DashRemix makes Masternode voting easy with unbiased ratings of budget proposals and voting APIs

[JackDashRemix]

Summary

DashRemix will deliver accurate, unbiased evaluations and scoring of DASH budget proposals to the benefit of everyone on the network.

Our mission is to make the DASH treasury voting process professional, transparent, fair, and easy-to-use.

We want to give Masternodes the ability to automatically vote on proposals based on their own values and priorities, to help them cope with the overwhelming numbers of proposals submitted to the treasury each month.

This project will also create tools for users submitting their own DASH budget proposals. We’ll publish a framework and other helpful content to improve the quality of proposals and their likelihood of success.

What is DashRemix

DashRemix is a platform and service that our team will provide, rating DASH budget proposals fairly and consistently.

Our DashRemix proposal is comprised of multiple offerings, across several phases:

• Integration with DashCentral, or a standalone DashRemix website to host content (possibly both)
  
  
• Regular publication of quality, in-depth proposal reviews and scores
  
  
• Development of a transparent scoring rubric, available to everyone
  
  
• Secure APIs for Masternodes to retrieve scores in order to implement automated voting
  
  
• Articles and video guides on how to create successful, quality budget proposals

Each review will draw from the data provided by teams submitting proposals, but we will also bolster it with independent research and due diligence.

Our evaluations will be accurate, structured and rigorous. We will ensure this by developing a framework known as a rubric, or scoring guide. This rubric will be developed with the best interests of DASH in mind, in partnership with the DASH community.

It takes time to manage a Masternode and researching every proposal in the system can be a full-time job in itself. In the future, our API will allow Masternodes to automate their voting depending on their values and priorities for DASH. They may vote yes, no or abstain based on the category of a proposal, or based on the rating of a particular criteria. Our scores will be securely written to the blockchain to keep the system decentralised and Masternodes’ votes safe.

For example, a Masternode who values ‘Innovation’ may choose to automatically vote yes on any proposal with a high innovation score, or an ‘Evangelist’ Masternode may prefer to vote to fund highly-rated proposals categorised as hackathons, advertisements and conferences. Of course, these voting thresholds will be customisable.

We see this as an essential feature for the community. As DASH grows in popularity, the amount of proposals is only going to increase, and with it, the workload on Masternodes.

At the core of DashRemix is a set of guiding principles and ethics that ensure we only give transparent, fair, unbiased evaluation and advice, and will only ever act in service of DASH and its community.

How Will DASH benefit from DashRemix

One of the most innovative features of DASH is the treasury system. We believe that DashRemix can significantly improve the utility of the Budget system for both Masternodes and users submitting proposals.

The regular publication of unbiased evaluations of Budget proposals will have multiple flow on benefits to the community, including:

Consistency:

Evaluating proposals is complex and subjective. Each proposal varies in quality and in the amount of detail they provide. Our rubric-based scoring guide will allow MasterNodes to quickly and accurately weigh up proposals against their own priorities for DASH.

Accountability:

Our reviews incentivise good behaviour. Proposals with good work plans, strategies, market feasibility and budgeting will score higher than those without. Regular, trusted contributors to DASH will score higher due to lower risk; likewise, those who have failed to deliver on past-proposals will score lower.

Usability:

By applying scores and ratings against our rubric, we allow Masternodes to quickly and easily evaluate each proposal. We also pave the way for automated voting: DashRemix will develop an API that will allow Masternodes to automatically vote for, against, or abstain on each project as it is rated, according to their own priorities.

The benefits we provide to DASH are ‘internal’. We are not pushing the coin to new users or conducting outreach - we are improving the existing system for existing users. However, we believe that since we are working at the source, vetting new proposals as they enter the DASH system, the flow on effects will be significant.

We hope to encourage better use of the Budget and submission of higher quality proposals.

Simply put: better proposals and more accountability = better outcomes for DASH.

Deliverables and release schedule

Our DashRemix proposal is comprised of multiple offerings:

• DashRemix website to host proposal reviews
  
  
• Published, transparent, scoring rubric available to everyone
  
  
• Regular publication of in-depth proposal reviews each month
  
  
• Authored content explaining how we have developed the rubric and how we believe it should be interpreted
  
  
• APIs for Masternodes to retrieve scores in order to implement automated voting
  
  
• Written and video guides and assistance for how to author thorough proposal submissions.

