Proposal “coreteamcomp0918“ (Active)Back

Title:Core Team Compensation (September)
One-time payment: 2869 DASH (434361 USD)
Completed payments: no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2018-08-17 / 2018-09-16 (added on 2018-08-02)
Votes: 751 Yes / 94 No / 5 Abstain
Will be funded: Yes
Manually vote on this proposal (DashCore - Tools - Debugconsole):
gobject vote-many a8a92af0362c0d7f42d47e78cce8917d6ab55da00d29cf3fc60012ecb77b917d funding yes

Please login or create a new DashCentral account for comfortable one button voting!

Proposal description

Dash Core Group September 1st Funding Proposals
DCG is submitting 3 funding proposals for the September 1st budget cycle:
1) DCG Compensation: $600,000 (current proposal)
2) DCG Taxes: $210,000 (here)
3) DCG Legal: $125,000 (here)

This Proposal
This is a cross-posted from

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.

We currently have a hiring freeze in place.  The team has 70 paid team members, and we have 1 critical open position that will further expand this over the coming month to ~71. The current run-rate is ~$452,000 monthly, which includes benefits for a limited number of contributors and some administrative and payroll costs associated with our employment administrator. This is an average of ~$6,500 / month / contributor.

As of end of July, the breakdown of the number of staff we have working in each department is almost identical to the breakdown at the end of June and is as follows:
- Development - 30 staff
- Leadership and Admin - 10 staff
- Project Management - 4 staff
- Strategy - 4 staff
- Quality Assurance - 4 staff
- Business Development - 3 staff
- Marketing - 3 staff
- Infrastructure - 2 staff
- Support - 1 staff
- Human Resources - 1 staff
- International Outreach - 8 staff (part-time)

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 Dash 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 ~ $452,000 monthly.

2) To rebuild a buffer in the Core Team Compensation budget to account for potential Dash volatility. This is the third consecutive month we have requested additional Dash to rebuild the buffer.  Our current buffer is estimated to be ~$80,000 assuming a $210 Dash / USD price at the time of the superblock.  This entire amount will be held in fiat once the August 2nd budget payout is converted to USD.

3) 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 a second group to employee status. This will provide the following professional management services to Dash core employees outside of the U.S.: employee benefits, payroll and workers' compensation, and risk/safety management.  This is the third consecutive month we have requested funding for this, yet we haven’t been able to convert any employees given the decrease in the price of Dash during each of the last 3 budget cycles from when the proposal was posted to the ultimate payout date.

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 being rolled out as a subset of contractors are converted to employee status.

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

Requested funding is as follows for the September 1st budget cycle:
· 2,864.00 Dash for core team compensation ($600,000 USD @ $209.525 per Dash)
· 5.00 Dash proposal reimbursement
Total: 2,869.00 Dash

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

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
1 point,2 days ago
@glennaustin I would like to acknowledge that your contribution in answering questions of the community recently has been most welcomed. Thank you. I feel we are beginning to make some progress. Perhaps other MNOs could also contribute or at least support me with some up votes if you don't have the time.

One issue that has not however been addressed yet is the release of the coding activity stats for the private GIThub repositories for the development of DASH code.

These coding activity reports are used by investors as a valuable key performance indicator that DASH is being actively developed. At the moment the private repositories coding statistics are being kept private and therefore the coding activity reports are showing very low coding activity, which is not good for investor confidence!

I've requested several times in this proposal for the private repository coding activity stats for DASH development at the Github to be released so that investors can see that DASH is being actively developed with high coding activity.

Why isn't this information not being released?

You have not sent a reply to this request so far therefore to ensure you have seen it I'm posting this request again here at the very top of this proposal.

If DCG have 19 full time developers and 6 part time coders working full time I see no reason whatsoever to keep the coding activity stats private. If this data is not released however it raises some serious RED FLAGS that there could be a problem with DCG delivering on our code - code which we have been paying for a long time!

We have a right to see these coding activity stats Glenn. DCG does not own that data or in fact have the right to hide this data. We own that data since we are paying for it's development. I am requesting it is released promptly and without further delay.

By not releasing this data DCG are in effect decreasing the DASH price - which is affecting all our community projects and in fact our ability to fund the DCG projects themselves.

For your convenience here is the request:

1. identify all DASH development repositories and include cross links to all Github or other repositories in the repository descriptions so that investors can find these repositories easily without searching around.

2. Make public all coding activity stats on the private Github repositories for all past and current work. This data needs to be set to real time so we can see on a daily basis how much coding activity is taking place.

I await your response before deciding on other strategies to raise awareness about this issue. Thank you Glenn for listening!
0 points,3 days ago
Part 1 of my reply to @glennaustin can be found here: I will be posting part 2 shortly.
0 points,6 days ago
You wasted the shit out of treasury funds the last year so now you have to continue giving projects more treasury funds.
I want to encourage all MNO's to log in every month to deny all wasteful POS projects. I'd rather burn the treasury funds than continue to donate it to projects that spend it out on exchanges for all their expenses.
Tired of all the hype without any continued performance.
Is this just a bunch of whales giving Dash as welfare to their buddies?
5 points,7 days ago
@glennaustin In the DCG conference call only 2 Strategy staff where mentioned however in the above list of funding there are 4 staff. Why is there this difference?

I have received information from @quantumexplorer that there are only 19 full time development coders. There are also 6 part time development coders which means there are 5 people that are not development coders. I suggest DCG separate out the true developers from the supporting staff. This way we have a clearer indication of the amount of development staff that are actually creating code. This gives us an indication of what we should be expecting in terms of productivity.

I would like to see all part time staff separated from all full time staff in the above funding request. It is misleading to group part time staff with full time staff. We want to see where the network investment money is going exactly.

I am again making a request for all DASH repositories to be identified on Github or any other locations and for the statistical data on coding activity be made public, instead of keeping it private as it currently is. When coding statistics are kept private there are several problems.

1. Investors will see very low coding activity (as is the case now) and therefore will come to an incorrect conclusion that not much development work is taking place.

2. MNOs and community members want to see the coding activity as a key indicator of progress. At the moment we can only see very low coding activity.

I would like to inform all MNOs reading this that the DCG is accountable to the network and to the MNOs questions. This team have consistently missed deadlines for the Evolution release. It is now more than 1 year late and by the time the release the code it will be 1.5 years late. There is clearly something wrong. We need to ask questions to get to the bottom of this and to make sure our money is being well spent. I have already made several suggestions, that if implement would have significant benefits to the DASH network. These are 1. Implement a fully integrated development suite (increases productivity of coding and improves communications and quality 2. identify all repositories and make the coding activity statistics publicly available so that investors feel confident in investing in DASH (this will help to increase the DASH price).

Note the above 2 improvements could not have been made without questions being asked of core.

MNOs am I going to do this on my own? Are you going to support me. Let us start asking more questions to core and build up a dialogue with them. We will make DASH stronger this way and I am now on a mission to start increasing our DASH price. If you stand silent then you are complicit in watching the DASH price fall. We must fulfil our role as MNOs. Start asking questions in these core proposals.
-1 point,5 days ago
@DeepBlue - the other 2 strategy staff are interns as I just explained in the Dash Forum post.

It is difficult to separate part time versus full time staff since people are subcontractors. A subcontractor can bill full-time or part-time hours depending on how much they worked in a particular month.
2 points,5 days ago
@glennaustin Full time staff are staff that work a full time job (at least 40 hours per week) for at least a 1 year contract. Full time staff are also experienced enough to be making a significant contribution to a project over at least a 1 year period. Anything less than one year of full time work they should be separated out as part time work force.

If someone is working full time, for some of the time, and part time for the rest of the time they are classed as part time worker for a 1 year contract which is a minimal contract period for industry as a whole. Full time is therefore a person working at least 40 hours per week for a full year and are under contract.

Interns and students need to also be separated out. These people are most certainly not being paid a nominal fee. It is misleading to group them with full time workforce salaries. They also lack experience and therefore these people are most likely not making an essential contribution to the project. They should not be grouped together as if they are full time experience staff. e.g. Above it says 4 Strategy.The way that makes it appear is they are full time strategy, when in fact they are not. I realise core team did not intend to be misleading, but core needs to realise from an investor's point of view it is misleading. We need to know exactly what we are investing in.

What I would suggest Glenn is in order to know what level of details to give ask yourself if you were paying out of your own pocket to fund a team what information specifically would you want to know? Wouldn't you want to know who are interns, students, part time and full time staff before you could invest intelligently? Isn't that a reasonable request for an investor? Once you know what you would honestly feel comfortable with so that you could fund a project then provide that amount of detail for the investors and stakeholders. This is the only way a stakeholder or investor will have confidence in investing. They need to know what exactly they are investing in. At least an intelligent investor would.

Investment firms have dedicated researchers that build a profile of the investment based on the information made available on a project and since the core team are in effect leading a project the spotlight is on you.

I don't think that core team have really given this factor serious enough consideration.

You can be certain that the big investors will have a team of researchers reading all the core proposals and all the core comments along with community members feedback and using this as a key indicator whether to invest in the project. It is not just about securing your funds in these DCG proposals. These proposals are most certainly being scrutinized by investment research staff.

To help start increasing the DASH price:
I am requesting *again* all DASH repositories be disclosed and make all private repository statistics on coding activity publicly available. This is needed so that investors can see that DASH development are working hard creating Evolution. If this data remains hidden it will only caused doubts to increase in the minds of investors. We need to see all the contributions make by the coders and their commits. This information is easily made available on the github repositories. Why has this information not been made public? Investors are looking at exactly this type of information in order to know whether to invest. If they see repositories with hardly any activity - which is the case now they will come to an incorrect conclusion that DASH is not being actively developed. When in fact we are probably doing more development than most other crypto coins. We should be proudly presenting this information for the world to see.

Another problem is that the developers have many different repositories and this again is splitting the information and the stats on coding activity making it seem less than it actually is. We need the world to see we have 19 full time paid Devs and 6 part time paid staff working on our project and the coding activity in these repositories will show this. Few crypto currencies can boast this. We should be shouting it out from the highest mountains for all the world to hear!
5 points,9 days ago
@glennAustin unanswered questions lead to doubts. Doubts lead to lack of confidence. Lack of confidence leads to desire to create change to eliminate those doubts.

I suggest core team consider scheduling another call to answer all unanswered questions both here and the forum post for the Q2 conference call.

Do you want doubts to remain in the minds of the MNO and community, doubts which will grow.
0 points,5 days ago
@Deepblue - your questions were just answered in the post: .
0 points,3 days ago
Hello Glenn, thank you for replying to some of my questions. Please note however not all my questions were answered.

Unanswered questions: I asked why are the DASH private repository coding activity stats being kept private? We need to see those coding activity stats to give investors confidence that we are working hard on Evolution and also for the MNOs and DASH community to gauge the amount of coding and development activity. The coding stats can easily be made available without disclosing the code. Therefore why are these not being made available?

Core team. We need these stats investment firms are not going to invest if they do not have an indication of the amount of work being undertaken. They use these github stats as a KPI. When the coding is being done in private with no information about coding activity other than your word it is not re-assuring to investors and they will be reluctant to invest. I would like to see the private repository coding activity stats made public for all private repositories.

Investors need to see this data to feel confident to invest.

I also requested that part time staff, students and interns etc be separated out from full time staff. I gave the definitions of full time staff previously.

I will be replying shortly to your reply on the forum.
-1 point,8 days ago
Vote against 'Core Team Taxes' could put things into jeopardy


Just wanted to inform us all that voting against 'Core Team Taxes' could put entire Dash Core team into jeopardy.

This is because by law, taxes are payable *before* salaries. And 119 votes against it could make it hard to pass this proposal. Basically Dash Core team could be forced to fire engineers in order to pay taxes first.

Mastenodes attanetion ! Either you vote 'yes' both to Core Team Compensation and Core Team Taxes and Core Team Legal or we go voting for a new government in democratic republic of Dash :)

Seriously: failing any of those votes will put things in jeopardy, sending our Dash engineers home without a job. Be very careful with what you wish for, and what you vote for, dear Masternodes !


4 points,8 days ago
The way I see it, voting NO is the only way to force Core to answer DeepBlue's very reasonable questions. I can't in good faith vote yes on any Core proposals as long as they keep ignoring basic questions.
0 points,5 days ago
@Tovarish, the questions have been answered today in the Dash Forum.
3 points,10 days ago
According to that compared different cryptocurrency coins in terms of coding activity at Github DASH is currently ranked as 120th for the past 12 months in terms of code commits.

Check here:

On github checking contributors after the date of 18th January 2014 when DASH was forked from Litecoin the code contributions report reached a peak of coding activity Janurary 2015 and then shows a steady decline down to the current date which is a the lowers rate it has been See this graph:

Why does the github coding contributions report decline from Jan 2015 if we have taken on more coders?
In 2017 to current date the github report only seems to show 2 code contributors that have made any main contributors when I checked the actual code contributions they were minimal.

