Welcome!

MNO Australia.
Voting YES.
Dash Central could be improved and modded for sure. But that is not happening.

If you ever do get this done, may I ask you if it would be possible to build it with Evolution in mind? I think the future is to have all this information (threads on each proposal) in the dash drive where anyone can "pull it up" using the DAPI either in an app or website of their choosing. If a MNO posts something, the rest of the world can see what they post, but only proposal owners and MNOs are allowed to post. If you could build this with the vision of setting it into the Dash Drive so it can be decentralized with a centralized functionality, that would be awesome. It would also be protected there as the site will never go down or disappear and nobody will have to maintain a site/domain name, etc...

Another caveat is that the information would be archived forever. :)

I want to see this happen - IMO the current site is poor

Voting NO for now. This is something that could be developed first then put in the proposal after it's up and running. If its a good site we will want to use it and fund it. Not only that you could put in regular 3-6 month proposals for support and updates.

Why all the "no" votes, folks? Explain yourselves, what use are you to the network when you vote but don't explain why? Sometimes proposal owners can give further clarification or make changes based on your criticisms and reach amenable outcomes. If you're going to participate, then *participate.*

We need good governance tools.
Schedule seems aggressive. Take the time it needs to make it watertight.
Voting yes.

Voting yes. Some ideas for the new platform:

I'd like to be able to hide all proposals I've voted on (with a check box); or move all proposals I've already voted on to the bottom of the list so I don't need to scroll through them all the time.

It would be nice to be able to sort proposals by net votes, by yes votes, by no votes.

After I place a vote, pop up a comment box so I can add a comment without having to move to a different area on the screen. This could make voters more likely to comment.

A thousand times yes.

I greatly appreciate everything Dash Central and Rango have done, but yeah, I agree, as things progress we need a better platform and some of these additional features we've all discussed would be great and it's clear that Rango just doesn't have the time to do what we as MNOs want/need to have done. Most important to this is open source development so that eventually the DAO actually owns its own platform. That's essential. If we're going to be taking on multi-million dollar proposals and actually owning equity in the future, we need a platform that reflects and facilitates that kind of responsibility, so the sooner we can get that taken care of the better.

Agreed we need to own our platform.

This is very much needed. More options of sites to be able to vote and discuss the better. In the end the best sites with the best features will rise to popularity.

Voting yes. The lack of action on openly abusive and nasty shill comments with the intention to spread FUD has forced my hand. If Rango will not do his job well, the community will not hesitate to look for other options..

I'm voting yes on this. I think the timescale is rather optimistic(!), it'll more likely take twice that minimum but that shouldn't take away from the purpose of the proposal.. We've outgrown Dashcentral and I really don't like that it's under individual ownership.

As masternode operators we need to take ownership of the tools and resources we use to collaborate and contribute to our network. The first stage of that is creating one or more DFO's that we control via funding proposals such as this, then they build out the infrastructure we require.

MNO's who want to hold out for a completely decentralised "evo" solution are living in a dreamworld if they think that's coming any time soon. We're years away from this kind of solution in reality.. In the meantime we have real business to attend too...

Think about it.. As Mark Mason would say.

Walter

Voting yes. DashCentral has become problematic. Concerns about the lack of moderation and trolling go back at least to last July/August. I sympathize that Rango has a lot on his plate....but.....we have to do something soon.

DashCentral has played a huge role in the development of Dash, but it is a central point of failure. An open source, redundant site would be a good thing. It doesn't mean DashCentral can't be improved as well.

solarguy

voted yes, id like to see some competition

There are good reasons for and against this. I'll vote yes in the spirit of competition.

For both this proposal and for rango, I would like to see the following features implemented:

1. Set comments to MNOs only
2. New proposal header field: Proposal Owner Identitiy Verified? field (green yes check or red no X)
3. Escrowed? field (green yes check or red no X)
4. Escrow Provider: text
5. Escrow address verified? field: (green yes check or red no X)

Why is DashBoost being discussed by some commenters???

DashBoost = a micro-proposal system where small opportunities can be voted on by the community (non-MNOs as well, AFAIK). Approved proposals would then receive the funds from DashBoost.

Masternode.io = an open-source, improved version of this site — with tools to prevent trolling (this is starting to become a real problem here), a better front end, PDFs for the proposal descriptions, etc.

I fail to see any overlap with DashBoost...

Also, escrow is being handled by GC, that’s it. If MNOs have issues with GC that should be discussed in the comment section of that (currently live) proposal. From a purely escrow point of view GC is doing their job as I have not heard any reports of proposal owners that deal with GC not being paid.

As there seems to be some "anti" green candle players on here....I'm hoping to have the green candle report on all the projects that green candle has handled and complete trail of all the funds so that we can stop the silly fudding going on here. I will be putting my MN votes behind this project for sure.