Note that this proposal is specifically for Phase 1. Upon successful delivery of Phase 1, we will open a new proposal for Phase 2, and so on, as the project develops.

Phase 1 (this proposal): 3 months - $15,000~ USD a month

• Delivery of the DashRemix website, or integration with a popular Dash voting site, or both.
  
  
• Development of a transparent scoring rubric, published and available to everyone.
  
  
• Articles explaining how we have developed the rubric and how we believe it should be interpreted
  
  
• Our first tranche of reviews and evaluations, scored against the rubric.

Phase 1 is laying the groundwork for the project, building trust in our scoring and evaluation, and cementing the process of getting reviews up in a timely manner. We won’t be able to score every proposal that enters the system - yet - but we do plan to deliver a number of useful, accurate evaluations as part of Phase 1.

Phase 2 (next proposal): 3 months - $30,000~ USD a month

• API for automated voting

• Regular publication of in-depth proposal reviews each month
  
  
• Articles and video guides on how to author thorough proposal submissions that will meet the DASH community’s standards

Phase 2 will leap ahead, both technically and in terms of content. Our voting API will allow Masternodes to automatically vote on proposals based on criteria they define. By then, our rubric will be refined and hopefully trusted by the DASH community, particularly Masternodes who will be relying on the accuracy of the data provided by DashRemix to enable auto-voting. Our content delivery will become much more rapid.

Disclaimer: the content of the Phase 2 proposal may change over the next three months as Phase 1 develops and we get community feedback - but we intend to stick pretty close to the plan.

We have a long-term roadmap which is more likely to change, as the project might shift depending on how the community responds.

Ethics and Transparency

We know the only way that our project will succeed is if DashRemix is rolled out in a proper, professional and trustworthy manner - we have to be squeaky clean.

Core to our proposal is a code of ethics and a commitment to transparency. For any evaluation to be trustworthy, it must be several things:

Unbiased: we are committed to providing unbiased evaluations of proposals. We will only ever take funding from the DASH treasury, to ensure we are only working for the good of DASH. We will not accept payments, bribes, sponsorship or any other kind of benefit. If any of our members have a real or perceived conflict of interest, they will step away from an evaluation.

Consistent: our rubric will ensure that our scoring is extremely consistent across all of DashRemix’s evaluations. Masternodes will know that our scores aren’t subject to an individual’s opinion, and that all carry equal weight. This is core to the idea of automatic voting.

Transparent: scores won’t mean much if people don’t know what they mean. We will have a published rubric which will guide all of our evaluations, and that rubric will be open for anyone to view and base their own evaluations on. Against every score in each category, we will publish our evidence to justify our rating.

Fair: we aren’t in this to shoot down proposals or talk down to people’s work. If someone believes we have made a mistake in evaluating their proposal, we will give them the ‘Right of Reply’ to put their perspective on the record.

Our Process

We have already partially developed our rubric but will refine it with the help of the DASH community, particularly Masternodes who will be relying on it to make their voting decisions.

A rubric is a scoring guide used to provide consistent feedback on proposals that can be complex and subjective. Our rubric is aimed at providing a fair and accurate way of assessing every submission to the treasury. We will develop criteria to score each proposal against. The scoring criteria is public, allowing our reviewers to provide consistent and accurate evaluations, and our readers to verify and confirm (or contest) the scores we provide.

We’ll write our first reviews against this rubric and put them to the community to receive their feedback on whether they think we’re hitting the right marks and scoring them accurately; and that the metrics we are scoring are actually useful.

We’ll take the information provided in proposals and use that as part of the evaluations. We’ll also speak to the creators of each and ask them to fill in any detail and information we feel is missing. We’ll research the team, their background and their past work submitted to the DASH proposal, if they’re already an active participant.

Smaller proposals that are less risky and ask for less money shouldn’t require the same kind of deep-dive that larger proposals asking for hundreds of thousands do. If the budgets are large, we’ll be looking for quality budgeting and project management; we’ll also be digging in to the proposed payment terms to see how risky they are for the community. There’s no reason that projects shouldn’t act professionally and be accountable to DASH if they’re asking for a large chunk of the treasury’s budget.

