Welcome!

3) comments from DCG team members about why we are utilizing inflation to pay for mining? Is our best answer just because all the other blockchains use inflation to pay for mining (ie. group-think)?

What about a new direction of removing mining from the block-inflation-reward? And thus letting the Tx fees get to a non-subsidized equilibrium.

There is a tremendous erosion of our investors + users purchasing power if we pay for mining via inflation (especially since the miners tend to dump the Dash they receive right away to pay for their business costs)

+a)if we pay for mining via inflation, it means the supply of units outstanding is increasing, and if the investing market thinks Dash is worth a market-capitalization of say 500m usd, it means unit price is dropping--> formula: marketcap/# of units o/s=unit price

b) if a user does a small Tx of 0.1Dash @ a merchant, the fee today in Core wallet is 0.00001002. At 70usd unit price, that is 0.0007014usd.

c) if we disable paying for mining via inflation, and say Tx fees increase 100x, the above fee would then be 0.07014usd for a 7usd spend @ a merchant

Comments from DCG team that we could lose the Venezuela and Zimbabwe markets to DAI?
(ie. a quite stable currency, even if it takes 20-30seconds for a TX confirmation, is preferred over a highly volatile currency, that has instant TX confirms + privatesend)

@Currency_use_case in Jan 2019 I wrote an article on Dash Forum outlining a concept that could provide Dash with dual benefits of appreciation in price in our current DASH coin, I will call it Dash Transactional, whilst developing a twin Dash stable coin that works with the Transactional coin. The new Dash stable coin would be created from collateral held of the Dash Transactional coin (our current Dash coin) similar to how Dai works.

Commerce and businesses need to have stability in their currency. This is not optional for a currency or a "digital cash" as Dash is aiming to be. If Dash wishes to be digital cash it needs to also offer stability. Companies need to know what they have in their financial reserves in order to plan and to buy resources and services. Taxes have to be paid on earnings and it simply is not feasible to use a volatile coin on its own for commerce. There has to be stability in order for the coin to work.

One solution is to consider creating a Dash Stable Coin which is generated when a user buys and stakes Dash Transactional coin. Then merchants can make their transfers in Dash Transactional (our current coin) and lock in their transaction into Dash Stable coin. When the merchant needs to send Dash they will buy Dash Transactional from the Dash Stable and the transaction is made in our current Dash coin. This way the Dash Transactional coin will go up in value because businesses will obtain it to create the Dash Stable coin. The beauty of using two Dash coins is that the speed of transfer is retained with our current coin along with all the network of exchanges and contacts we have already built up. By creating our own stable coin it offers merchants security and confidence knowing that they will retain their profits, they can report their taxes accurately, and plan and budget for payments of goods and services they need, all of this is not yet possible with our current Dash coin.

I made the suggestion that the Dash Transactional coin value would be locked against a basket of 80,000 goods that are used in everyday life. These 80,000 goods are used to work out the true cost of living. In this way the Dash Stable coin would be more stable than other stable coins which are locked against USD or Euro which depreciate with time. There would be no "quantitative easing" or "printing of money" with the Dash stable coin meaning businesses and individuals can feel confident in storing their earnings with Dash Stable knowing it will always retain the same purchasing power, even in 50 years time. This new type of DASH stable coin would give the merchants what they need but also it would attract long term holders of funds such as pension funds that want to retain purchasing power for their clients with no risk. By having a Dash Stable coin it would increase the value of our current coin because people would need to buy our current Dash transactional coin in order to generate the Dash stable coin.

Here is the article I wrote in January 2019
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/what-dash-needs-to-set-it-above-all-other-cryptos.43036/

I have only presented the concept here. I do not know if it is technically possible to create such a coin with our current setup. But the concept is one that may be worth considering.

If DCG could find a way to make this idea work it would solve many problems for Dash and make it very attractive for businesses to use Dash over any other currency including USD and Euro which depreciate with time.

One example that comes to mind is the airline industry that has to deal with dozens of currencies from all around the world when customers buy flights. One of the airline industries main risks is loss of profits from currency fluctuations according to the annual financial report from financial Norwegian air.