@bigrcanada thank you very much for your comment. I just posted exactly what you were after on my proposal. I hope MNOs will find time to read through the details. For those that did not yet see it: https://greencandle.io/proposal-audit-trail.pdf

You have my support on this. Voting yes, best of luck..

Thank you

I'd really like to see a breakdown of the cost and also how you plan to support the site in the future. During the discussion in discord, we had quite a few ideas about things we would like to have on such a site.

My response to @quantumexplorer should cover your concerns/questions.

First of all i have no problem with having a new open-source proposal system, after all competition is healthy and can force interesting and needed changes.

But at the same time i think we need to discuss any new budget proposal system a bit further, specifically with regards to the implemention of moderators, comment filters and splitting the masternode owner group from the rest.

It is not clear to me how the masternode owners feel about that : do we want moderators that will be actively viewing and judging comments ? Or do we want to introduce comment filters ? Or do we want a system, that only let masternode owners discuss budget proposals ?

Regardless of the masternodes decisions around moderators and or moderation under this proposal the MNO's would have power to just clone the repo and launch a new proposal domain/service. See my response to @quantumexplorer for more information.

Essentially fracturing the already sparse conversation that exists on dash central

Not necessarily, all it would take is listing comments from other proposal systems using the API's I mentioned in my response to @quantumexplorer. From there we could include a small badge so the community know's where the comment originated from, by clicking on the badge you would be able to continue the conversation through that domain if necessary. For example https://prnt.sc/ihf9ko

This would also allow MNO's to filter comments even further, let's say there is a domain created using the software to troll proposals, filter or ban the domain from being included in the comment section and this problem is solved.

Voting no too, I agree with quantumexplorer.

I replied to his inquiry if you wanted more information.

Are you going to host the new proposal system yourself? Or are you only going to develop it and thats it?

We will be hosting on masternode.io and open sourcing the final product including any feature we continue to develop for masternode.io so this would be more of a long term value add to Dash.

See my response to @quantumexplorer for a bit more information around our thought process about the proposal and open sourcing all features, etc.

Sounds great, voting yes!

Appreciate your effort but will vote no, Dashcentral is pretty central to the dash budgeting system currently, any other website would just fracture the discussion. The next update to this process should be a decentralized version on top of evo, not another website imo. Also if you think you will be done in 3 weeks you are kidding yourself. But let's assume 3 weeks. Let's say you are going to use 10k for 3 years of hosting, so 62k for 3 weeks of work. I sometimes wonder if people submitting proposals like this one assume MNOs won't question the fine print.

@quantumexplorer JGCMiner has the right idea, there have been many MNO's who have expressed concern with DashCentral acting as the only budgeting system. We are developing an alternative that will be hosted on masternode.io while also open sourcing the entire service including ALL new features we develop for masternode.io.

Our goal is to eliminate the centralization of a budgeting system and we believe this problem can be solved under one of the following ways:

#1) Run this software on dash.org - dash.org/proposals
#2) Create a page on dash.org that pulls the title + url of each proposal from Dash sentinel and provide direct links to each proposal ( think DashVoteTracker )
#3) Take option #1 or #2 a bit further by aggregating the data from each budgeting system's API to display everything in one location - dash.org ( DashCentral already provides this, we will as well! )

Dash already offers a decentralized proposal system, the only pieces that need to be correctly implemented surround the features DashCentral offers and other addons requested by the community. Once the software is open sourced the community will
have the ability to use the proposal system they enjoy the most, while keeping everything connected through API's.

It will become as easy as forking the repo, rebranding, upgrading if need be, and hosting on xyz domain. New competitors within the space will immediately be shared on dash.org ( if we go with option #2 listed above ) making this entire process nearly automatic.

To briefly touch on the budget this isn't a for profit business. Once complete there is no ongoing fee we can or will implement to charge for the service. We will run the budgeting system on masternode.io while upgrading over time based on the communities feedback. Long term we will accept donations similar to DashCentral but they will not be required. Either way we intend to continue open sourcing ALL new features we build into the service.

The decision around the budget came down to the following choices:

#1) Create 1 proposal to lay the infrastructure required for all of this while open sourcing everything along the way ( including new features )
#2) Create a new proposal for new feature requests while burning 5 Dash every time and creating 1 month development dead zones between each proposal.

Under option #1 the budget is slightly higher

Could you please decompose the requested budget for us?

but will allow us to operate without constant funding from the treasury, while also avoiding the month long dead zones mentioned in option #2. A small portion of the budget will be spent on hosting for masternode.io but the vast majority will be spent laying the ground work + ongoing development costs for new features.

