DeepBlue
Active member
09: Decentralized Decision Making: Proactively Building and Protecting Dash Decentralization
"“The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” Albert Einstein
14/02/2021 Please note I have edited this post to remove mention of Mark Mason of Dashnewsroom because I had inaccurately stated he was part of the DIF. My sincerely apologies to Mark for my error.
History has shown time and time again, with all but a very few exceptions, (Gandhi being one), that people in power strive for more power. This is unfortunately built into human nature and described in Darwinian evolution. It is an immutable law of nature that the strongest will survive. People in a position of power know that they could lose that power at any time. Therefore, in order to secure their position in power, they strive for more power.
If the Dash community does not take proactive steps now to build and protect Dash decentralization then it will be taken away from us piece by piece by those that have the most power in the project. This will continue until there will eventually be a point when we can never claim it back again. It has already stated to happen in my opinion.
Power is becoming centralized in Dash and we must stop this now. Here is a breakdown of current essential activities for the network:
1. DCG headed by Ryan Taylor has a monopoly on building the Dash code. DCG management also took responsibility for marketing and PR - I think the results in that area speak for themselves. Code great (although 3 years late) however we could do with more decentralized dev teams.
2. DCG marketing - again Ryan Taylor has an strong influence in this area. It is also noted that the DCG management marketing has not been successful, leaving Dash practically unknow for its world-class blockchain innovations which means people will not buy into Dash because they simply don't know about our innovations. Marketing / PR and awareness of DASH innovations - just one word sums up DCG marketing: CRAP.
Ryan Taylor has an MBA from Colombia university he also has a background in traditional finance. MBAs are basically advanced accountancy degree based primarily on theory and case studies - not real world experience. The problem with MBAs is they inevitably fall back on their training when making decisions instead of falling back on real world experience of running a business funded by their own money, sweat and tears. The problem with this is theory does not cut it in the real world however MBAs tend to think that it does..
Here is what Elon Musk has to say about MBAs
I agree with Elon Musk's points of view. I have always strived to encourage DASH projects to focus on treasury proposals that improve the actual Dash product and have actual practical applications for Dash as a viable functional payment system in the countries of the world where dash can be used as a feasible payment system. These include Venezuela, Argentina, Africa, Turkey all of which have serious hyperinflation problems.
In addition cryptocurrency is classified as "property" in the USA. This means that if a DASH user spends their DASH in the USA they would have to calculate the appreciation in value of each purchase and pay capital gains tax on every single purchase with Dash. So good luck if you want to buy coffee with Dash in the USA. It is not practical to use Dash to pay for services in the USA due to these tax issues. I raised this concern in the DIF funding proposal after I found out that the DIF had made a decision to invest in Craypay without getting network approval but I received no reply from the DIF on my comments about Tax. You can check this out here:
I'm still waiting for an intelligent answer from the Ryan Taylor or any DIF supervisor on the tax concerns I raised but so far no replies. Note that if the MNO network had been given an opportunity to comment on the proposed investment in Craypay this comment would have been raised but we were not given this opportunity.
Therefore I'm asking again directly to Ryan Taylor @babygiraffe, who holds an MBA and therefore should know the answer, to explain exactly how a Dash user can legally buy goods with Dash in the USA and not account for capital gains tax on every single Dash expenditure? If Ryan Taylor stays silent and does not answer this question then it calls into doubt his ability to make sound business decisions.
3. Legal - again DCG headed by Ryan Taylor
The problem here is that Ryan Taylor has major influence in all of the above crucial areas of Dash. Ryan Taylor has proven not to have much business sense even though he has an MBA. Evidence of this was his backing of KuvaCash - which I stated right from the beginning was not a good project to back - they even spent valuable time helping Kuvacash integrate their app - which is now using Bitcoin and not Dash. Ryan Taylor's decision to claim 55,000 USD for an office space at Arizona state University. This funding went through not just once but several times. A trusted member of the Dash community visited that DCG office multiple times to find it completely empty. Basically DCG using treasury funds on an office that clearly was not being used most of the time.
An MBA is an academic qualification -basically it is an advanced accountancy related degree with no real-world practical experience. I'm not saying that it is completely without value but what I am saying is don't be blinded by qualifications alone.
4. DIF - which includes Ryan Taylor, Darren Tapp and Rodrigo . The DIF recently took it upon themselves to overturn the democratic vote cast by the MNO network in a previous DIF decision / funding vote. The vote was for the DIF to get approval first from the network to make funding. At the time in the proposal that did not pass therefore the MNO network democratically voted that the DIF cannot make investment decisions without a vote from the MNO network.