See page 19 of the following report headed "Currency risk"

https://www.norwegian.com/globalassets/ip/documents/corporate/annual-report-norwegian-2018-web-version.pdf

In the above 2018 annual report (page 50 note table note 13) of Norwegian Air the company received 3,539.7 million NOK which is equivalent to 387,494,695 million USD. Credit Card fees are around 4% meaning that the company has spent around 15.5 Million Dollars in Credit Card fees alone. There are also chargebacks that need to be factored in.

Another factor to consider is that credit cards use for online payment are rejected up to 6.5% of the time due to suspected fraud or non complete customer details. I have obtained this value from my own experience of working in the travel industry.

DASH could provide a payment solution to reduce these credit card fee costs and increase sales from reducing chargeback and failed credit card payments. This could add as much as 6 to 8% additional revenue to the airlines.

If Norwegian Air are successful in implementing a cryptocurrency payment solution then other airlines will have to follow to be able to successfully compete.

One important factor with Airline purchases is that the payment must be fast. The reason is that there is typically around a 10 minute window in which a customer needs to make a payment in order for their ticket to price to be valid. If inventory changes in that time the price could increase. If a customer is paying with bitcoin with a confirmation time of 10 minutes to several hours they could lose their booking. DASH solves this problem.

An Airline payment solution if developed could be rolled out to potentially hundreds of airlines bringing hundreds of millions of new DASH users into the ecosystem.

With a Dash truly stable coin currency fluctuations would not be an issue - the USD and Euro keep depreciating in purchasing power year on year on average around 2.5 to 3%. With Dash stable depreciation in real purchasing power would be 0% making it a much more attractive option for businesses.

Another benefit of a Dash Stable twin coin is it would also help all our own projects if the project funds were awarded in Dash Stable rather than Dash transactional. This would give our projects certainty that they are not going to run out of funds when the price of Dash changes as so many projects have.

Stability of the coin needs to ideally be absolute. Meaning no depreciation in real purchasing power. This, on its own would be very attractive to any business that is exposed to currency fluctuations risks, or for long term fund holders such as pension funds - where trillions world wide are being stored.

I feel that the best marketing for Dash is developing a solution that solves a real world problem for an industry that already has millions of users. i.e. work with an existing industry with the customers we need. This way by implementing the solution we get instant exposure to all their customers without having to pay for or undertake marketing. Solve real world problems by aligning with industries where DASH solves the problems that normal currencies cannot is the marketing solution I feel Dash should be taking.

OK, good to hear you were writing about it in Jan 2019.
The staking to create the stableunit. If they are staking 1Dash unit, how long would it take receive 1Dash stableunit?

2) Feedback from DCG team that a secret of the Dash network is that we haven't actually delivered 'digital cash' yet?

The thinking has roughly been that instant TX confirms + a private send option were enough. However, this is very negligent of the fact that humans prefer their cash be in the 'very stable' category. (and what we have is a product that is in the 'very volatile investment asset' category)

*very negligent of the fact that economies prefer their cash

*(ie. a quite stable currency, even if it takes 20-30seconds for a TX confirmation, is extremely likely in time to win out over a highly volatile currency that has instant TX confirms + privatesend)

From the complete lack of comments in the DCG it is obvious that MNOs have given up providing feedback here and are losing interest. Let me explain why this is:

I want to raise this issue in the DCG funding proposal because it has not been raised previously and it is management issue by DCG Ryan Taylor that has an impact on the success of the DCG project. It is also feedback for Ryan Taylor to consider a different approach.

Firstly, I have to say that my view Ryan is doing a good job overall leading the DCG. He is reasonable in most presentations and interviews, he articulates himself well and he spends time analysing Dash Economics to investigate new models for DASH to make it more stable etc.

However there are also areas of Ryan's management which I wish to raise as a concern to the network and I feel needs to be addressed because it is potentially damaging to the network.

The issue I'm referring to is Ryan Taylor’s approach to blocking or withholding essential information on proposals from getting to MNOs. This has occurred in a number of ways which I will outline below:

Blocking DashWatch from undertaking reports on Alt36

DashWatch were prevented by Ryan Taylor from doing DashWatch reports with the argument that "DCG is looking after this project". Therefore MNOs were not given the chance to benefit from DW reports to gauge the progress and potential success of the project. So far we've seen next to no benefit coming out of the Alt36 project for DASH. We don't even have our brand name or logo on their home page. That is after over 1 million dollars of sponsorship https://www.alt36.com. What kind of a company takes over 1 million in funding then delivers next to nothing in return? In addition to that Alt36 have had a lot of time spent with DCG and Ryan Taylor personally. Therefore Ryan Taylor what is the current status of the Alt36 project you took responsibility for?

<Not responding to questions and feedback given in the DCG proposals.>

Ryan Taylor and Glenn Austin invariable do not answer questions and comments in their funding proposals. During the whole time when Evolution was being delayed (and still is) I asked a lot of questions to DCG with little to no response in the proposals. Information needs to be posted in the proposals when questions are asked in the proposals. The "Ask me anything" the Ryan has started is a positive step however Ryan dictates the questions he will answer and when he will answer them. Proposal questions, however, need to be answered in the proposal itself because this is the point of where decisions and feedback are made to improve the proposal or to make a decision on the proposal.

<Ryan Taylor has advised proposal owners not to engage in feedback in their proposals.>

In a message by Alt36 project lead when asked why they were not responding to feedback said that Ryan Taylor had advised them not to engage in feedback in their proposal.

Encouraging project owners that are looking to get funding from MNO not to engage with MNOs in the proposal is damaging to the network because MNOs cannot get the information they need to make decisions or provide feedback.
As far as I am aware Ryan Taylor has never owned and run his own business i.e. he is not an entrepreneur. Ryan has worked in the finance markets. There is a big difference between running a business and investing in a business.

<DCG leadership is setting a poor and worrying example for other proposals.>

Recently the Dash News proposal did not go through. In that proposal I made constructive feedback as I have done in many past proposals for Dash News - However the points I was making were ignored until the very end of the proposal after which they made a response then decided to close the proposal. I simply received down votes with no comments. I don’t mind receiving down votes – provided there are some actual feedback to back up a down vote. Later on, towards the end of the proposal Mark Mason began to engage in the feedback finally however it was too late by that stage. Proposals such as Dash News lost their proposal because they were not willing to listen to the feedback and engage in the feedback early on so that they can improve.

Yes, it is tough to hear and deal with a constructive criticism, I do appreciate that point. However that is what is needed to improve and MNOs have a responsibility to provide the feedback that is our role. I feel Dash News was influenced by the approach taken by DCG of non engagement in the community.

My view is Ryan Taylor does not seem to appreciate that constructive criticisms is worth its weight in gold to increasing confidence in the Dash Project. The valid objections, doubts and concerns that a person has about the project cause lack of confidence in the project and therefore divesting of funds.

By taking on the feedback and questions directly, and at the time it is raised, is not only one of the best ways to grow and develop your own strategies but equally as important to instil confidence in the investors in the project. An experienced business person welcomes and listens to constructive feedback and is prepared to provide a response to it rather than trying to block or avoid it which is the current situation. You don’t have to follow the feedback if you so choose provided your arguments are stronger than those of the person making the arguments. If they are not as strong, then a wise person would be prepared to change their view or approach.

The only time to ignore or block feedback is when someone is not providing constructive feedback and makes comments that are an unjustified personal attack on someone's character. Under these circumstances it is justified to ignore a response because that feedback is not constructive.

Who has the right to block DashWatch reports?
My view is nobody has the right to block a DW report from taking place. Including DCG management. We fund DW to do reports on all major projects - no exceptions. I would also like to see DW reports on DCG themselves. In countless interviews Ryan Taylor makes a point of saying that DCG is a Dash funded proposal and has to compete with other proposals for funding. But in reality that is a paperwork statement only. If that really is true Ryan then DW reports need to be done on DCG as an independent assessment of a the DCG proposal. The quarterly calls are good but they are not independent which once again undermines investor confidence in the project.