What is the reason for these observations?
0 points,10 days ago
We use 2 repos, dashpay and dashevo. On top of that more than half of dashevo is private.
1 point,10 days ago
@quantumexplorer is Dashpay repository also private? The dev team could make the coding statistics public on all private repositories without making the code public. MNOs and the DASH community would appreciate this because then we could see the amount of coding activity along with the coders undertaking that activity. See my post below on the links to pages explaining how to make the stats public for private repositories. All we can see at the moment is very low coding activity on both repositories.
1 point,9 days ago
Questions posted here where not answered in the Q2 Core team conference call.
0 points,10 days ago
Does Cryptomiso track activity in private distros? Because Most of Evolution's work is being done in private until release, at which point it will ostensibly become Open Source.
-1 point,10 days ago
Also, it was pointed out to me that is separate from, so we actually have two repositories, which I'm not sure if they're even tracking the latter, and probably not the currently private stuff which is where most of the action is to my knowledge.
1 point,10 days ago
I am aware that Evolution coding is being undertaken in private repositories. However, coding activity statistics, such as code commits etc, can be made public whilst keeping private the underlying code itself.

MNOs and the DASH community can gain some indication of the development activity if the statistics for development of code in private repositories is set to be shown publically without us having access to the code itself.

How to make private repository statistics public for GitHub is explained on the pages after following these two links:

The public statistics of development activity for the DASH Repositories is very low.

Have the core team made the *statistics* of coding activity in private repositories also private? If so why?

Keeping development statistics private for private repositories in effect means that nobody can track the progress of development other than the people who have access to the private repositories.

This is why I posted the question and phrased it the way I did. I'm asking the core team to explain why their public statistics for coding activity is so low considering we have 30 full-time developers?
0 points,9 days ago
Questions posted here where not answered in the Q2 Core team conference call.
0 points,10 days ago
If it's possible to make associated statistics public without revealing the data itself, I'd be in full support of that and don't see any meaningful reason not to do so, given how expansive the private repos have been described. If anything, the activity could serve as a community celebratory milestone/achievement in addition to being a regulatory one.
1 point,11 days ago
There is reason to fear that Core could be shooting themselves in the foot with this proposal. Complementary projects also need funding and there is a possibility that those projects could dissolve and leave DCG with a damaged support network. The team at Dash Force News appears to understand this. DFN is asking for reduced funding even though the exchange rate dropped. Another group, Dash Watch, has decided not to even submit a proposal so that others who need funds more urgently may get a chance. These are team players and should be commended. Core seems to be doing the opposite. In tough times it's more important to pull together and I don't see how this proposal accomplishes that aim.
1 point,9 days ago
UPDATE: Core is submitting a decision proposal to donate unused advertising funds to Community marketing efforts. I really have to hand it to them. It takes a lot of wind out of the sails of my objection to this proposal. Good call, Core. Thanks for listening.
5 points,12 days ago
I have been waiting enough time to hear answers to my questions. I was holding out until I received some answers but I have to say I've run out of patience waiting. Therefore Im going to present all these questions in one go.

I'm also tired of hearing other MNOs stepping in and protecting the core team. If the DASH price keeps falling *do not blame core*, you should be blaming yourself for not asking questions in the core proposals.

I'm really tired of waiting for core to respond to basic information requests.

There are 30 full time development engineers working on Dash Evolution but each time Evolution deadlines keep getting pushed back. 30 Developers is a lot in the crypto space and currently we are going off blind faith that all these staff are in fact working full time i.e. at least 40 hours per week.

Therefore my question is how can we be certain that the dev team are infact working the full 40 hours per week on our projects work if they are in a distributed environment? What monitoring do you have to track their work and to ensure they are in fact working full time?

I strongly suspect now that either all these programmers are not working full time or your Agile process is not implemented properly.

As part of my business management activity I have also managed a dev team since 2008. I implemented Agile in 2010 and we have always hit deadlines, with only a few exceptions. I ensure that the requirements are fully planned out and documented before the work starts.

If you're not hitting deadlines with a team of 30 developers it strongly suggests that either the management and planning of the development work is not setup correctly, or your estimating skills need work, or the dev team are not in fact working full time on our work.

I also hear from other developers and from the core team stating that we cannot commit to a deadline. The devs that cannot commit to a deadline and hit it are not planning their work sufficiently well. Agile estimating techniques and proper planning and efficient management should give + / - 20% accuracy in terms of time of completion date of the release. If you're not hitting that you are not managing the project efficiently enough.

May I ask what software are you using to manage the Agile implementation of the Dev team? If you are not using a software management for implementing Agile then you are most definitely not working optimally.