I think the point is not to have an additional site, but rather to move away from DashCentral.

As you just stated, this website is very central to the budgeting system and thus has started to be a target for trolling attacks. I am not sure how much time you spend here, but there have been a lot of vicious and vile posts by obvious trolls that took days to get deleted because there is no active moderation and anybody can sign up and comment. Plus, Rango is only one guy and cannot be expected to police the website by himself especially in the face of a persistent troll attack.

As an organization we don’t want potential contractors to post proposals here only to get berated with these types of comments. It is unprofessional and might cause bigger names to just stay away from us. That’s not good for Dash and why an alternative site is being built.

As for the costs, I hope the proposal owner will answer that portion of your comment.

I don't see there being a big need for this currently unless adjustments are not made with Dash Central to prevent trolls trying to steer direction of discussion. If adjustments are not made with Dash Central, I will give you support next cycle.

Voting NO for now.

We believe there is room for improvement in many areas outside of just managing trolling. embedding a pdf in the proposal page to replace the WYSIWYG editor when creating a proposal is just one of the many features we will be adding.

Unfortunately if this proposal fails it will take some time to repurchase the 5 Dash required to create a proposal, it's quite expensive. Regardless thank you for the feedback.

I think there is a fundamental problem with us not owning dashcentral. So unless rango sells us the domain and code I will vote for an alternative.

3 weeks of site development? Why not 3days? Unrealistic goals, and the price is too damn high

3-4 weeks of development is very realistic when laying the ground work with the features mentioned above. The proposal is discussed a bit further in my response to @quantumexplorer if you would like to read our thought process around all of this.

I would rather have dash spent improving DashCentral and making it troll proof than start another website where possibly the same issues may occur.
Alas it has come time for Dashcentral to only allow masternode owners to make comments.

That's the problem though.. Rango won't make this change.

Walter

@KiwiCodger walters expresses the concerns shared by a lot of MNO's at least from what we have been able to see/read.

Further.. as per my conversation by telephone with techsquad the proposal owner of dash boost he had agreed to open source it.

We could build upon that

Dear Realmrhack,

Upon your request for clarification I can confirm that was agreed and captured in the commentary under our proposal at the following link.

"https://www.dashcentral.org/p/gc-dash-boost"

The commentary being as follows;

"This is a community project that will be funded by the community and will be 100% for the community.  If there is ever a requirement for the DashBoost infrastructure and codebase to be made available to other regions and sub communities then it will be made available.

The main point that I’m making here is that the community will always decide what happens in this domain.  If someone creates a proposal and references our codebase as a key component then pending that proposal being passed we will supply the code as per the request of the community."

Respectfully Yours,
TechSquad

@jgcminer because some features are near identical and they could borrow the codebase and deliver at a lower cost if at all

Secondly as MNOs have had issue with GC escrows and have voiced their concerns on another proposal. Im sure they will also cross post here.

Which features are the same? The projects have two entirely different goals. I must be missing something...

Also, I don’t see the point of bringing GC’s issues here. If Core was escrowing this proposal it would still have the exact same value (or lack thereoff) to the network. Unless you think GC won’t relay the funds...

This will be obsolete once evoloution drops.

Not strictly true... Evo is a process that will take years. There's not a chance that Evo V1 will have a built in platform that will replace DashCentral. Unless you've heard otherwise?

Walter

Another proposal by GC?

1) last minute submission 9 days
2) redundant effort, evo will make it obsolete.
3) not known user
4) no pre proposal discussion
5) hallmarks of GC.
6) essentially an extension of dash boost.. one could argue even similar code base.
7) the network essentially pays for twice the effort

I would urge all MNO to seriously consider this and vote NO.

I will be urging that we completely omit ALL non MNO's from any new proposal site that gets built...if I have to pay for it myself. The site will need to be moderated so we don't have to deal with non stake holders comments

I agree with having non MNO's removed from budget proposal discussions from any new proposal site. This means doing more then just putting up comment filters, that can then be optionally set to exclude non MNO comments (i'm afraid this budget proposal is going that direction).

What i'm against though is putting power in the hands of a select few moderators, we have seen the side-effects of that in the past.
So in my view we should have a place / several places, where only masternode owners can discuss budget proposals.

Dash Central or this new proposal site does not necessarily have to be that place alone, specially not if other budget proposal sites can share API's and make the whole thing less centralized.

Totally agree. Managing a treasury of the size of Dash is a serious business, we can't have serious discussions about how we fund the development of the network with all the 'noise' that comes on the current DashCentral platform. It's an unwelcome distraction if you ask me.

Walter

Agreed. But disagree on building a new site we could convince rango to update... By paying him dash

That offer has been made, more than once, and declined, more than once.
solarguy