Of course, DashRemix will stay in the conversation and continue to engage with creators, Masternodes and DASH holders throughout the process, before and after publication.

Budget Breakdown

We estimate the successful delivery of phase 1 to require a period of 3 months to complete. Our project budget covers project management, research, design and development costs. Time and cost estimates are informed by our team’s extensive experience in professional consulting and software design and development projects.

The following budget is based on a the price of DASH at $600 USD (we round decimals down).

Budget breakdown:

1. Design and development for the DashRemix website to host the rubric, educational material and proposal review: $6,600 USD / 11 DASH
2. Rubric design and robustness testing against historical proposals, and authoring content on the development of the rubric and educational guides for its interpretation: $6,000 USD / 10 DASH
3. Content Creation around how to write a good Dash proposal: $2,000 USD / 3 DASH
4. Analysts and Editors publishing 30 proposal reviews per month (commencing in month 2 - 7 hours per proposal, analysts charged at $48USD / hour): $30,000 USD / 50 DASH
5. Proposal application fee reimbursement: $3,000 USD / 5 DASH

The total DASH amount of the proposal is 79 Dash, split over 3 payments, 1 payment per month.

Our payment schedule will deliver over three months. The payment will be held in escrow until the community has confirmed delivery.

Payout Schedule / Escrow Condition / Amount:

1. Month 1 / Delivery of Rubric / 26 DASH
2. Month 2 / Delivery of Website + 30 Reviews / 26 DASH
3. Month 3 / Delivery of Educational Content + 30 Reviews / 27 DASH

Thanks for reading! We understand this is a long proposal but we wanted to make sure the detail was here to answer your questions and secure your trust. The DashRemix team would love to hear your feedback and implement suggested improvements before we submit the proposal.

Best regards,
Jack @ DashRemix

 

[JackDashRemix]

Our Team

We are a team of three highly driven individuals working across Silicon Valley and Australia for a range of blue-chip tech companies.

Ben has built a large range of technologies, from visual search engines to helping scale a Silicon Valley startup from 10k daily users to over 2 million in 12 months. He recently worked as part of the API team and later Principal Technical Architect at a flagship television property. He has worked as an investment analyst conducting technical due diligence on seed and Series A investments and now mentors startups as part of a high-profile international program.

Devin has been designing digital products for the better part of 10 years. He has worked across a number of industries as a digital strategy consultant with a big 4 management consulting firm, a start-up's first lead design hire and as a founder himself. He now works in Silicon Valley for a major tech company utilizing his skills in programming, design, research and strategy to help design products used by millions of people each day.

Jack is a marketing executive with a background in journalism, having helped launch and run an innovative independent news service free from the influence of advertising and other externals. He now works in the high-tech and innovation space, managing the Australian marketing for multi-billion dollar internationals and project managing very large contracts.

All three of us are cryptocurrency enthusiasts and run Coinremix.com, a service providing in-depth technical ICO reviews for time-poor investors. As part of CoinRemix, we have developed a rubric to give our readers confidence in our reviews, which has also helped inform our proposal for DashRemix.

 

[andrade92]

Hello. Correct me if i'm wrong, bassically DashRemix votes based in MNO's interests?

 

[JackDashRemix]

Hello. Correct me if i'm wrong, bassically DashRemix votes based in MNO's interests?

Hey Andrade, thanks for reading and you are pretty close. DashRemix won't do any voting ourselves.

We will develop a very fair review framework for proposals, and start writing reviews and giving scores based on that framework.

To begin with, Masternodes can quickly look at our reviews to see if a proposal is good or not. This will help them save some time when there are so many proposals coming up. We want to encourage good proposals with solid plans and real outcomes for DASH.

For the next phase of our project, we will develop a software plugin so MNOs can use our reviews to automate their voting. They can set which characteristics are interesting to them and weight it differently.

So in a basic way, if a proposal scores highly, they could automatically vote for that. Or, maybe they think risky projects are worth the possible reward, so they could set the voting software to ignore the risk rating and only worry about high scores in other areas. It will be very customisable.

