto.
Reply
3 points,2 months ago
Well if you would have paid attention they had a buffer and ran that down for tax purposes. Would you have prefered them to have to pay a bunch of taxes I wouldn't?

Also, a 12-month buffer seems excessive. They need some buffer yes but they also can get funding each month from the treasury. Also building such a large buffer would reduce the amount we can pay to other proposals something which i would like to avoid.
Reply
-2 points,2 months ago
We do need a 12 month buffer, even longer 2/3 year buffer . That cant be done overnight now but it can be done over a longer period of time by requesting an additional 10% in each funding proposal request.
Reply
0 points,2 months ago
So we could place a proposal to preserve the remaining Dash from the treasury (now burned) to build up a buffer?
Reply
-7 points,2 months ago
Corporate tax is 30%. Yes, I obviously much prefer paying taxes than risk going bankrupt if Dash went to $50. Imagine you kids making business decisions in the real world.
Reply
2 points,2 months ago
When your income is in cryptocurrency, it gets taxed both ways. As an MNO operating out of the US, for example, you pay Income Tax at Fair Market Value when you receive Dash and then Capital Gains when Dash is converted to Fiat (and every stop in between if you're converting to other cryptos like BTC in between). It's a pretty hairy situation and I sincerely doubt one you've never had to navigate as a large business owner that is paid in cryptocurrency. Leave tax strategies to the professionals.
Reply
3 points,2 months ago
Hindsight is always 20/20. Core uses Dash as a currency to pay people, not fiat. While we could have hedged bets with fiat, well we didn't do that because we don't all believe in Fiat and deeply believe in Dash and what we are building. Only solution I see to prevent issues like this is that core members get a contract valued in Dash, not sure it can be done legally though :(
Reply