Proposal “Dash-Visual-Identity-201805“ (Closed)Back

Title:Dash Visual Identity (Decision Proposal)
Owner:glennaustin
One-time payment: 5 DASH (328 USD)
Completed payments: 1 totaling in 5 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2018-04-18 / 2018-05-18 (added on 2018-04-23)
Votes: 821 Yes / 94 No / 5 Abstain

Proposal description

This proposal is cross-posted from https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-dash-visual-identity-decision-proposal.37125/
 
Proposal background
Last month the community voted on two competing proposals regarding Dash’s future visual identity. We set rules for the contest: the proposal that received the most net votes would be chosen for our visual identity, subject to the constraints that net votes must be positive and at least 20% of the masternodes must have voted. The visual identity presented by Tharp and Clark won according to those rules.
 
The altered rules were well-intentioned, as we were attempting to use the proposal system as a multi-option polling mechanism. We assumed most voters would vote “no” for one proposal and “yes” to the competing one. Additionally, we knew that masternode operators that preferred the existing Dash identity would vote “no” to both proposals. Under those competitive conditions, we anticipated more “no” votes would be cast than “yes”, and adhering to the 10% net votes threshold would constitute an unreasonable threshold. As expected, more “no” votes were cast than “yes” during the voting cycle.
 
However, a meaningful number of members of the Dash community and of Dash Core Group strongly feel that since the proposal presented by Tharp and Clark didn’t surpass the 10% net vote threshold, the proposal wasn’t actually passed by the network. Thus, we should not use the visual identity presented by Tharp and Clark until a proper vote is held specifically covering it - because it would violate the rules of our governance system.
 
The path forward
After countless hours of discussion over this topic, we realized that both interpretations of the rules have merit. Furthermore, it became clear that most people were entrenched and unwilling to change their established opinions on the matter. We don’t want to create a schism in the community over the issue, so we propose a vote on the Tharp and Clark design against only the existing logo. We are quite certain it will receive more than 10% of net positive votes, as most community members seem to favor the design over the current logo, even if they previously voted against it in favor of the Ogilvy option. For many community members that are calling for a vote, this is more about making the decision official and indisputable, and not stemming from a desire to overturn the result. This will put any questions regarding the legitimacy of the design to bed. However, if it doesn’t clear the 10% approval threshold, then we will keep the current logo. Once the vote is complete we will be able to move forward united regardless of the final result.
 
Why isn’t the proposal funding the Tharp and Clark work considered final?
While there is a proposal to fund the Tharp and Clark design, which appears likely to pass in the May cycle, proponents of a confirmation vote contend that support for funding their work is not the same as supporting the branding change. In short, a masternode operator that preferred to keep the current logo but felt that Tharp and Clark deserved to be paid would feel compelled to vote yes regardless of whether they preferred the new logo. Therefore, the only way to know with absolute certainty is to hold a separate decision proposal.
 
The visual identity proposed by Tharp and Clark
Below are updated image of the Tharp and Clark design and a short presentation:
 
https://i.imgur.com/oMbfRoU.jpg
 
This is a revised version of the logo they proposed in the last cycle to includes some of the feedback from the community:
1. Shape and slope of the face of the D to bring more in harmony with rest of the wordmark
 
2. Slightly longer, bigger dashmark that is also pushed a little closer inside the D that helps
with eye flow and unity
  
3. Interior of the “a” slightly larger and more open
 
4. Lower case spacing for balance
 
The presentation is the one included in the competitive phase of the process, so the logo is slightly different to the one presented above. They are working on a full style guide, but it is not finished and we wanted to put up this proposal in this cycle. The changes are small, so we believe that this gives a good enough idea of what
they are proposing.
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pTq9WtRGXfvOvK5qcwlbx45a_yrmZqHL
 
Note: Tharp and Clark will be paid for their work regardless of the outcome of this proposal. Their first invoice has already been paid and the second one will be paid upon completion of a few pending tasks.  Earlier this month we submitted a proposal to reimburse the Dash Core Marketing budget for the payment related to the first invoice (since that expense had not been previously funded by the treasury). Here is the link to that proposal: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Core-Team-Tharp-and-Clark-0518
 
If you have any questions, please direct them to @Fernando in the original Forum post.
 
Budget Request:
Requested funding is as follows for the May 3rd budget cycle:
- 5.00 Dash proposal reimbursement

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
7 points,7 months ago
Moving to a new logo is emotionally hard for me, but I see the advantages to moving forward with an updated visual identity.

Whoever created the old logo deserves the real prize for creating our current identity. It has served us well! Hats off to you, whoever you are!
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Voting yes to the updated/revised logo from the Tharp and Clark firm, as i think it looks better then our current logo.
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
I recommend opening the proposal description with text something like.

"If you support changing the current logo to the T&C design pictured bellow vote yes on this proposal.

If you do not supports changing the current logo vote no on this proposal".

Then go on with all the background stuff we can do without reading.
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
I'm really glad you listened to the community and put this to a vote. Initially it didn't seem like that big of a deal to me, but I came to understand the importance of adherence to protocol that a lot of the community values, so this is more than worth it, IMO.
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
I'm getting beat into submission here. I really didn't see the need for change and voted against each of the proposals. Since that time, however, I've given it more thought. I can see there is at least some sizable portion of the community that is looking for a re-branding and after watching the video presentation by T&C I'm starting to think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to tweak things from where we're at currently, for the reasons expressed by many others.

So I'm voting in the affirmative, but please lets not make a regular habit of doing this.

While I'm at it, I'd like to make a plug for ᕭ as our Unicode symbol. Looks pretty close doesn't it? ᕭash
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Is there a bold version of that Unicode ? that would be even better, but close enough for now
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Its an easy no.
I dont want than all materials have to be reprint without any prouf than new logo is beter than old one.
I realy apreciat CORE way of doing thing for consolidate the trust (trustless) in the Dash network.

Let DAO decide.

PS : Kalon, you killing me "ᕭASH"
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
I’m counting 450 “YES” votes and 78 “NO” votes, and JoL is here saying “It’s an easy no”.

Heads up MNOs,..
JoL rhymes with Troll. He’s only here to disrupt.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
" JoL rhymes with Troll. He’s only here to disrupt." I don't think I'd assume that. JoL makes a valid point and I can understand the sentiment. That said, this is clearly where popular support is and there is nothing stopping us (individuals) from phasing in the new logo as we see fit. There is bound to be a bit of a transition phase, and at least there is continuity between the new and old.

Just look at how our new ad by DashAds handles it. https://youtu.be/7R8Z3Boo94Q
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Just to clarify.

His statement that “it’s an easy no” is so far off base from the counted votes it is hard to understand what is going on in his head, plus his endless negativity and comments on some pretty damn good proposals makes me think he’s a disruptive troll.

The new ad looks good, but agree, it’s confusing that they revert back to the old logo for the last frame, while incorporating the new logo throughout the rest of the video. Hopefully they will render it again to finish on the new T&C Dash Digital Cash logo.
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
An improved logo that takes us to the next level, looking even better with the refinements! Voting YES
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
God that’s one good looking logo. Voting yes!
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
Although I think you probably could have gotten away with implementing the new logo in without this additional vote, this is probably the right thing to do in order to settle the issue. I strongly support the new logo, voting yes!
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Voting yes. T&C logo is fine if not excellent. Certainly, their slide deck demonstrates that they understand the Dash community. I think Core is doing a wise thing to do it the old fashioned way. Let's get on with it.

solarguy
Reply
5 points,7 months ago
Still like O&M better, but this one is also better than our current logo, according to my local polling with just the two options on the table. Let’s do this!
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Tharp & Clark logo slide deck can be viewed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pTq9WtRGXfvOvK5qcwlbx45a_yrmZqHL/view
Reply
4 points,7 months ago
Hell yes to T&C, it will appeal to a broader audience. The current logo is too masculine and robotic, it looks technical which is the opposite of the user-friendliness we want to convey.

If anyone is in doubt, watch T&C talk about how they arrived at their design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od_-m5wcBR0
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
Yes hope it pass's.

I am also curious to see the process of it changing
Reply
3 points,7 months ago
YES. Glad to see a revision of this logo. I note the refinements. I voted NO to both on the last round of voting.....but I am relieved things have gone the way of this T&C design.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
Voted no! basically, the existence of a visual identity is very important, so it is not appropriate to abandon the design we have today! in my opinion, this idea is not appropriate! Modifying the logo will be very costly for DASH's partners, since many exchanges will need to redesign the logos on all different platforms operating DASH.
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Current design hasn’t being abandoned, it is being evolved. The iconic D is very similar to what we currently have.

Watch T&C video then reconsider your vote. The time to make any changes is right now, before we hit the mainstream.
Reply
-1 point,7 months ago
why do you think we have not yet reached the mainstream?
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Well, I had no problem with the previous Vote to I will vote accordingly.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
When will we get to see the reinterpretation of the current logo promise by O&M? How can we vote before we've seen that?
Reply
2 points,7 months ago
Not interested in seeing more from O&M. They clearly aren’t giving the same attention to Dash as T&C.

Did you see the live ads rolling out from O&M, typo/misspelling in the video ad (“inmediate”), and deprecated buy now links to atlassian.

https://www8.dash.org/en/

You need to stop being dogmatic and back your best horses.

When it comes to brand development , T&C are clearly the leaders, and that’s why they came out on top by a country mile.
Reply
-2 points,7 months ago
> Note: Tharp & Clark will be paid for their work regardless of the outcome of this proposal. Their first invoice has already been paid and the second one will be paid upon completion of a few pending tasks.

Why are we paying for something before we even know if we want it? That's still not how the treasury system works.
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Did you not notice that we *also* already paid O&M?

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/marketing-201710

The work they did was already part of this, we paid Ogilvy 91,500 € for their branding efforts.

This is generally how business works, companies won't do work for free...
Reply
1 point,7 months ago
Because a contractual agreement was entered into and signed by Dash Core.

That’s how contracts work.

We don’t need to micromanage core or prevent them from making business decisions.

They are a Sub-DAO of Dash. If the network doesn’t like what they are doing, then defund them.

Personally, I see a great result here. Very happy with the team!
Reply