What software are you using for the following:
Project management of the dev team?
Requirements management ?
QA management?
Automated testing?
Source code control management (presumably you are using github for this?)

If you are not using an integrated software development suite you are not working as efficiently as you can. Period. I can make recommendations if you are not using anything, however I can't make recommendations if you don't answer my questions.

Are the software suites integrated so that information can flow seamlessly between these software?

How do management keep track of the actual time spent on programming by each of the developers? One such service is have you implemented something like this? If not why not?

I strongly suspect now that the management of the software development cannot be that efficient if you cannot commit to deadlines and meet them.

We were originally informed by Amanda B Johnson the first beta release of Evolution was to be around August of last year, with the release of the first stage at the end of 2017. Amanda was quoting sources from core. Now 12 months on we hear that it is being pushed back again.

Of course we need to ensure security of the system but this should have also been built into your estimates.

Waiting to see if there is any response from core on these and my other questions. Core team we need answers. If they are not forthcoming it is throwing doubt on DASH core team and therefore on DASH as an investment. I have major stake-holding in DASH. I need these answers if you are to retain my investment.
1 point,8 days ago
Project management of the dev team? Jira
Requirements management? I think we use Atlassian.
QA Management? Jira, and various tools.
Automated testing? Travis
Source code control management? Github

I think the biggest disconnect that I see is that while we have 30 staff in Development, we do not have 30 Devs coding. We have 19 full time devs and 6 part time devs, another 5 people are dev support (such as technical writers and researchers).

I would also say this number doubled since January as well even though not very productive members were let go in Q1 and Q2. We basically have a much better team now.

For most devs we can see commits worth about 40-60 hours of work a week. There are some slackers from time to time. They get warnings, and if they aren't able to motivate themselves better they don't stick around.

I hope this answers your question.
1 point,7 days ago
@quantumexplorer thank you for this information.

I think that non-coders should not be classified as Development. They really should be separated out in these funding requests for several reasons. Technical writers and researchers are not developers.

1. It is important to know many full time developers there are in order in order to assess the rate at which the coding solution can be created. If we think there are 30 full time developers that is very different than just 19 full time developers.

2. Likewise "part time staff" should be separated out from full time staff so that we can see again how many full time people are working. All part time staff really needs to be separated from full time staff so that we can see how many part time and how many full time people there are working in DCG. We are funding very large sums of money to the core group as investors and stakeholders in the company it is only reasonable to see exactly where that money is going.

3. I recommend to DCG to start to remove the part time staff. The reason is from my experience coders working part time are nowhere near as focused on the job as the full time staff which means their productivity is invariably lower. Part time coders have their energy split on other projects or other activities. In order to be fully productive we need full time staff. In addition part time staff are not as committed to the cause. We need passionate developers that are prepared to commit full time if we are to meet deadlines.

Software assessment:

Looking at your software DCG have a quite a mixed bag of software. This most definitely means the Dev team cannot be working as efficiently as is possible. This is because there is no seamless information flow between these different software e.g. from the results of your test cases / test runs through to raising bugs from issues found. If the Dev software is not fully integrated issues and bug will be getting missed and this can cause lost time backtracking to fix issues that slipped through the net.

The software also need to have Agile tools built in by default which makes administration of Agile considerably easier and removes the burden of coders spending time doing administrative tasks when often the software can assist on this.

Since you are using Jira you could therefore consider assessing software such as HelixALM by perforce for example which will enable you to connect Jira with test case management and test run software. This would greatly improve traceability and also streamline communications between team members.
If you did this you would have a fully integrated software development suite from Requirements management through to creating Agile stories, sprint planning, time tracking, estimating tools, reporting, TestCase management and Test run management all in one seamless software package.

Once end to end traceability is in place you will find that coding will be more efficient and you will spent considerably less time spent dealing with issues that got missed in the development life cycle.

Perhaps the core Dev team leader could consider an assessment on implementing an integrated software suite such as this. The reason I suggested HelixALM by perforce is that it has compatibility with Jira however I am not making a recommendation because I don't know your exact requirements and if it will meet them.
1 point,7 days ago
1. I completely agree with you, I spoke to Glenn about more granularity and an org chart.

2. For part time, our part time people often are people with other obligations that love DASH, they are around because they do a great job and are very valuable. Most of these guys are around 20-30 hours a week.

3. Non passionate people get the door. Non producers get the door. Some people do amazing work even if part time.

I know you might think that we must be doing something wrong because of x, y and z. In my opinion while we might have done many many wrong things last year and even early this year, well we hired quite a lot of people to turn that around and got rid of the people who weren't producing. Agile was put in place on all teams this year for example.