Happy to clarify a few things. And sorry for the slow reply as this proposal was from a previous voting cycle I didn't notice it right away.

Alt36: The Alt36 proposals pre-dated the creation of Dash Watch and the company was already providing regular reporting to the community. Because of the duplicative effort, they communicated to Dash Watch that they didn't intend to participate in their process. At no point did I "prevent" Dash Watch from doing reports, nor did I claim that "DCG is looking after this project". One particular member of Dash Watch was engaging in aggressive behavior with Alt36 well after they had made their position clear that they did not want to duplicate reporting. At that point, I took the position that was the proposal owner's right to provide their own reporting (unless of course they committed to do so in their proposal).

Concerning the current status of Alt36 - the company very much wants to directly accept Dash at the point-of-sale. The technology has been built, and for a brief period in December you could actually pay with Dash at several delivery services in CA and a few physical dispensaries. I shared this information at the open house DCG hosted. However, the functionality needed to be disabled when a major partner of Alt36's threatened to pull the service due to their bank's concerns with cryptocurrency. Some banks serve cannabis clients. Some serve crypto businesses. Some serve money services businesses (like Alt36). Finding a bank with the required services that are comfortable with the compliance risks of ALL THREE is proving difficult. This is the reason the functionality had to be turned off.

In the meantime, all transactions do hit the Dash blockchain in the background. Neither the client nor the merchant is aware. Unfortunately, at present, that seems to be the limitations imposed by the banks. I shared all of this information on our last quarterly call. Alt36 continues to work with us and the banks to try to find a solution. I believe that over time, some banking options will begin to underwrite all three business types - and we'll be able to turn the Dash functionality back on. It is not the outcome we anticipated, but we're continuing to attempt to work through it.

I did NOT advise Alt36 to stop replying to MNOs. I advised Alt36 to stop replying to specific posts and individuals that they perceived as "abusive, trolling in nature, or harassment". I would advise any other proposal owner the same (and often do), and I tend to ignore unproductive engagement myself. The behavior described to me was trolling.

Regarding my experience - I have started and operated several businesses over the years, if that is something that you feel is important. This includes a manufacturing business, technology services, consulting, and advisory businesses. I don't consider those experiences to be nearly as important compared with the experience I gained in places like McKinsey & Co. which are much more oriented toward developing people leadership, thought leadership, and effective communication.

Regarding DCG's own reporting, we also opt not to report through the Dash Watch structure. We provide frequent weekly updates posted to the blog. We also report on a quarterly basis including financial statements, business development update, development update, marketing, customer service update, etc. We answer all questions asked before and during the call (even if it means in writing if time runs out). It is far more comprehensive than the reporting process with Dash Watch. Providing less information in another format is simply not a value-added activity. Dash Watch has always been and continues to be a great service for consolidating reporting for smaller projects that agree to the effort. However, it is not mandatory, especially for projects like DCG that have made clear that we don't intend to leverage that infrastructure. For smaller or less established teams, agreeing to Dash Watch oversight is a great way to garner trust and support. For DCG, it represents duplicative effort and duplicative oversight (i.e., the trust).

It would be irresponsible of me to lessen our own high reporting standards to conform to a Dash Watch template. It would also be irresponsible of me to duplicate reporting efforts, which would take away from our team's capacity in other areas. I firmly believe in that position and am well-supported by the network-elected Trust Protectors on that position. Not everyone will agree with me on that, but I'm comfortable that is the right position to take for the network.

I continue to remain open to feedback from the community and absolutely take it into account when making decisions. While I will not and cannot act on everyone's views, I do what I feel is best for the Dash ecosystem.

@babygiraffe thanks for your reply. I would like to address your feedback.

The DAO appointed and paid for DASH watch to do independent reports on projects. The keyword here is "independent". For this reason it really is not up to the proposal owner to opt out due to "duplicated effort" as you point out. We pay DashWatch to confirm that the information given by a project owner is, infact accurate. A self report is viewed upon with some scepticism. You should know this is how serious investors view self reports where the proposal owner refused a DW report and chose to do their own self reporting. If DCG have already done the work and a DW report really is "duplication" as you say then it should not take you that much time to provide the information in a DW report. Doing so would greatly increase confidence in your own reports and confidence in the Dash project. Confidence and transparency means more investor money and greater involvement with MNOs.

We are not asking for a DW report to be replacements of a DCG quarterly report. We are asking for it in addition to that report.

Regarding DashWatch being aggressive behaviour towards Alt36. It would be good to know what you specifically mean as "aggressive behaviour". I've spoken with DW team members on numerous occasions and I found them to be level headed and reasonable. Indeed they work hard at maintaining there levelheadedness. When the MNO network request a report from DW on Alt36 it is their role to get that report. I don't think that could be classed as aggressive so it really depends on what you mean by aggressive. I feel that it is the DW job to create the reports we fund them to create.

I personally did not feel I got enough information from Alt36 so their reports were most definitely lacking. However even if we did I had a business intuition the Alt36 project would not work out. This is the reason I voted against the Alt36 proposal and it turns out my suspicions were correct. Banks and legislation in countries such as the USA are precisely why I prefer DASH to focus on projects to be undertaken in jurisdictions that are open to crypto or have made it legal for people to pay in crypto such as in Venezuela. Venezuela has passed laws specifically making it legal to use cryptocurrency.

To be clear, I do not have a specific desire for us to do promotions only in Venezuela. The reason for the focus there is because it is the most likely place where we have a chance of establishing DASH because a) The government is actively encouraging people to use Crypto. They have also passed specific laws making it 100% legal to use cryptocurrency in Venezuela b) the people need crypto due to hyperinflation. c) DASH solves a real world problem for businesses and people that their native currency cannot solve. All the components are there. If there was another country that met this criteria then I would consider it. However we still need to focus our energies on one to have a chance of making an impact. One or more of these favourable factors is not present in the USA or Europe and this makes it very difficult for us to get established there at this stage. My view is we must focus the projects that need DASH now as a viable payment method and not to waste time, money and resources on speculative projects in jurisdictions where the government does not welcome crypto and where it is not a viable payment method over fiat.

What concerns me is that teams in Venezuela like DASH Mall parking are scraping by on $4,000 USD per month and the DIF have 200,000 USD they want to invest. The DMall people can't afford to get the POS systems and NFC cards they need even though people and businesses want to buy them. The DIF did not release how much USD they were to invest but I guess it would be most of there funds into the German blog site. The reason I say this is because the DIF did not answer my questions on how much they had in their current reserves. Withholding information like this again raises suspicion on them. It beckons the question why did the DIF not answer how much money they currently have in their reserves. I asked this question twice in their proposal with no answer.

The German market is not our target market. What concerns me that there is not enough focus to the DASH project in our target markets. Vast amounts of money were wasted on projects like KuvaCash. Once again I voted against that project from the start and vocalised clearly why it was not worthwhile. All that money burned up on a useless project that did not make sense to me when we could have invested in our target market and got ourselves established in Venezuela. Lack of focus of our business development is what is concerning me most about the DASH project.

Regarding Alt36 not replying to proposal owners due to you advising them that was the reply posted from the project lead in their proposal. In addition the project owner did not initially respond to my own comments either in their proposal either. I was most definitely not a troll. Yes, I was giving criticism and my point of view of the proposal which was voicing deep concerns about the Alt36 project but that is not trolling if it is backed up with logical arguments and does not attack the character of the proposal owner. My comments were not replied to until after MNOs started raising complaints in their proposals. The reason the proposal owner gave was that you had advised them not to reply. That is what they said in their proposal. I can only go off what the project owner wrote as for the reason of not responding they specifically stated you had advised them to behave like that. Later on the proposal owner started responding but only after pressure from MNOs complaints and the fact they were losing votes as a consequence of not responding.

Regarding DCG DashWatch reports. We want to see DW reports to validate all self reporting as well as providing MNOs with an opportunity to ask other questions for clarity. What this means is that the DCG quarterly report are taken with scepticism by MNOs and investors including myself. And I would say justifiably so. For nearly 1 year I was asking specific questions in the DCG proposals and being ignored or receiving short answers that had little substance. Please do not say you answered all my comments Ryan. It was hard enough for me to continue contributing and have my comments ignored and for you now to say you answered all questions and comments. If you do not agree what I say then I will get my assistant to go through all the DCG funding proposals in the past 2 years where I did not get a reply and put every comment in a single Dash forum post. Other MNOs too have also complained about lack of response from comments in DCG proposals. I would appreciate it if you did not try to smooth that out. The fact is you and Glenn did not respond to many of mine and other MNOs feedback in your proposals in the past.

It is true, however, that you have recently started to provide more feedback in the last few months. Presumably because now Evolution is progressing again. I sincerely hope you continue to provide this feedback. By providing feedback on the comments it clears doubts from investors minds. Doubts lead to lack of confidence and for investors to move on to other investments where they can feel more confident. Not only this feedback on comments also encourages MNOs to participate. MNO participation is at an all time low and declining. One of the reasons for this is simply lack of interest in the DASH project by MNOs. The reason for the lack of interest is what is the point of contributing if our comments and feedback is just going to be ignored or given a one liner reply? It is just not worth it.

Finally another reason to invest the time providing feedback is that it is also valuable for you, the proposal owner. To challenge their, assumptions, thoughts and help to shape their thinking.

The time taken to respond to these comments is worth the investment in time and is a form of marketing in that it builds greater understanding, credibility and understanding of the DASH project.

"The German market is not our target market. What concerns me that there is not enough focus to the DASH project in our target markets. Vast amounts of money were wasted on projects like KuvaCash. "

While there is much to talk about and discuss with your comment, and much to agree with, I want to now and forever put into the grave this idea that you espoused here in this paragraph. KuvaCash was DEFUNDED BEFORE THEY WERE ABLE TO LAUNCH. That means **WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD'VE BEEN A WASTE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET THE CHANCE TO LAUNCH**.

It is EXTREMELY disingenuous to claim that the KuvaCash proposal "failed" or was a "waste". The only reason it "failed' was because there was a last minute push spearheaded by Joel Valenzuela and his crew to DEFUND THE PROPOSAL RIGHT BEFORE IT LAUNCHED. I was there, and I personally argued for nearly 36 hours straight with first Joel's minions, then Joel himself in order to attempt to get him to switch his votes to yes and support the already 1 million dollars invested into Kuvacash. He REFUSED. For trivial, trite and petty reasons. Ok? So stop saying that Kuvacash was a failed proposal. You are being DISHONEST when you frame it that way without including the fact that they were never able to launch in the first place.

If Kuvacash was a "failed proposal", why did it take the defunding of it before its launch for the DAO to see that? I.e. why did we fund them in the first place? Obviously because it was worth it and you are spouting delusions and rewriting history.

There was NOTHING WRONG with Kuvacash. Joel Valenzuela was BUTTHURT OVER SOME PETTY B.S., SPLIT THE DISCORD AND BEGAN ATTACKING DAOs! He led a smear campaign against that proposal based on personality disputes, just like Monero does against Dash. Just like CSW does against BCH. We cannot ignore this behavior and pretend that it will just go away. It will not. This is a large reason why Dash Force went from golden boy status to DEFUNDED. Because of their destructive behavior towards other POs over the last 2 years.

You could only say that Kuvacash failed if they launched and THEN didn't provide ROI. But DashWatch reports show that, until they were defunded they were providing solid ROI for the network. Your argument is the equivalent of Saying Dash retail POS failed because we refused to fund them for months. We're lucky they got funding, but that would the reasoning OF A STUPID FOOL! If you're going to say a project failed YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT A CHANCE TO START FIRST.

Kuvacash was never given that chance. They needed funds to launch, pay their suppliers and partners and get going. THIS FUNDING WAS REFUSED FOR 4 MONTHS. Get your facts together please before you make statements like this, it shows gross ignorance that you would claim that Kuvacash was a "waste of money" when they were never given the chance to launch.

According to DashWatch, the organization you so desperately want Core to begin reporting to (not that I necessarily disagree, but your fervor here should be reflected by actually trusting their reports, instead of making up your own conclusions of failure), KuvaCash provided the following:

https://reports.dashwatch.org/DEC18/KuvacashBaseFunding002.pdf

"1. ADLA Tier 1 license received from Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe -

2. Kuvacash head offices established in Harare, inspected by RBZ, amendments made, re-inspected and full operational license signed off for ADLA Tier 1 operations.

3. We have the Kuva app and software produced to enterprise standards, have demonstrated(tested fully, demonstrated at Moneyconf and additional functionality to DW), showcased it in avideo demo and had two members of the community view it (@solarguy installed on his ownhandset for the attestation, and @krish was shown over Hangout)

4. We have the required financial services partnerships signed and ready to go - from bankaccounts to exchange services to remittance businesses with customer bases. It forms acomplete ecosystem and operational stack and provides for services that are needed tofacilitate adoption by companies and users alike.

5. With Kuva, we have a brand and positioning that makes sense and is compelling in particularto users in Zimbabwe (The word itself means, phonetically 'To Have' in Shona).

6. Through professionalism, transparency and record-keeping, communication (which wasperhaps overly long at times) and cooperation with Dashwatch, Kuvacash is a project that hasset the standard for reporting on the DAO.

7. NDA's executed with two major telecommunications companies in Zimbabwe with a reach ofover 4M people

8. Application prepared with the assistance of FSCOM and submitted to the FCA for an MSBlicense in the UK

9. A feasibility study completed for a ropeway-based transportation infrastructure project whereticketing is paid for through Kuvacash using Dash, and an NDA signed by a major pension fundthat approached Kuva to provide investment for the building of the ropeway (a 28-million USDcapital outlay - Dashwatch attested).

This alone would lead to 40-60k organic transactions PERDAY (multiple scenario analysis produced by the leading firm in cable car studies)."

How can you go down that list and honestly complain that Kuvacash was a "waste of money"? You cannot, not if you're an honest person. Kuvacash was doing in Zimbabwe what Dash retail and others are doing now in Venezuela. Then Joel Valenzuela decapitated their team, forced their 30 man DAO WORKING FOR US to disband. Just like George Donnelly did to DMV in Venezuela. Luckily, the teams survived this attack, but the networks growth and adoption was set back several years by it. YOU DO THE NETWORK NO FAVORS when you misrepresent historical events this way.

I will not be addressing your comments about KuvaCash further. I've already said what I believe and I stated it at the very beginning of their project. My comments were accurate and the DAO got nothing from the money we spent. I don't want to open this further. I'm pleased to see the back of KuvaTrash.

You are entitled to your own opinion, that I do not begrudge you. But you are NOT entitled to your own facts. KuvaCash was defunded before they were able to launch after a vicious campaign led by Joel Valenzuela and others. You cannot convince me or even argue otherwise. I was there.

I personally witnessed him blow that proposal up over a petty ego dispute. Whether or not you are smart enough to accurately call a projects success is neither here nor there, though given that you called KuvaCash a failure before they had a chance to prove anything, I would say you are not.

YOUR COMMENTS WERE INACCURATE AND YOU ARE WRONG. Misrepresenting history as you did does not do anyone any favors, especially the network. The fact that you can't appraise KuvaCash neutrally (that little jab at the end) proves that I was right, you're too emotionally invested in feeling smart so you act STUPID. Defunding proposals before they launch is guaranteed to cause them to fail, THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. YOU ARE NOT A GENIUS FOR PREDICTING GRAVITY. STOP PATTING YOURSELF ON THE BACK FOR MAKING A STUPID DECISION.

Thanks to bonehead moves like that, we wasted ~$1 million USD of DAO funds FOR NO REASON. You are CLEARLY not qualified to appraise proposals, especially before they launched. I will commend you though, you made a smart decision when you decided not to reply.

*KuvaCash