The DIF is now making autonomous decisions without getting voting approval of the network. i.e. the DIF unilaterally decided to stop asking for approval from the MNO network for obtaining voting approval of proposed investments. See the link below for the DIF declaration on unilateral investment decisions:
https://blog.dashinvests.org/posts/change-of-process/
However a few weeks before the above DIF declaration Darren Tapp of the DIF had posted a public notice stating that the DIF would post a vote proposal to get network approval before investing DIF treasury money. Then 2 weeks later a 180 degree turnaround with the above statement.
Note that the new declaration made by the DIF came about only when Ryan Taylor got involved with the DIF. Ryan Taylor had stated in an early vote at Dashcentral the following. The quotes below are taken from the DIF funding proposal that did not pass:
Ryan wrote this:
" I don't feel that the network should be weighing in on this in the first place. This is not a decision that should be crowdsourced from MNOs... "
A few other quotes from Ryan in the same proposal are below and you can see the match exactly with the current position that the DIF has taken on autonomy on funding decisions.
" I think we either entrust them to do their jobs or we don't. Personally, I will be supporting their decision and evaluating them based on the outcome. "
This following statement also shows Ryan himself confirms he does not have experience in early stage investing.
" This is an early-stage investment, which I have limited experience as an angel / early-stage investor. I have far more experience in Series B+ funding or public markets "
You can look up all Ryan's comments here;
There was an early voting/ funding proposal posted by the DIF at Dashcentral where they combined a funding request with the request to make autonomous investment decisions without getting approval of the network. That vote did not pass with the required 10% clear votes and the DIF subsequently published a statement that they would ensure to get an approval vote from the network going forward before making any investment.
Since the DIF combined a decision vote with a funding request and it did not pass this was a valid vote by the MNO network stating clearly that the DIF cannot make an investment decision without getting approval first from the MNO network. Therefore why is it now that the DIF unilaterally made a 180 degree turn around and posted a statement, without getting an MNO approval vote, that they would take full control of making investment decisions without a vote from the MNO network.
Note that new decision to invest without approval of the MNO network coincides with what Ryan Taylor had stated previously as shown on the quotes given above. The question then arises why would Darren Tap publish a statement that the DIF would get approval of the MNO network to get a vote and then a few weeks later change that to not getting a vote from the MNO network?
It is noted that DCG headed by Ryan Taylor paid a substantial amount of money to Arizona state university to undertake research on the Dash network on transactions speeds. I believe Darren Tapp, who is also at Arizona State university was involved with that research project. This means that Arizona state university had received funding from DCG to undertake this project - in otherwords a past financial investment.
What therefore could have got Darren Tapp to change his opinion so quickly?
The DIF has now taken on Ryan Taylor's previously published ideas that the DIF should not get a vote from the MNO network. It seems clear that Ryan's influence has taken over the DIF and in effect the DIF is now under the control of Ryan Taylor.
I have to say that I'm disappointed with Rodrigo from Dash Brazil in going ahead with voting for no MNO vote. This shows to me that either Rodrigo does not value decentralized decision making, or he was overpowered by the influence by Ryan Taylor. I'm hoping it was the later. Anyone that does not value decentralized decision making in my book should not be funded by the network as it is a core value of Dash. Therefore going forward I will not be voting for Rodrigo at Dash Brazil. If Rodrigo thinks again and changes his opinion then I will re-consider my votes going forward.
In addition I will not vote for DCG funding proposals because it is also clear that Ryan Taylor does not believe in Decentralized decision making by voting to take away MNO voter approval for DIF funding.
If the DIF changes it's position and makes a public and irrevocable statement that they will again give MNOs voting right on investments then I will reconsider my voting for these projects however I do not support individuals that do not hold the value of decentralized decision making in all of their activities with the network.
Decentralization values have to be fought for. I, for one am getting really tired of MNOs sitting quietly and passively voting in DCG projects without standing up for the values rights of the network. This is apathy to the "nth" degree and will eventually result in Dash losing its power as a decentralized project.
We must vote against any decisions where decentralization decision making is removed. This is absolutely critical. If MNOs keep passively letting these issues go by where decentralization is taken away piece by piece one day you will have DASH as a centralized project. We must nip these issues in the bud now. All it takes is for MNOs to vote accordingly. Just one month of non funding of these projects is enough to send the message to the DCG and other community members that we value decentralized management above all else.
Therefore for the current voting cycle I'm voting no to the DIF, No to DCG, No to Dash Brazil. The reason I'm doing this is as a vote of objection against these members of these projects that do not uphold the values of the DAO and decentralized decision making. If you value Dash as a Decentralized project I encourage you to do the same. Vote NO to these projects until the DIF changes to restore back the democratically elected vote by the MNO network for the DIF to get MNO voting approval for any investment.
