Proposal “coreteamcomp1218“ (Completed)Back

Title:Core Team Compensation (December)
One-time payment: 3105 DASH (548838 USD)
Completed payments: 1 totaling in 3105 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2018-11-16 / 2018-12-16 (added on 2018-11-03)
Final voting deadline: in passed
Votes: 0 Yes / 0 No / 0 Abstain

Proposal description

Dash Core Group December 1st Funding Proposals
DCG is submitting 2 funding proposals for the December 1st budget cycle:
1) DCG Compensation: $477,000
2) DCG Marketing: $92,500 (here)

This Proposal
This is cross-posted from here

What does this specific proposal fund?
This proposal funds Dash Core Group's ongoing compensation costs - including all developers, administrative, business development, marketing and support staff - at market rates for base pay.

As of the end of October, DCG had 49 full-time staff and 9 part-time staff. The breakdown of the number of staff we have working in each unit is as follows:

Development and Operations:
Full-time: 31
Part-time: 6

Full-time: 10
Part-time: 1

Business development / marketing / customer service:
Full-time: 8
Part-time: 2

* Full-time defined as contracts permitting staff to bill up to 40 hours a week
** Part-time defined as contracts permitting staff to bill less than 40 hours a week

Please note that our current run-rate is $380,000 after taking into account voluntary pay reductions from the Board of Directors and senior management volunteers. We are asking for pre-pay-reduction run-rate funding of $420,000 as well as a buffer to account for price fluctuation and to continue building our compensation account buffer. The total funds requested are $477,000.

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 December 1st budget cycle:
· 3,100 Dash for core team compensation ($477,000 USD @ $154.00 per Dash)
· 5.00 Dash proposal reimbursement

Total: 3,105 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
2 points,7 months ago
Personally I would liked to DCG be analysed from top to bottom. Alarm bells set of in my head when I heard about the Chief Architect leaving (to) early, Even with the limited information communicated multiple architectural decisions that not have been made.

MNO's should take a closer look at the organisation structure and the stories of individual members within DCG tell.
I have already been a taking a closer, do I do not have all information needed, I feel confident that not everything adds up.
I don't want name names, but I suspect that DCG, could substantially save cost by firing certain members due them not being part of what DCG is focusing on and under performance at certain takes, especially does that are not part of software development, these roles and takes have much shorter time-frames in general when it comes to delivering but they have not communicated plausible reasons why things are moving so slowly.

*I am professional with a Bachelor degree in Information and Communication Technology (B ICT) (so this part of my field)
4 points,7 months ago
I feel we need more development teams instead of one centralized team. For the following reasons:

1. My view is (Disclaimer I am not a lawyer this is my personal opinion only based on the research I've undertaken). I believe there could be an increased risk that the SEC could possibly categorize DCG as a common enterprise i.e. "organization" that is responsible for profits. My view is this could potentially cause us to fail one of the four points on the Howey test namely Is there a common organization responsible for the profits

I wish to be clear. I am not saying that DASH will fail the Howey test. What I'm saying is that I believe DASH is more likely to pass the Howey test if there is no one single organization that undertakes core functions for DASH. e.g if we had 2 or 3 dev groups, separate marketing etc rather than having a single large, DCG that is responsible for marketing, development, Admin, Finances, Business development. Since these functions are all in one organization and all essential for the health of the network it could be interpreted to be a common enterprise responsible for the profits.

I personally think that DASH should pass the Howey test however because the investors (namely MNOs) have a collective votes on how funds for the network should be spent. Which in effect makes the investors themselves responsible in managing how funds are spent. It only takes one point for DASH not to pass on the Howey test for it to fail the test. However even if an organization fails the test it can still be found as a security.

DASH is also reasonably decentralized therefore it seems to me unlikely that we will fail the Howey test and we should not be classed as a security. However the determining principals are not that clear cut and anything which increases decentralization is likely to ensure that we have a greater chance of passing the Howey test and therefore not being classed as a security by the SEC.

2. More Dev teams means more competition and therefore a greater likelihood of more competitive service. I realise there are communications issues between the different Dev teams however I do not see those as insurmountable problems. It would simply require the teams to communicate to decide on what they were going to work on. We could even put up a voting system to decide which teams work on which feature based on the Dev team skill set.

I think we need to start looking at hiring a competing Dev team to introduce a little competition and to ensure that DASH remains decentralized enough not to be classed as a security. Even if it is a small team that can work on part of Evo an independent view point from this new Dev team on what is happening behind closed doors would be welcomed.
0 points,7 months ago
**clarifications** In the above message I mixed up a few terms which I would like to correct. If DASH fails the Howey test i.e. we don't meet all the points on the test then we have a good chance of not being classed as a security. If we meet all the criteria of the Howey test then we are a security. In the message above I mixed up some terms for passing the Howey test. Basically we want to fail the Howey test on at least one point, but preferably more than one point, in order for DASH not to be classed as a security. My argument is that DCG is potentially undertaking too many essential functions on behalf of the network and therefore potentially jeopardizing the network as being classed as having a single organization responsible for profits. We definitely do not want the SEC to come to this type of conclusion. We need to to be decentralized enough in terms of undertaking services for the network not to be perceived as any one organization having a controlling factor for the success of the network. DCG is undertaking development, marketing, business admin, QA, PR, and a whole host of other services all from one organization. I do not think that this is wise for us to support this set up. First it could increase the risk for DASH being identified as a security (in my opinion) secondly I believe competing teams (DAOs or subDAOs) to undertake the different functions for the network such as business dev and marketing etc fosters competition and therefore we are likely to get a better quality service at a more competitive price. With separate organizations we can also more easily replace them if they are not performing. I feel the proposed legal structure is also not a good idea again because it could label DASH as a central organization and therefore likely to be a security under the Howey test. The idea that we can "fire" the DCG with the new trust structure, although feasible, is actually going to be even more difficult to do in my opinion than the set up we have now. We would have to go through the trust which is just another barrier to what we have right now which is direct voting power to vote DCG out if we need to.

To be clear I don't want to vote DCG out. What I want is to have a more decentralized set up with different DAOs responsible for different aspects of what the network needs. i.e. Separate marketing, Separate PR, Separate Business Dev, Separate dev teams. I think we should also have more than one Dev team preferably 2 or 3 separate Dev teams working on different aspects of DASH.

If we are labelled a security my view is it will primarily be because the SEC will see DCG or the new proposed trust organization as a central entity responsible for profits. If that happens we could be subject to a huge fine for all the years DASH was not registered with the SEC as a security. My intention is not scaremongering. I am simply trying to minimize the risk of that happening by raising awareness of these issues.
3 points,7 months ago
@glennaustin in my opinion it is time to make the DASH source code public. My questions previously were not answered on this subject. I have listened to the Q3 call where there is an "intention to work towards making the repositories public" DCG has consistently missed proposed milestones raising serious doubts about what is happening behind the closed doors at DASH Dev. What it tells me is DCG are unable to reliably deliver code on time. The reason (excuse) that DCG are developing something new is also BS in my opinion. Everything any developer develops that does not exist is also new. If DCG are really following the Agile process you would be able to give reasonably accurate estimates for code releases. That is one big part of Agile. Estimating and ensuring frequent, usable releases. So where are those estimates?

We keep getting non commitment responses on release of Evolution with deadlines pushing back and back.

I have to say I had to laugh at the Q2 DashCore presentation where you had DRAFT stamped in read on the roadmap. Let me translate: DRAFT = "WE ARE NOT GOING TO DELIVER ON TIME AGAIN" If you really have implemented the Agile process then giving accurate estimates of releases. If you can't give estimates you can stick to then you are not following the Agile process.

Reasons why I believe it is now time to make the source code public

1. Dash is an OPEN SOURCE project. With the GitHub dev repositories in private this effectively makes DASH now a CLOSED SOURCE project. CLOSED SOURCE = no true accountability by DCG, we just have take what they say as true (trust). Isn't the DASH project supposed to be trustless?

2. While the repositories are private we have no way of seeing the progress on the code development. DashCore group are consistently missing deadlines for release of the Evolution. Any sensible person would seriously question DCG ability at this point.

3. True Cryptocurrency is not about users relying on trust. It is about being confident due to RADICAL TRANSPARENCY.

4. The network is paying for the code development. We have a right to see the code that we are paying for to be developed. Any investors worth their salt will use Github coding repositories as a measure of coding activity and therefore the

4. Developers from outside DCG cannot develop because the code is CLOSED source. Meaning we are losing many external contributors.

5. Finally by keeping the our code private it means that a potentially better, more organized development team cannot present a challenge to DCG in terms of competition. This effectively eliminates all competition for other coding teams.

The idea that keeping the code private so we have a competitive advantage is an argument that is now wearing thin. We will still retain our advantage as being first in the market to deploy Evolution because the strength of a network is not just in its code base but in the contacts and community that it has built.

DCG needs to now be made more accountable for the funds we are spending each month because you're consistently not delivering the code on time. Seeing the code being developed speaks louder than the fancy charts and graphs you keep putting up in the Quarter calls. Real demonstrable results speak louder than words.

I believe we need more competition when it comes to developing the source code. We also need a more decentralized development team. We need more development teams so that we can choose which ones are going to get our funding and it fosters competition between the teams to perform better. We can only do this however if our OPEN source project is made OPEN again as it is supposed to be.

I would preferably choose to fund Dev teams that not only provide quality code but also can commit to deadlines and deliver on those deadlines. A team that keeps our source code OPEN SOURCE. A team that give more frequent feedback and is not so aloof and closed as the current DCG are.

I have to say I really miss Evan Duffield as our lead developer. He may not have been Mr social, but even though he found it a challenge he was open and transparent and he made public the team meetings on a weekly basis so we could see what was being discussed. I also felt with Evan there was a human side to the Dev team. At the moment I feel I'm communicating with a black box.

I, for one, want the source code made public ASAP on all github repos.
1 point,7 months ago
yes from me, good luck.
0 points,7 months ago
Please reduce administration to 1-2 people and fire everyone in marketing/business development. Dash Core should be focused on development.

Let those people ask for their own money. No more "black box" funding.

No x13.
1 point,7 months ago
agree, Business development / marketing / customer service should be its own entity
4 points,7 months ago
I would like a bit more explanation this:

Full-time: 10
Part-time: 1

I can not believe we have so many in this category
0 points,7 months ago
Adding 13 no votes. Core needs to stop wasting money.
1 point,7 months ago
This includes finance (CFO and 1 staff), strategy (4 staff including product management, data analysis staff and an intern), corporate (3 staff, including CEO, board member and 1 admin), and human resources (2 staff). We believe that all of these departments are essential for DCG’s operations to continue to run smoothly.
This information was provided in our separate administration proposal that can be found at:
0 points,7 months ago
@glennaustin do you intentionally avoid my questions because you do not see a green little badge next to my handle?
2 points,7 months ago
@glennaustin can you state for the record when v13 will go live on testnet please thank you
1 point,7 months ago
voting YES.
What initially drew me to Dash? Answer: InstantSend (Bitcoin sorely lacks it).
Please keep assisting crypto exchanges to utilise InstantSend team. This will assist utility for many via speed, and help raise awareness of this Dash payments feature.

* I want to see DCG with a 1 million dollar USD worth of backup monies. I know it is planned.
1 point,7 months ago
Thank you. Yes, we intent on building a substantial buffer in this particular account for the future.
-1 point,7 months ago
Yes, I like the way the work is being done. It's a "play safe" approach, get it right and stick to the plan
-2 points,7 months ago
We appreciate your support.