For HelixALM, I feel like a lot of teams have really hit their groove recently. We are using Jira quite efficiently, and travis for CI. Changing now would just mean more overhead at a time where we are really under immense pressure for deliverables.
0 points,7 days ago
Typo: Replace the word "company" for "organization" in the post above.
1 point,9 days ago
Questions posted here where not answered in the Q2 Core team conference call.
4 points,12 days ago
The following is cross posted from here: since there has been no reply to these questions.

Hello @glennaustin I have some questions in order to more clearly understand the basic functions of core, interactions between core members and how the funding is being allocated.

1. Leadership and Admin - can you be more specific about what they mean. Leadership of what? Admin for what? How many are leadership and how many are admin and what specifically are their roles?

2. Project management - for what? Is this project management for core development? Core marketing? Core business development? What?

3. Strategy - 4 staff. Strategy for what exactly? Development? Marketing? Business Development? Are the Strategy people working full time on strategy? That seems a lot to me - what exactly are these people doing?

4. Marketing: What has marketing specifically achieved with our last funds which we gave 1200 DASH? What projects exactly are marketing working on? How is that funding being used? What are the proposed strategies for marketing? What role does Marketing have with Wachsman PR?

5. How much money is going to each function of core e.g. for Marketing? Development? Project management etc. Provide a breakdown of funds for each.

6. How do each of the individual roles of core interact with each other? What are the dependencies of one function of core compared to another function of core? We need to know this so that we can determine what would happen if we wanted to replace or improve a function of core and what the knock on effects would have.

7. International outreach - where are these people situated? What are they doing? How much money are they receiving? How is compensation calculated for each of these people? When they say part time how much time is being spent? Is compensation calculate on an hourly rate? What criteria determine the amount of funding for each outreach person? What have the outreach people achieved? How is ROI determined on these outreach projects. Who does outreach report to in core? Who co-ordinates their activities?

8. Business development. What have their achieved since Bradley Zastro took over? What is BD strategy? What inroads and where are they going? What new and future business partnerships are planned that they can disclose. If they cannot disclose details can they disclose generic details so we have enough information to determine the efficiency of this team?

9. Are core prepared to split up each core function into separate funding proposals so that we can better ask more focused questions regarding that function? If not why not?

10. There was mention of "benefits" being given out to core. How much in benefits to each person? What are these benefits and how much will these benefits be worth per year?
1 point,9 days ago
Questions posted here where not answered in the Q2 Core team conference call.
1 point,10 days ago
Good questions, Glenn you have to reply!
0 points,5 days ago
Questions answered in the Dash Forum.
-1 point,12 days ago
Voting yes, good luck.
-1 point,12 days ago
voting YES. I don't want to disrupt core. I want to see Evolution start to roll out this year.
Looking forwards to DCG Q4 coming up in 2 days (10th).
2 points,14 days ago
Thanks for listening regarding hiring freeze and minimizing proposals so that they don't squeeze everything else while the budget is tight. I've said that I'll vote no for DCG proposals this month to allow breathing space for smaller projects that get a word out about Dash, but DCG proposals this month have been lean, timely and to the point so I'm voting yes. Good job!
-2 points,14 days ago
4500 Dash just for Core this month ... no fucking way
I hope Dash price will continue to fall, so we can cut of this expenses.
"an average of ~$6,500 / month / contributor" for an open source project?! I have to work two months to get this money!
Soon Dash will climb out of the top 20 in the market cap, because everybody is seeing this overloaded centralized Organisation ... which I guess has the majority of the MNs.
So basically its a self-service shop for Core.
-1 point,12 days ago
Developers in the us often make over 100 k most positions in dash core are senior level positions so they cost more then entry level positions.
If your argument is that it takes you 2 months to make 6500 is the reason they are over paid. Maybe you need to look at the skills you bring to the market or look to find a job that will pay you more.
6 points,17 days ago
The argument that this proposal needs to pass because the results would be otherwise catastrophic is faulty. It is essentially claiming that Core is too big to fail. I don't believe that to be the case, because if it was true then moral hazard would eventually erase all market discipline (the competitive market for treasury funds) and the only issue left would be when to head for the exits and abandon the project. If Core does need to be restructured, then the best time to do it is sooner rather than later because incentives to kick the can only grow over time.
MNOs are in danger of losing our ability to effectively oversee Core through the credible threat of imposing opportunity costs. Ryan Taylor seems to be effectively admitting as much by proposing alternative methods for keeping Core in line such as a legal Trust structure that holds Core accountable on behalf of MNOs.
Are we so afraid of the consequences of rejecting a single proposal by DCG that we rubber-stamp anything for which they ask? There are valid reason for supporting this funding request and reasons for opposing it. I am of the opinion that the risks associated with passage have not been given due consideration (yet). It as absolutely vital that we maintain a healthy competitive market for treasury funds, ALL the treasury funds, not just the scraps left over after Core has had it's fill.
-3 points,15 days ago
The creation of the Trust is to *secure* the oversight of MNOs, not to prevent or dilute the oversight of MNOs. Sure, at present, we can vote to defund their proposals, but that doesn't stop them from taking the IP and Technology and forking it and starting again under their own terms. The Trust allows us to have direct, legally-enforceable oversight not only of Core (through treasury voting), but their products as well. That's the whole point.

Up until now, *no* proposal owner has any *legal* responsibility to us apart from escrow agreements, and many of those are not legally enforceable and rely purely on the discretion of the escrow agent(s). At best we can deny future funding and publicly and professionally shame bad actors, which hasn't gotten us much in the way of recourse so far. This is why in addition to the Trust, Dash Ventures is being established. It's not only a vehicle for increasing the ROI of network-funded projects, but a means to establish actual legal and contractual obligations to the projects we fund.

I'm not sure how you reviewed the available information--assuming you did--and arrived at the conclusion that these two structures were created to make Core *less* accountable when precisely the opposite is true.

Several of Core's proposals have been rejected in the past, so there are already precedents. I have no interest in idealistic shows of force. Whether *any* proposals are funded or not should be a pragmatic decision. All other considerations are superfluous.
3 points,15 days ago
It's not ideology. It's triage. There are longstanding projects that may die if core soaks up too much available funding. Deciding who has to die to that others may live is the most pragmatic decision possible.
-1 point,15 days ago
While the point that Core ought not take so much of the funding when it's not absolutely necessary as there are other important projects that also require funding is well taken:

"MNOs are in danger of losing our ability to effectively oversee Core through the credible threat of imposing opportunity costs."

That's literally not true and in fact the opposite is true. The voting protocol isn't changing any time soon, and the Trust will allow us to fine-tune oversight to a degree that we previously have not been
2 points,15 days ago
The protocol isn't the problem. The proposal is the problem. 2,869 Dash. If you're on a lifeboat adrift and are forced by necessity to deny rations, you single out the fattest guy. Core's lumping all essential and non-essential personnel together. There's no flexibility to salaries? If Ryan isn't going to trim the fat more than that, then we have to. In my opinion we have no choice. We can't afford a Core group with so little ability to tighten it's belt. It's entirely possible this market will get even worse.
-1 point,15 days ago
The issue of Core's share of the treasury is a separate issue from the issue of essential vs. non-essential personnel being listed in the same proposal which is also a separate issue from the market. Three separate issues, don't conflate them.
3 points,15 days ago
The issue is that a strategy that may make sense at $400 or $300 does not make sense at $210.We need to take into account additional information and changes of circumstance.
-1 point,14 days ago
Sure, I'd agree with that statement, but it's important not to conflate all of these issues just because they're all affected by the same inputs. Core has taken note of this fact and engaged in hiring freezes and put some business development work on the back burner until funding is more plentiful, so that shows *some* awareness of these circumstances. Certainly a criticism could be made that these changes are not sufficient, but I think it's pretty clear Core understands and is aware of the situation and taking it in to account in their planning.
2 points,14 days ago
I don't know where you get that clarity, Brother. To me, this proposal is the most arrogant, presumptuous signal I have ever seen from Core that they know best and MNOs should go concern themselves with the tiny fraction of the budget that they have not laid claim to. They appear to be acting as if they believe they have no meaningful oversight. What worries me is that they may be right.
-1 point,13 days ago
Simple, because I'm not interested in adding emotional content to my assessment of their budgets and attributing all sorts of motives and feelings about requesting budgets. They ask for a certain amount, and we decide whether or not we want to give it to them. No reason to add all this wild speculation about arrogance and presumption, etc etc. That seems to me to exist only in your head. There's a number on a screen. Is it a number I like or one I don't? What are the pragmatic outcomes of choosing yes, no, or abstain? Why concern yourself with these other phantoms?
1 point,13 days ago
2,869 Dash is a number I don't like. The pragmatic outcome of MNOs rejecting this proposal is very likely that Core submits another request for a more reasonable number. It's not about destroying Core. It's about guiding them. That's our job. The question is not whether or not CDG can fulfill it's proper role. It's a question of whether or not we can as MNOs. The greater market is watching.
3 points,17 days ago
Ryan Taylor seems unconcerned with the falling price of Dash, based on his interview comments, but I have always been concerned about it for many practical reasons. One being the core team funding. If the price continues to drop there won't be enough money in the treasury to fund the Dash Core Team. I hope there are some big announcements coming up soon that might give our price a boost.
9 points,17 days ago
It's good to see the hiring freeze. We must be careful with scope creep. It's absolutely imperative our devs, the true core of core, are generously compensated. We cannot afford to have any of them walk away.