"“The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” Albert Einstein
14/02/2021 Please note I have edited this post to remove mention of Mark Mason of Dashnewsroom because I had inaccurately stated he was part of the DIF. My sincerely apologies to Mark for my error.
History has shown time and time again, with all but a very few exceptions, (Gandhi being one), that people in power strive for more power. This is unfortunately built into human nature and described in Darwinian evolution. It is an immutable law of nature that the strongest will survive. People in a position of power know that they could lose that power at any time. Therefore, in order to secure their position in power, they strive for more power.
If the Dash community does not take proactive steps now to build and protect Dash decentralization then it will be taken away from us piece by piece by those that have the most power in the project. This will continue until there will eventually be a point when we can never claim it back again. It has already stated to happen in my opinion.
Power is becoming centralized in Dash and we must stop this now. Here is a breakdown of current essential activities for the network:
1. DCG headed by Ryan Taylor has a monopoly on building the Dash code. DCG management also took responsibility for marketing and PR - I think the results in that area speak for themselves. Code great (although 3 years late) however we could do with more decentralized dev teams.
2. DCG marketing - again Ryan Taylor has an strong influence in this area. It is also noted that the DCG management marketing has not been successful, leaving Dash practically unknow for its world-class blockchain innovations which means people will not buy into Dash because they simply don't know about our innovations. Marketing / PR and awareness of DASH innovations - just one word sums up DCG marketing: CRAP.
Ryan Taylor has an MBA from Colombia university he also has a background in traditional finance. MBAs are basically advanced accountancy degree based primarily on theory and case studies - not real world experience. The problem with MBAs is they inevitably fall back on their training when making decisions instead of falling back on real world experience of running a business funded by their own money, sweat and tears. The problem with this is theory does not cut it in the real world however MBAs tend to think that it does..
Here is what Elon Musk has to say about MBAs
I agree with Elon Musk's points of view. I have always strived to encourage DASH projects to focus on treasury proposals that improve the actual Dash product and have actual practical applications for Dash as a viable functional payment system in the countries of the world where dash can be used as a feasible payment system. These include Venezuela, Argentina, Africa, Turkey all of which have serious hyperinflation problems.
In addition cryptocurrency is classified as "property" in the USA. This means that if a DASH user spends their DASH in the USA they would have to calculate the appreciation in value of each purchase and pay capital gains tax on every single purchase with Dash. So good luck if you want to buy coffee with Dash in the USA. It is not practical to use Dash to pay for services in the USA due to these tax issues. I raised this concern in the DIF funding proposal after I found out that the DIF had made a decision to invest in Craypay without getting network approval but I received no reply from the DIF on my comments about Tax. You can check this out here:
I'm still waiting for an intelligent answer from the Ryan Taylor or any DIF supervisor on the tax concerns I raised but so far no replies. Note that if the MNO network had been given an opportunity to comment on the proposed investment in Craypay this comment would have been raised but we were not given this opportunity.
Therefore I'm asking again directly to Ryan Taylor @babygiraffe, who holds an MBA and therefore should know the answer, to explain exactly how a Dash user can legally buy goods with Dash in the USA and not account for capital gains tax on every single Dash expenditure? If Ryan Taylor stays silent and does not answer this question then it calls into doubt his ability to make sound business decisions.
3. Legal - again DCG headed by Ryan Taylor
The problem here is that Ryan Taylor has major influence in all of the above crucial areas of Dash. Ryan Taylor has proven not to have much business sense even though he has an MBA. Evidence of this was his backing of KuvaCash - which I stated right from the beginning was not a good project to back - they even spent valuable time helping Kuvacash integrate their app - which is now using Bitcoin and not Dash. Ryan Taylor's decision to claim 55,000 USD for an office space at Arizona state University. This funding went through not just once but several times. A trusted member of the Dash community visited that DCG office multiple times to find it completely empty. Basically DCG using treasury funds on an office that clearly was not being used most of the time.
An MBA is an academic qualification -basically it is an advanced accountancy related degree with no real-world practical experience. I'm not saying that it is completely without value but what I am saying is don't be blinded by qualifications alone.
4. DIF - which includes Ryan Taylor, Darren Tapp and Rodrigo . The DIF recently took it upon themselves to overturn the democratic vote cast by the MNO network in a previous DIF decision / funding vote. The vote was for the DIF to get approval first from the network to make funding. At the time in the proposal that did not pass therefore the MNO network democratically voted that the DIF cannot make investment decisions without a vote from the MNO network.
The DIF is now making autonomous decisions without getting voting approval of the network. i.e. the DIF unilaterally decided to stop asking for approval from the MNO network for obtaining voting approval of proposed investments. See the link below for the DIF declaration on unilateral investment decisions:
https://blog.dashinvests.org/posts/change-of-process/
However a few weeks before the above DIF declaration Darren Tapp of the DIF had posted a public notice stating that the DIF would post a vote proposal to get network approval before investing DIF treasury money. Then 2 weeks later a 180 degree turnaround with the above statement.
Note that the new declaration made by the DIF came about only when Ryan Taylor got involved with the DIF. Ryan Taylor had stated in an early vote at Dashcentral the following. The quotes below are taken from the DIF funding proposal that did not pass:
Ryan wrote this:
" I don't feel that the network should be weighing in on this in the first place. This is not a decision that should be crowdsourced from MNOs... "
A few other quotes from Ryan in the same proposal are below and you can see the match exactly with the current position that the DIF has taken on autonomy on funding decisions.
" I think we either entrust them to do their jobs or we don't. Personally, I will be supporting their decision and evaluating them based on the outcome. "
This following statement also shows Ryan himself confirms he does not have experience in early stage investing.
" This is an early-stage investment, which I have limited experience as an angel / early-stage investor. I have far more experience in Series B+ funding or public markets "
You can look up all Ryan's comments here;
There was an early voting/ funding proposal posted by the DIF at Dashcentral where they combined a funding request with the request to make autonomous investment decisions without getting approval of the network. That vote did not pass with the required 10% clear votes and the DIF subsequently published a statement that they would ensure to get an approval vote from the network going forward before making any investment.
Since the DIF combined a decision vote with a funding request and it did not pass this was a valid vote by the MNO network stating clearly that the DIF cannot make an investment decision without getting approval first from the MNO network. Therefore why is it now that the DIF unilaterally made a 180 degree turn around and posted a statement, without getting an MNO approval vote, that they would take full control of making investment decisions without a vote from the MNO network.
Note that new decision to invest without approval of the MNO network coincides with what Ryan Taylor had stated previously as shown on the quotes given above. The question then arises why would Darren Tap publish a statement that the DIF would get approval of the MNO network to get a vote and then a few weeks later change that to not getting a vote from the MNO network?
It is noted that DCG headed by Ryan Taylor paid a substantial amount of money to Arizona state university to undertake research on the Dash network on transactions speeds. I believe Darren Tapp, who is also at Arizona State university was involved with that research project. This means that Arizona state university had received funding from DCG to undertake this project - in otherwords a past financial investment.
What therefore could have got Darren Tapp to change his opinion so quickly?
The DIF has now taken on Ryan Taylor's previously published ideas that the DIF should not get a vote from the MNO network. It seems clear that Ryan's influence has taken over the DIF and in effect the DIF is now under the control of Ryan Taylor.
I have to say that I'm disappointed with Rodrigo from Dash Brazil in going ahead with voting for no MNO vote. This shows to me that either Rodrigo does not value decentralized decision making, or he was overpowered by the influence by Ryan Taylor. I'm hoping it was the later. Anyone that does not value decentralized decision making in my book should not be funded by the network as it is a core value of Dash. Therefore going forward I will not be voting for Rodrigo at Dash Brazil. If Rodrigo thinks again and changes his opinion then I will re-consider my votes going forward.
In addition I will not vote for DCG funding proposals because it is also clear that Ryan Taylor does not believe in Decentralized decision making by voting to take away MNO voter approval for DIF funding.
If the DIF changes it's position and makes a public and irrevocable statement that they will again give MNOs voting right on investments then I will reconsider my voting for these projects however I do not support individuals that do not hold the value of decentralized decision making in all of their activities with the network.
Decentralization values have to be fought for. I, for one am getting really tired of MNOs sitting quietly and passively voting in DCG projects without standing up for the values rights of the network. This is apathy to the "nth" degree and will eventually result in Dash losing its power as a decentralized project.
We must vote against any decisions where decentralization decision making is removed. This is absolutely critical. If MNOs keep passively letting these issues go by where decentralization is taken away piece by piece one day you will have DASH as a centralized project. We must nip these issues in the bud now. All it takes is for MNOs to vote accordingly. Just one month of non funding of these projects is enough to send the message to the DCG and other community members that we value decentralized management above all else.
Therefore for the current voting cycle I'm voting no to the DIF, No to DCG, No to Dash Brazil. The reason I'm doing this is as a vote of objection against these members of these projects that do not uphold the values of the DAO and decentralized decision making. If you value Dash as a Decentralized project I encourage you to do the same. Vote NO to these projects until the DIF changes to restore back the democratically elected vote by the MNO network for the DIF to get MNO voting approval for any investment.
Last edited:
