No comments so far? Be the first to start the discussion!
qwizzie
3 points,27 days ago
Should be interesting to see who exactly claims this proposal, i don't think this budget proposal is from DCG / QE.
I suspect it is someone who is against any kind of regulation (MiCa or otherwise) and does not care if Crowdnode stops its operations due not getting funding for their MiCa license budget proposal.
I wonder what else will pop-up, maybe a 'dcg-supp-extra-no_pshenmic.dev_DFO' ? Or a 'dcg-supp-extra-no_Dash Growth Q4 2024' ?
Reply
qwizzie
0 points,27 days ago
I blame the low proposal fee for these kind of proposals.
Reply
lysergic
1 point,27 days ago
It's not a bug, but a feature. I like this proposal. Pitting this one directly against the CN MiCa proposal is great way to determine what the community values more and in which direction Dash shall travel. Will we move more into compliance and bend the knee, or will we move more towards building decentralised apps and networks that do not require permission to use.
Oh and by the way, I asked the Maya Protocol team what their plans are to come into compliance with the new MiCa regs in 2025 and they laughed in my face. It was the right answer.
Reply
qwizzie
2 points,27 days ago
duh, Maya Protocol is a decentralized entity, comparable to a decentralized exchange. Of course they laugh in your face, all DEX will laugh in your face when asked that question.
Crowdnode is not decentralized and has to have its regulation policy up to date in order to keep its operations going.
Reply
quantumexplorer
2 points,27 days ago
DCG did not make this proposal, nor did I know about this proposal ahead of time.
To be 100% clear, I did not instruct anyone to make this proposal either. I just woke up and saw it on Dashcentral, and was really quite surprised.
I believe having Crowdnode no longer be able to offer services would be bad for our network and I really want them to continue existing. If that means they need MiCa, then that means they need MiCa. I personally don't like the extra regulation but I would imagine most people voting for that proposal don't either.
Reply
lysergic
1 point,27 days ago
The payout address of this proposal matches DCG payout address, you can verify it here https://mnowatch.org/leaderboard/ and in the core wallet. Should this proposal be funded DCG would likely be able to save their devs from the chopping block and get more work done.
I suspect it is someone who is against any kind of regulation (MiCa or otherwise) and does not care if Crowdnode stops its operations due not getting funding for their MiCa license budget proposal.
I wonder what else will pop-up, maybe a 'dcg-supp-extra-no_pshenmic.dev_DFO' ? Or a 'dcg-supp-extra-no_Dash Growth Q4 2024' ?
Oh and by the way, I asked the Maya Protocol team what their plans are to come into compliance with the new MiCa regs in 2025 and they laughed in my face. It was the right answer.
Crowdnode is not decentralized and has to have its regulation policy up to date in order to keep its operations going.
To be 100% clear, I did not instruct anyone to make this proposal either. I just woke up and saw it on Dashcentral, and was really quite surprised.
I believe having Crowdnode no longer be able to offer services would be bad for our network and I really want them to continue existing. If that means they need MiCa, then that means they need MiCa. I personally don't like the extra regulation but I would imagine most people voting for that proposal don't either.