Everything else is secondary, particularly marketing and bizdev. Those things do not need to be part of DCG. Dash Venezuela shows us that a country will embrace crypto in a serious fashion only when it is necessary. I think that goes as well for 'International Outreach'.

It would pain me to see DCG become a bloated, bureaucratic IBM due to scope creep over the next five years.

Please keep DCG lean and mean.
4 points,17 days ago
Also, thank you @glennaustin for getting all of the DCG proposals up quickly.
3 points,17 days ago
No worries, we took past input from the community regarding this topic seriously. In the future we aim to put up all DCG proposals within 24 hour after the superblock pays out. If posting the actual proposal isn't possible, we will provide notice as to what proposals (including $ amounts) will be posted during that budget cycle. Please let us know any other suggestions on how we can improve budget/proposal communication.
3 points,17 days ago
The only remaining suggestion I have on this process is that you post your proposals as pre-proposals a couple weeks ahead, as is generally expected of everyone else. While you don't have the total flexibility that other proposal owners have, the pre-proposal window would allow community input that could turn out to be beneficial.

Of course, the numbers would even fuzzier at 6 weeks out, but you could state that. I think the input you would receive during the pre-proposal window wouldn't be about the numbers anyway, rather how a proposal is structured.

Perhaps there is overwhelming community support of an adjustment of one thing or another, and you would be able to discuss it internally and make that change before putting it on dashcentral.
1 point,17 days ago
I post a view into the various proposals that will most likely go to the network for the upcoming quarter. Here is the latest example of such a post: Note that I originally posted this in the middle of July but hadn't turned on comments so perhaps that is why we didn't get much commentary around the content. Finally, I don't go back to adjust the update with any current information so obviously some of the numbers are stale.
0 points,17 days ago
6 points,17 days ago
I believe DCG grew too quickly to an unsustainable level. While I believe employees should be paid, I see no other way to continue to raise this concern than to vote NO.
0 points,16 days ago
Everyone wants core to keep up with similar market cap projects with 10's of millions in development budgets but that does come at a cost. Considering the price moves these current sacrifices are not that bad. Downsizing is the last thing you want to do as it takes a lot of work to get to scale. It wasn't long ago everyone was pushing core to grow.
0 points,17 days ago
Agreed. Any speculation on what % of the masternodes Core controls?

I asked a longtime DASH supporter/advocate what Core does (I'm pretty new around here.) and he responded:

"What does core do I think they burn through the budget that's about all I can see that they do."

Things that make you go, hmm.
0 points,15 days ago
Ian, that wasn't a supporter, that was someone with an axe to grind. I appreciate your efforts with LRN and it's too bad you didn't get to be the next Ben Swann but you're going to have to be far less biased if you want to make a meaningful contribution in the arena of Dash proposals.
3 points,17 days ago
Based on the preliminary analytics of MN voting patterns and the Dash "rich list," unless DCG is very carefully hiding and distributing their votes, it's highly unlikely that DCG as a whole--let alone any particular member--owns or operates a meaningful percentage of MNs capable of single-handedly swaying votes. This is an oft-repeated criticism of Dash, but it's not really based or founded upon any actual statistics or evidence.

The one point that is often brought up is that the founder Evan had a great deal of Dash and could spin up quite a few nodes, but even with all the Dash he has, it wouldn't be *that* significant a percentage of the network and he's explicitly stated that he does not operate any MNs, using his funds instead to fund other development initiatives intended to "future-proof" called Dash Labs.

When it comes down to it--by all available metrics--Dash's current wallet distribution is among the most decentralized and non-consolidated among all the biggest crypto projects, and while there are definitely a few Whales among us, they're a relative minority.

Look for "Dash Intel" for more concrete information.