Of course, we understand trust will be a big part of this, so everything we do will be open source and MNOs are of course still free to vote themselves, go through proposals themselves, or ask questions about the scores we give.

I hope this explains it well enough, happy to continue the discusison.

 

[andrade92]

Ok I

Hey Andrade, thanks for reading and you are pretty close. DashRemix won't do any voting ourselves.

We will develop a very fair review framework for proposals, and start writing reviews and giving scores based on that framework.

To begin with, Masternodes can quickly look at our reviews to see if a proposal is good or not. This will help them save some time when there are so many proposals coming up. We want to encourage good proposals with solid plans and real outcomes for DASH.

For the next phase of our project, we will develop a software plugin so MNOs can use our reviews to automate their voting. They can set which characteristics are interesting to them and weight it differently.

So in a basic way, if a proposal scores highly, they could automatically vote for that. Or, maybe they think risky projects are worth the possible reward, so they could set the voting software to ignore the risk rating and only worry about high scores in other areas. It will be very customisable.

Of course, we understand trust will be a big part of this, so everything we do will be open source and MNOs are of course still free to vote themselves, go through proposals themselves, or ask questions about the scores we give.

I hope this explains it well enough, happy to continue the discusison.

Ok I get it. That's a really good idea, if you manage to gain the MNO's trust you will succeed. Best of luck

 

[Arthyron]

The pricing is pretty reasonable, I think, for the development of such a site. I'm entirely certain that it's not something that I would use, as I really take the time to sort through proposals myself and don't trust third parties to do my thinking for me. However, for those MNOs who don't have the time to give each proposal the attention they deserve--which is in my opinion a pretty big problem--it could be useful to ensure that if they *do* vote, they're at least voting more in line with how they would if they took the time themselves.

At the same time, however, in some cases I would just prefer that MNOs that were disinterested or too busy didn't vote at all, personally, but I know that some are just going to vote anyway, or only vote on this or that proposal, so helping these parties who *are* going to cast votes on historically little information to be that much more informed is probably a good thing.

I will admit I am somewhat skeptical about your rubric and what "good" entails, given that I am outright defiant of anyone claiming to have an "objective" or "unbiased" assessment of anything aesthetic, pragmatic, or ethical in nature. I would need to see and learn more about your criteria and how you justify these claims before I agreed to supporting such a proposal. You claim to want Dash to approve proposals that are "good proposals with solid plans and real outcomes for DASH," but what does that even mean (to you as an organization, since there are three of you)? How can MNOs be assured that bias is minimized (because I do not believe it can be entirely eliminated on an epistemic level) and will not exert undue influence on voting patterns?

Also, MNOs have to ask themselves if this is something they really want or need or ought to have, what long-term effects it might have in terms of catering to laziness or ambivalence to the fate of Dash. Is it ideal for votes to be informed by an automated system ostensibly optimized for projects with certain aims, or is it better to have a more varied/unpredictable system that sometimes selects uncertain proposals that turn out to be unexpected home runs? What other options/possibilities/distributions are there, and which is preferable to the future of Dash?

 

[TheSingleton]

I am definitely intrigued by this but I'd like hear from somebody that has used coinremix to give an indication of what you are capable of. Or do you have a contact in the Dash community that could vouch for you?

@Arthyron also has some good arguments. Personally, I think if the number of proposals keeps going up we will need something like this as not enough masternodes will take the time to research the proposals.

 

[JackDashRemix]

The pricing is pretty reasonable, I think, for the development of such a site....

Hey Arthyron, thanks for reading through and for your thoughtful response.

I agree that, in a perfect world, DASH would be best served if every MNO had the time to read all proposals and do their own research, and that all proposals were up to scratch (not in terms of what they are offering, but the information they present to MNOs to make their decision). The truth, as you know, is that it's not always the case, and people will make judgement calls on limited information anyway.

Are there any features or focuses that would make you use or engage with the system? What criteria of proposals are most important to you as a MNO? Part of this window, and post-submission, is working with MNOs to identify the critical points that our rubric will be based on and that will actually be useful to them.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few useful features for you that will add some utility, even if you aren't engaging with the voting system or the 'quick look' of the scores a proposal receives. For one, if we feel an area of a proposal is lacking (such as detail in the budgeting section, or what experience a proposal owner has), we'll engage with them and draw out extra details which will be published, and that's a bit of extra information for you to engage with.

At a bare minimum we'll help weed out low-effort proposals; these forums and the submission cost does a decent job of that but there are still plenty of less-than-great proposals that get through. Our rubric, whatever form it takes, won't be kind to poorly-organised or dishonest proposals. I hope that the end result we agree on will have some form of accountability built in so people can't just take DASH for a ride (we have some more ideas on that for later phases).

As for what makes a proposal 'good' for us as an organisation, well, the rubric will determine that, and the idea is that the rubric will be developed with the MNO community. We have a fairly good idea of what the rubric should entail but I am fully expecting that to change based on feedback like yours. Ideally, we end up a with a system that either you or I can work to and we would end up at roughly the same result (I say roughly because of the epistemic layer you bring up), and that result is useful for MNOs to make a judgement call on. If you disagree with a judgement against the rubric then you can challenge our judgement and we will publish that and work to rectify it, or provide evidence for our judgement. If you disagree with the result that the rubric ends up with, then you disagree with the rubric itself and you can work to change that (including from right now, and we will have a mechanism once it's actually in place too). Right now, if you had to ask, I would say some important measures are:

1. Risk: This is in a project delivery sense, not necessarily risk to DASH itself - e.g. How likely is this project to hit its goals? Has the owner delivered before? Escrow arrangements?
2. Innovation: Is it a new idea that brings in new people to Dash? E.g a Youtube Channel might not score highly, a YouTube channel in an underserved language for DASH might do better. Something entirely new like KuvaCash would likely do very well.
3. Value: Is the budgeting reasonable? Is it well explored? Are they matching funds themselves or expecting Dash to cover everything? My hope here is that people aren't just relying on DASH to fund some crazy idea for an app or festival they had and would try and do anyway; instead that there is actually some substance to DASH being involved and that it is benefiting the network.
4. Reach... etc etc

Each of those could be broken down in to several layers as well, and none of them are set in stone. I fully expect them to change. It might be that various types of proposals have different rubrics even, or more likely that we shouldn't expect any proposal to do well in every section and in the end that balances out.

I understand your concerns about any introduction of a systemic method of voting too; the sort of slow determinism that can happen from things being pushed in a direction over time, or proposals being built to game the system and get through automatically. Re: the long arc of a systemic approach, ideally our rubric only pushes proposals in the direction of 'Good for DASH', and by that I mean more users, more good uses, more awareness, more positive exposure and so on. Re: proposals built to game the system, well, it should be designed in such a way that anyone gaming the system has accidentally gamed themselves in to making a good proposal.

I hope this answers some of your questions, happy to continue the discussion here, discord, wherever.

Cheers!

 

[TheSingleton]

One question that just came to mind. Once this is built will you keep making proposals to pay for ongoing costs?

 

[JackDashRemix]

I am definitely intrigued by this but I'd like hear from somebody that has used coinremix to give an indication of what you are capable of. Or do you have a contact in the Dash community that could vouch for you?

@Arthyron also has some good arguments. Personally, I think if the number of proposals keeps going up we will need something like this as not enough masternodes will take the time to research the proposals.

One question that just came to mind. Once this is built will you keep making proposals to pay for ongoing costs?

Hey Singleton, thanks for having a read. Actually we were introduced to DASH by some pretty recognisable names in the community and came up with the idea after a few discussions with them, precisely about the number of proposals that come up each voting cycle. We've let them know our proposal is up for discussion and I'll let them give their thoughts, good or bad!

I can show you some of the work we've done at CoinRemix, ultimately it works to a slower drumbeat than DashRemix will have to, and on a different model, but the level of analysis should be heartening. I also aim to get a video up before we submit, which goes through a bit of that process too.

Regarding your latest question, right now we have a rough roadmap in mind which are additional proposals. Phase 1 is as you see, phase 2 is detailed there too (mostly around the API). Phase 3 we have some ideas for additions to DashRemix, but I expect our ideas will change by then. We will have some ongoing running costs. It may even be that we hire additional people from the community (without conflicts of interest) to continue evaluating proposals against the rubric, just to make sure we get every proposal that comes out. I see this running a few ways:

1. We continue adding value with new proposals that contain new features. This might just be a few proposals, or we might uncover a whole bunch of work that should get done and actually helps MNOs.
2. At some point the features are pretty much locked (but open source if other proposals want to build on them) and we just ask for a lower amount of DASH as a running cost of completing the evaluation.
3. If at any point it's not valuable to the community, our proposals stop getting through and it dies a natural death. Hopefully we don't reach this point and DashRemix is a really useful tool for MNOs and proposal owners in to the future.

Thanks

 

[solarguy]

The core of your proposal is the rubric. Let's see the working outline of the rubric before we get ahead of ourselves with the other deliverables.

 

[jeffh]

I gave these guys some advice before they put up their proposal and they seem to be approaching this from the right place.

@solarguy you make a good point. I think it would be good to see that rubric so MNOs have a good understanding of what information the team will be basing their analysis on and what data points they will look at.


I think this kind of proposal is a good indication of what Dash should strive for in the future, professionals coming to Dash to provide a high quality service at a reasonable cost, paid for by the Treasury.


Good luck!

 

[Arthyron]

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few useful features for you that will add some utility, even if you aren't engaging with the voting system or the 'quick look' of the scores a proposal receives. For one, if we feel an area of a proposal is lacking (such as detail in the budgeting section, or what experience a proposal owner has), we'll engage with them and draw out extra details which will be published, and that's a bit of extra information for you to engage with.

Sure, I can see that being useful even to someone like me that painstakingly reviews each proposal, saves me from having to ask those sorts of questions myself. In this instance, I would hope there would be some sort of notification to show that the rubric grading and/or proposal data has changed, so that MNOs who have already voted on it might want to reconsider their vote, because that's a problem, too, some people just vote right off the bat and never come back and give proposal owners a chance to clarify or make changes or concessions or whatever.

As long as the rubric is subject to revision, I can see it being a potentially useful one, since we can always change it if it doesn't work well. One thing that comes to mind, however, suppose the rubric changes in the month of July, but there were multi-month proposals in months prior that passed but now suddenly are not passing based on automatic voting. The fact that votes can be retroactively changed in multi-month proposals will need some special care and attention if you're going to be altering automatic voting in real time.

I'd say you answered my particular questions to my satisfaction. As with the others, a lot of it will come down to what the rubric entails, but if we find its implementation sensible, I see no reason why this proposal shouldn't do well. Like I said, reasonable budget, timeframe, etc.

I do caution your team, however, do not underestimate how much work this entails. I spend several hours every day keeping up with forum posts, discord channels, and various other venues, even often listening to youtube videos on my commute home from my day job, etc. To break down and engage proposals to the degree you will need to to truly be an asset to this community, you're going to need countless hours every month. Make sure your proposal cost realistically reflects the hours work you're going to have to put in to it regularly, otherwise you'll burn out very quickly, and that wouldn't be good for any of us.

 

[JackDashRemix]

I gave these guys some advice before they put up their proposal and they seem to be approaching this from the right place.

@solarguy you make a good point. I think it would be good to see that rubric so MNOs have a good understanding of what information the team will be basing their analysis on and what data points they will look at.

I think this kind of proposal is a good indication of what Dash should strive for in the future, professionals coming to Dash to provide a high quality service at a reasonable cost, paid for by the Treasury.

Good luck!

Thanks for the feedback Jeff, it was really helpful and you were spot on with every point. I have been really impressed with the level of engagement the Dash community gives to new proposals like ours.

To your and @solarguy 's point regarding the rubric, it's a fair comment. Part of our proposal is to develop the rubric, get MNO's feedback and make sure it's tweaked as well as it can be before we start employing it. However I understand not showing anything before submitting doesn't work in anyone's interest either.

What I propose is that we'll get most of the points we anticipate that the rubric should contain up on here for initial feedback. Additionally, we'll build out one or two in real depth (similar to what we think the final product will look like) and give something of a webinar on how the process will work and why it works.

All of these points will be subject to revision throughout our project proposal and development process, and in to the future - it's not a set and forget project. It will be a 'living document' that changes in a controlled manner over time based on community feedback.

We don't anticipate to be the sole owners of this either, which is relevant to @Arthyron 's comments too. We want to do the heavy lifting to get this off the ground, and hopefully continue to work on it long in to the future, but the real measure of this will be if other analysts pick up on this and use it too.

Since everything will be open source, there'll be nothing stopping other community members from doing their own reviews or taking our framework and improving on it in the future. We may not be the only source offering a feed of reviews for MNOs to automate against, and as a community at least we'll have a pretty consistent framework that we can all use as a measure.

 

[Max Yoga]

I think that given that additional MNO engagement and voting in Treasury would be a very good thing (far less than half of all MNO's vote in proposals), this kind of decision making support, by lowering the analysis effort and bringing key quality parameters of a proposal to the front is going to be key to the health of DGBB. A definite yes from me, also given the pedigree of the team and their willingness to be involved in delivering it.

 

[Daniel B J Morrell]

Lookd good

 

[Dashmaximalist]

this sounds fantastic , can't wait to see this in action

 

[TheSingleton]

@JackDashRemix I just want to say that over last couple of days I was really wishing that a project like this already existed. Spending so much time looking at proposals and their discussions having a structured review of them would have been so helpful.

Also, I hope that your evaluation of a proposal is not a one-off thing but that it evolves during the lifetime of the proposal from pre-proposal to the end of the voting deadline. And that you will keep track of the discussion on the forum, dashcentral and maybe also discord. That is a lot of work but could make this project immensely valuable.

 

[Dashmaximalist]

@JackDashRemix I just want to say that over last couple of days I was really wishing that a project like this already existed. Spending so much time looking at proposals and their discussions having a structured review of them would have been so helpful.

Also, I hope that your evaluation of a proposal is not a one-off thing but that it evolves during the lifetime of the proposal from pre-proposal to the end of the voting deadline. And that you will keep track of the discussion on the forum, dashcentral and maybe also discord. That is a lot of work but could make this project immensely valuable.

Yes agree with you completely , this is a great relief to all MMOs

 

[JackDashRemix]

@JackDashRemix I just want to say that over last couple of days I was really wishing that a project like this already existed. Spending so much time looking at proposals and their discussions having a structured review of them would have been so helpful.

Also, I hope that your evaluation of a proposal is not a one-off thing but that it evolves during the lifetime of the proposal from pre-proposal to the end of the voting deadline. And that you will keep track of the discussion on the forum, dashcentral and maybe also discord. That is a lot of work but could make this project immensely valuable.

@TheSingleton @Dashmaximalist, thanks very much for both of your comments, they're really encouraging.

We've been hard at work on putting together the example rubric and Devin has been designing what the end result will look like - by that I mean what an evaluator will see when they're putting together their evaluations, and what MNO's / Dash users will see as the end result. I think it looks great and will be a really easy tool for everyone to use, so you can have a very readable 'at a glance' view of a proposal, and then drill down in to each category with the information and evidence against each score. We'll post up a doc by the end of the week and I will do a video walkthrough of it and our intended process.

Regarding keeping track of proposals as they progress through the pipeline, I agree that there is a lot of value to be gained there. While our focus is on proposals that have been proposed to the budget, it really makes sense for us to start engaging with pre-proposals on the forums here to make sure they are providing enough information for us to accurately evaluate them, so when they are launched we can act quickly. Part of this proposal is the creation of some guides (to supplement the excellent ones already out there) so that proposal owners have a good reference on what they should provide for people - including us - to be able to take a good, fair look at them. I also believe there's value in tracking proposals after they have been accepted, at least the large, expensive ones, but we aren't tackling problem that just yet.

There's a bit of data we need to gather over the course of this proposal: how long it takes to do an evaluation so we can more accurately budget in the future, how many proposals get submitted in the final days of a voting deadline so we know what resources we need to manage those in time, and a few other bits and pieces that will help us plan out the long-term efforts required for this. I know there are some good data proposals in the making which will help us with this too.

Thanks again and I'll be back soon with updates!