• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

DIF August ask

How granular should the DIF's asks be?

  • Only put in an ongoing funding ask

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only put in a suplemental ask for unallocated funds

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Put in both an ongoing ask as well as a suplemental ask for unallocated funds

    Votes: 2 66.7%

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .


Active member
Dear network,

The new supervisors have met twice as the newly elected supervisors. We have so much on our plate that we haven't discussed putting up a proposal to the network yet. Part of me is thinking that we should do a supplemental proposal and forgo the ongoing funding proposal.

According to Dash Ninja 4380 dash unallocated. If all the recent proposals pass that leaves 1242.

I wanted to start this thread to seek feedback. Should we keep putting in the ongoing ask (for 425) and then supplemental. Or just submit a supplemental for August. Given that it is late in the cycle, maybe just supplemental this month makes sense.
I was happy with the way the DIF was seekinjg funding recently as a voter, a sustaining budget
with supplemental asks when there was room presented in the budget.
I have been voting No for DIF funding since the C2Law announcement i.e. bedfellows with Chainalysis.

I'm happy that Dash is listed on Coinbase and other services that rely on regulatory compliance.

Also: "security experts have rejected the security through obscurity view as far back as 1951" (source)
Just to clarify.

If your security model requires that people not look at public information, that's not how security works.

It's actually works the other way around. You assume your attacker has a hefty amount of resources and the goal is breaking the security.
Just to clarify.

If your security model requires that people not look at public information, that's not how security works.

It's actually works the other way around. You assume your attacker has a hefty amount of resources and the goal is breaking the security.

I completely understand this. I am definitely not advocating security through obscurity. The problem is about morality, or lack thereof. It's like saying you're only making knives, knowing full well your buyer is slaughtering animals.

This is also a question of motives and potentially disincentivization e.g. DCG (or the DIF) prioritizing certain activities over others in fear of upsetting the wrong people. It's also about association with organizations where the sharing of personal data is actively encouraged and profited from. Not least that Chainalysis provide essential services to companies and governments where data retention is required i.e. illegal to immediately delete it. Those financial institutions that Chainalysis serve are also required to secretly report on anyone caught in their dragnet. So yes, you're right, the banks, governments and institutions have a hefty amount of resources and you want dash to go out of it's way to engage with them.

As you know, these companies aggregate very personal information from multiple sources (and governments) globally to then act inappropriately against millions of people for whom they have no jurisdiction. That person in country A comes under the purview of country B which ultimately feeds back to the government of country A. As an individual you have no leverage over country B and yet you fall under the regulatory umbrella of both countries. This subsequently leads to both international treaties and blockades that work against individuals who just want to get on with life without burden or intrusion.

Data "privacy" laws are designed to work against individuals and to empower companies like Chainalysis. As an individual it would be illegal for me to follow you home, enter your home, copy all your financial information, including credit cards, CVVs etc. But as a company you are given a license to do so. It's not an exaggeration. Let me give you some real examples of how "transparency" can be used against you.

Harry Dunn: Lawyers claim phone may have distracted suspect
"They said no calls or texts were found on her SIM card on the day of the crash, but call records were found for the day before and day after.

The documents said this "raises the possibility that Ms Sacoolas was distracted by her mobile telephone... and establishes that relevant phone data was deleted".

Not that data can be deleted from the blockchain but rather humans can choose to ignore one thing while simultaneously providing "proof" of something else. The tools to create a certain narrative.

Or how about Nexo's openly declared anti-VPN policy. Forced transparency to "protect you". Yes, Nexo will shut you out for continuing to use a VPN (see ToS / ask them). On the one hand they claim it protects them from hackers, but at the cost of compromising their customers security. Because VPNs aren't just about hiding your location, you can easily authenticate who you are, but they also help protect unwanted inbound traffic.

So yes, all this info is publicly available, but someone somewhere woke up in the morning and decided, "you know what, I can abuse so I will abuse. I will exploit people when I have other choices in life". WHY must the DIF associate with such criminals when the presumption should be innocent first?
Just to clarify.

If your security model requires that people not look at public information, that's not how security works.

It's actually works the other way around. You assume your attacker has a hefty amount of resources and the goal is breaking the security.

I'm sure you are already aware of this but the timing and appropriateness of this video in relation to your comments of "public information" seems to translate well to financial transactions:

Each transaction, a dot on a map that starts out with little information but with time companies like Chainalysis aggregate data and add extra layers of information, drawing associations not previously known. The "public information" evolves into something most decent people would not appreciate.

I understand right now the majority of people do not care as much as me about this but over time I've seen how privacy communities have grown, people are waking up.

I remember a couple of years ago how everyone here mocked monero yet look at them now, consistently growing. I appreciate the tech behind monero is not so great, this is not my point. The point is, they have successfully leveraged a very emotive subject, namely privacy. Those kind of people, and me, do not appreciate the DIFs involvement with Chainalysis. The DIF is taking sides and alienating those people. The DIF has failed to communicate how such a relationship is good for them.

The litmus test of your argument would be to build similar tools to Chainalysis and ship them with the core desktop wallet. Let the people see what Chainalaysis see from "public information". Let our users see the graph and decide for themselves how to proceed.

I knew about it, at least 2 years ago. I discovered that some sites could spot my location when I used wifi, although I was explicity refusing in software layer to spot me. As far as I understood their tech, they are using the nearby wifi routers to geolocate me. I remember that I have discussed this issue with @xkcd .

Now most of the times I am connected by cable to a router that has its wifi switched off and it is connected to the main router/internet gateway, but of course this is not always possible.

Now the hardware manifacturers, in order to prevent people like me to escape from their geolocation, they sell most of their laptops and computers wifi enabled and without an ethernet port! I was wondering why nobody says something about it. Snowden informed us a little bit late about it, but better late than never! :p
Last edited:
Oh sure, known about it a long time but it seems relevant to anyone talking about transparency and "nothing to hide".

Regarding laptops, I'm sure you know about Purism and System76.
FYI, according to https://mnowatch.org/leaderboard/ assuming everything passes there will only be 413 DASH left over this cycle. I think it should be left on the table IMO.

Thanks for this feedback.

@xkcd Thank you for these calculations. Previously the DIF ongoing ask was for 425 Dash, I'm glad we did not submit this early in the cycle as that would force our community to risk not funding another project if they voted for the DIF. As you've seen, we now have put up a proposal for DAO consideration. Last cycle there was 200 Dash left on the table. Other community members noticed that that was the case, and asked us why we didn't put in a proposal.

@GrandMasterDash I want to clarify that the DIF did not invest in C2Law. The DIF has C2Law on retainer to oversee and review DIF investments in Brazil. Investments without legal review are foolish.

@GrandMasterDash I also wanted to respond to your morality concerns. Over time, it would make sense that most community members will doubt or reject one specific DIF investment. I would ask community members to step back and evaluate the DIF's strategy as a whole. Also note that the benefits of investments can take a while to be community facing. It took over seven months for DashDirect and Valkyrie Dash trust to be live. My hope is that DIF investments will:

1. Allow Dash to be used for peer-to-peer cash in a broader context.

which will

2. Empower individuals to have more control of their finances and therefore their life.

which will

3. Empower individuals and free associations to be more effective advancing their own morality and values.
@Darren I understand but surely there are better choices to be had? Perhaps a law firm that also takes on human rights issues or similar. If C2Law does that then we need to make more noise about it. I just feel strongly that it's okay to do business and keep some degree of morality. I mean, if the option exists then why not?

I don't suppose EFF can help but maybe they can recommend someone more suitable?
Last edited: