Proposal “dash-org-dec-replace“ (Completed)Back

Title:Dash.org purchase - December Payment Replacement
Owner:babygiraffe
Monthly amount: 702 DASH (63357 USD)
Completed payments: 3 totaling in 2105 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2016-04-06 / 2016-07-21 (added on 2016-03-29)
Final voting deadline: in passed
Votes: 868 Yes / 51 No / 0 Abstain
External information: www.dashwhale.org/p/dash-org-dec-replace

Proposal description

As you may know, the month of December no budget payments were made. This affected all budgets.

One item that was slated to start in December was the reimbursement for the Dash.org acquisition. So payment #1 of 4 was never paid to reimburse Evan and Daniel for the expense the domain.

The missing payment was 2,100 Dash. We don't have room in the budget this month for the full 2,100, so I decided to split this payment of 2,100 Dash (plus 5 Dash for the proposal cost) into 3 payments from April to June.

babygiraffe

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
3 points,1 year ago
A re-submission like this should account for the current DASH/USD exchange rate, since the dash.org domain was purchased in dollars. The purpose of this proposal is for reimbursement, not profit. The missing 2100 DASH is worth about $14k now, about 1/2 the domain name purchase.
Reply
4 points,1 year ago
Hi, well I sold my Dash to help pay for the domain and if it is not too much trouble I would kindly ask to get them back. This was the result of a glitch on the system and was already previously approved.
Reply
3 points,1 year ago
I agree, it needs to be the original Dash amount. But could Babygiraffe and the rest of you verify that you are who you say you are by posting in Dashtalk for the people to see? Also, it would have been nice if you had submitted this a month in advance because now many people have posted projects that sound good, but funds will be tight and some will undoubtedly get squeezed out, possibly this well deserved one. Last minute proposals don't allow MN owners the time to evaluate which proposals are more important. Pre-proposals would be even better.
Reply
2 points,1 year ago
My guess is that he's just taking advantage of the unused budget space for this month, so he had to submit as late as possible to have an accurate idea of how much is unallocated.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.
Reply
-1 point,1 year ago
Fair point! Good luck to you see may the nodes be with you.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
You'll notice in every single core team budget we make the explicit statement that exchange rate risk is borne by the team members incurring the expense. If an expense is paid in Dash it is clear that Dash needs to be paid back. However, even in cases when an expense is incurred in fiat, the network commits to pay back at then-current exchange rates. If the value of Dash subsequently goes down by the time the network's payment arrives, tough luck. There's no going "back to the trough" asking for more later. But likewise, if the value of Dash goes up by the time the network pays, the network shouldn't get to renegotiate and pay less. That's what is meant by the community member takes the exchange rate risk. You could think of it very much like the member is making a commitment to a "purchase" of Dash at the point in time that the proposal is submitted at then current rates. It would be unfair - and we would wind up with very few team members willing to shell out fiat to pay expenses - if every time Dash went down, we told them tough luck and every time it went up, we told them "we want to pay you less because it's worth more now". Make sense?
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Daniel spent X Dash and should get X Dash back. If he had paid in USD it would be different. But if he sold X Dash to buy the domain, why should he only get 1/3 of his Dash back?
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Actually, we have two choices when it comes to fiat...
1) The network bears the exchange rate risk
2) The team member bears the exchange rate risk

If #1, there will ALWAYS be a difference from the time the expense is submitted and the time the network makes one or more payments. In order to "settle up" with the network properly, the team member would have to return any "excess" funds at the time of payment if they received too much Dash, or submit ANOTHER proposal to cover the shortfall at the time of payment in a potentially endless cycle if the exchange rates result in them receiving too little Dash to cover the expense. This is neither practical nor efficient.

If #2, the risk of the exchange rate going down before the member is paid can only be fair to that member if they also reap the benefits when the exchange rate increases.

These are contracts... when a British company signs a contract to pay in USD, it still has to pay in USD even though it makes its money in GBP. These proposals are much like contracts with the team member. The team member is committing to a USD expense today only if the network agrees to pay it back with the equivalent amount of Dash at that point in time. They are entering into a contract that is essentially PURCHASING Dash at the CURRENT exchange rate by incurring an expense on behalf of the network.

In this particular instance, the expenses were originally paid by selling Dash, so Dash is owed back to the member, so it's really irrelevant for this proposal. But I want to make this clear so there isn't confusion in the future about who is accepting the downside risk in these proposals, and therefore the upside "risk" as well. It should not matter whether they sold Dash first to pay the expense or if they pay the expense out of their own pocket. What a team member does to raise the fiat (whether they borrow from a friend, sell a masternode, etc) is neither relevant nor any of the network's business, nor is it even verifiable that they sold Dash first.

In fact, I would argue that by differentiating, we open ourselves up to potential abuse of the system. The team member could sell Dash to fund an expense, but not specify the source of funding until after the Dash payment was made to him. If the exchange rate had declined, the member could then lie and claim that they funded with fiat from their bank account and are therefore owed more money (and there would be no way to disprove this). Whereas if the exchange rate had increased, he could then produce proof of the Dash sale to fund the expense and keep the full amount.

Let's keep this simple. Team members bear all risk.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
You're right, as confirmed by Minotaur's post. We're on the same page now. I'll have to remind myself not to post before having morning coffee.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
FYI, here is a link on Dashtalk for those who don't recall the missed budget payments: https://dashtalk.org/threads/budget-glitch.7246/#post-75968
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
My very first thought when i got an email about this budget proposal from Dashwhale was "why putting up a budget proposal so close for the next superblock ?" my second thought was "who exactly is that guy with a bunch of numbers that is proposing it ?" So i agree with TanteStefana that timing is bad and more thought should have been given to pre-proposal discussion. In the mean time more comments appeared in here and things became much more clear and i agree that the first missing Dash payment should be reimbursed and i'm content its been split over three terms.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Sorry for not leaving more time qwizzie. I take your feedback and will try to leave more than a week in the future (it is to our advantage to do so anyway to allow more time to capture the required votes). I have also aligned my username to by Slack and Dashtalk username, so that issue is resolved.
Reply