Welcome!

Sounds like a good candidate.

Anyway can you make more youtube videos with your sultry voice so simps will buy Dash up to number 3 in market cap again? Thanks!

Kinda silly to launch a decision proposal here about a candidate evaluation without making sure there actually is such a candidate.

So you're saying I should not put in my Elon 4 DCG CEO proposal

Please remind me again why we are lowering the proposal fee from 5 dash to 1 dash, when these decision proposals keep emerging with the 5 dash proposal fee. 5 dash proposal fee does not seem to form much of a barrier after all.

Are you insinuating that this proposal is spam? because it's not even though it is poorly through out.

No, i am not insinuating that this proposal is spam. I just think the original reasons for the lowering of the Dash proposal fee from 5 dash to 1 dash, got pretty obsolete by now. And looking at the number of decision proposals that includes the 5 dash proposal fee, i still think the 5 dash proposal fee was never the issue.

We can always do better, even if we were winning, we must always strive to do better.

Personally, I think the reduced fee will lead to more and better communication between and among the interested parties. More and better communication is and will be a critical part of improving our governance model.

solarguy

He is not interested in this role, also, he is exactly where he needs to be, which is developing the Dash Savings account over at https://crowdnode.io/

So, far we have trusted staking via the web front-end. Recently added was the Blockchain API which implements the Swipe2Stake feature for mobile wallets (Android only) and coming real soon is the trustless MN shares, where for as little as one hundred Dash you can participate in a group masternode, completely trustlessly with no third party custodian of your coins!

trustless "group masternode"?
who will hold the key to the collateral address?
how could it ever be trustless, if registering a MN requires a single 1000 Dash transaction to the collateral address?

It will involve a multi-sig setup. Since this involves a lot of signatures and coordination between all signers, the minimum for this solution is 100 Dash, limiting the number of participants in a shared MN to 10. It was explained in a video by Crowdnode when they launched their first proposal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJcML_3N1ME
(timestamp 6:20)

TPs have to get busy filling DCG Board seats, we have a qualified Interim CEO, how about we let the TPs fix the DCG Board first?

Exactly ^^^
But in the medium term, and in the long term, I think it is very common and considered best practices to keep a list of potential candidates for critical positions in any organization bigger than 10-20 people with a budget of any substantial size.

And we're definitely working on the DCG board.

solarguy

Amanda knows a lot of people and obviously feels Andreas Rude has that little something extra. Only Mr. Rud can say for himself if he is interested or if he has the time to do this. I have no problems in directing the TPs to open discussion with him.

Rudd not Rude. hehe.

Fing spell check, grrrr!

I am not even sure the Dash Trust Protectors should be involved with finding suitable candidates for Dash Core Group leadership positions in the first place.

Effectively, the Trust Protectors serve as an analog to a Board of Directors overseeing Dash Core Group. We are entrusted to serve the interests of the Masternode community with regards to DCG. Would not the Masternode community, and therefore the Trust Protectors take an active interest in the people who serve in leadership positions on DCG? Until recently, there were only two people on the DCG board, Glenn and Sam. They were very much overworked and short staffed. Don't you think they could use a little help?

solarguy

One could ask themself why DCG got so understaffed on the DCG board.

Anyways I am fine with the involvement of the Dash Trust Protectors in this particular situation as long as it is clear that this does not create a precedent, where all future DCG leadership positions need to go through the Dash Trust Protectors. DCG should maintain the right to select and evaluate their own leadership positions, without getting subjected to external influence.

Certainly the Trust Protectors have neither the mandate, nor the desire to micromanage DCG.
solaruy

Let alone evaluate those candidates. As that really part of the Dash Trust Protector's mandate ?