I’m guessing most of the community is aware that we had a 3-month contract with Transform PR that started last month. This contract was for $6000, denominated in Dash and locked into a rate of $3.38. I believe this contract was going really well and that we were making the correct choice when we originally went with Transform PR. At the end of the first month, some vocal members of the community began lobbying to remove the Transform PR contract from the system while it was active.
I would like to post some evidence of the ongoing work that Transform was doing for us at the time the contract was voided and make some suggestions to alter the system so that we have better communication and we don’t experience problems like this again in the future.
To start, I’m posting the final report from Transform PR, which shows the work they were doing. As you can see, they were the major driver of most of the media attention we were getting during the last month. They were even working with a major mainstream media outlet, Reuters, to publish a story on Dash.
December Transform PR Activity
Proposal For Next Contract
As a decentralized autonomous organization we need to be able to work with outside vendors reliably, so when the network makes a decision to fund a contract, we need to be able to support that decision in an irrevocable way. I believe the budget system failed us and it needs to be altered slightly to support this type of arrangement in the future.
During the time Transform PR was an active contract, they did fantastic work for us. I would really like to work with them again after we have irrevocable contracts, which will be available in 12.1. Transform PR has provided us with the plan they were going to use from March through May, which I have posted in order to give the community an idea of what our future work with them (if approved after 12.1) would look like.
Creating and fully testing a new version of the software will take about six months. The good news, however, is that while we’re working on 12.1, we also have a separate development team led by Andy Freer doing work on Dash Evolution. Because of this, 12.1 shouldn’t delay the release of Dash Evolution. We are right on schedule.
I was sad to see what happened in this case, especially because of (what from my point of view was) DASH's breach of contract, to the detriment of the "Transform PR" works. (I could hardly believe.)
This must not become the "standard behaviour" of this community. It can only bring nefarious consequences against us.
Pacta sunt servanda
, is a basic rule. The parts in a contract must keep the agreement. It's a good faith principle that a signed contract must be observed, and no part is allowed to ignore, break or abandon their commitments without a fair and due cause, notably when the other part is keeping its word.
It's shameful. And if such (considered "irresponsible") acts become frequent, no one will ever trust our community, or will want to do business with DASH, leaving us with a tarnished image.
Successful contracts demand at least a minimum level of legal security for both parts in order to flourish, The involved agents must trust each other. Dash will lose too much if it loses in trustworthiness.
The fact that the contract is denominated in USD (or in any local currency) and there is a significant increase or decrease in DASH's price on the exchanges is never enough reason to simply vote down our monthly budget commitment, in cases when the other part been successful in keeping his agreed part
If there's a huge price up
difference, there's always the possibility that, once (and only when) the total proposed USD amount is successfully paid
, the community will vote down the payments (but the other part will still have the obligation to completelly meet its part of the deal);
If there's a huge price down
difference, what can be done is, after proof of conclusion of its works
an additional payment will be approved to the other part.
If the proposal is denominated in DASH, even better: "huge price differences" will make no difference, ideally.
Now, in cases when the other part cleary does not fulfil his obligation, it's obvious that the community must have the power to cease the payments due. But it would demand that IN FACT, the other part is not doing its part of the agreement. It should not be a matter of some member bringing generic accusations of the kind... "I don't like him"... "he is too ugly"... "he did not do his homework once in school, because I knew it"... etc... Such "accusations" must be brought BEFORE the approval of the budget, during the "voting" opportunity. It makes no sense to wait for a whole month of contract and works to start ad hoc
Anyway, a problem I see is in cases when a "better proposal" come up to be voted, and receives more votes from the community, driving down previous contracts. And, the "Contracts" solution, as proposed above, seems to be a good "protection" in cases like these, avoiding the risk of an unfair breach of contracts caused by DASH's system.
From what I can see, our voting system is working great. The problem, it seems, is "the community is still learning" to use this powerful tool responsibly