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

Miner reallocation2 / DAO refill

Boost the DAO to 20% from miner rewards

  • Total voters
    25
xkcd

xkcd

Well-known member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Currently the DAO is set to 10% of the block reward, how would you feel about about lifting that to 20% by reducing the reward paid to miners by the same amount. Therefore the coin emission would remain the same overall and the final expected coins in circulation would also be the same. Currently we are at 42.3% to miners and 57.7% to masternodes https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/docs/user/introduction/features.html#emission-rate which is an actual rate of 38.07% of the overall block reward, thus to lift the amount allocated to the DAO by 10% the new miner reward would fall to 28.07% a reduction of about 27%. There are 4264 Dash available to the DAO each cycle https://mnowatch.org/leaderboard/ and that is about $153,504 @$36. The increased allocation to the DAO could be used to add more value to the network by way of development and marketing efforts, it is not expected that decreasing the hash rate of the network to have adverse effects due to Chainlocks and Dash being the dominant X11 mined coin.

So, would you support such a change? Comment below.
 
No. I just don't see enough new, coming from the outside, high quality, budget proposals in Dash budget system that would warrant such an increase in Dash budget system. This would also undermine the agreement with Dash miners that we would not go beyond the masternode-miner blockreward reallocation schedule that is running until mid 2025 and most importantly : if the change from 10% to 20% to Dash budget were to be approved i foresee even larger Dash Core Group Supplemental Funding proposals emerging (despite what DCG may say publicly). In my view that increase in Dash budget from 10% to 20% will most likely just go to those entities currently already active in the Dash Budget system or to higher DCG Supplemental Funding proposals / additional DCG budget proposals.

Untill DCG has made some longterm operational changes that will actually address the Dash project delays that have been consistently occurring over the years, i feel these Dash Core Group Supplemental Funding proposals that keep getting approved by a few major masternode whales in the last few days of voting, are just keeping the status quo for DCG, not forcing them to change anything operationally.

So i would vote against boosting the DAO to 20% from miner rewards.
 
Last edited:
qwizzie said:
No. I just don't see enough new, coming from the outside, high quality, budget proposals in Dash budget system that would warrant such an increase in Dash budget system. This would also undermine the agreement with Dash miners that we would not go beyond the masternode-miner blockreward reallocation schedule that is running until mid 2025 and most importantly : if the change from 10% to 20% to Dash budget were to be approved i foresee even larger Dash Core Group Supplemental Funding proposals emerging (despite what DCG may say publicly). In my view that increase in Dash budget from 10% to 20% will most likely just go to those entities currently already active in the Dash Budget system or to higher DCG Supplemental Funding proposals / additional DCG budget proposals.

Until DCG has made some longterm operational changes that will actually address the Dash project delays that have been consistently occurring over the years, i feel these Dash Core Group Supplemental Funding proposals that keep getting approved by a few major masternode whales in the last few days of voting, are just keeping the status quo for DCG, not forcing them to change anything operationally.

So i would vote against boosting the DAO to 20% from miner rewards.
Click to expand...
Well said, the network should first see the rewards of having supported those funding proposals for 8+ years before doubling the potential funding. Performance first, pay should follow.
 
You need to vote it by using sliders.

7GUb2.png


This can be implemented in our budget by casting three numerical votes having range from 0 to 100, and where the sum of the 3 votes of the voter should not exceed 100.

You can easily add the 3 numerical votes, but on what it concerns the check of the sum of the 3 votes, you have 2 solutions:
  1. Either you allow the voter to vote whatever and you invalidate whoever votes 3 votes having sum bigger that 100.
  2. Or you code a customized page where people are warned when they try to vote 3 votes having sum more that 100.
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterDash said:
What improvements can we expect when feeding parasites?
Click to expand...

What harm could it do? At least we have a chance of getting something back with that Dash spent. When miners spend it to pay for rent, hardware, electricity and labour it gives nothing back to the network, remember, we already are as secure as we possibly can be.
 
xkcd said:
What harm could it do? At least we have a chance of getting something back with that Dash spent. When miners spend it to pay for rent, hardware, electricity and labour it gives nothing back to the network, remember, we already are as secure as we possibly can be.
Click to expand...
The DAO is a tax and, as with all tax systems, they end up being abused until they are unfunctional. If there was any decent success stories for DAO grants then it would of been seen and obvious by now. As it is, to date, every major grant initiative has ultimately failed. Why expand a fundamentally flawed system? Governance needs to change and prove it's worth, only then might it be worth increasing the tax.
 
I'm partially with @GrandMasterDash.
DAO in the current form almost promotes abuses and failures. Changes are needed but not in a form of increasing allocation. We need a change that promotes accountability and delivery.
It could be in a form of systemic change, where the current money allocation workflow would be re-designed.
Another option would be a complete change in a way of giving money to participants without workflow chnges. More scrutiny and oversight on MN side, so only those who delivered "last month" would get money "next month".

Situation when something is "almost done" for years (or even months) should not be tolerated anymore. DAO should promote culture of delivery. Without exception.
 
Either way, the money is going to be spent, either you get something for it, or you don't. You can't sit there and say that we are not getting anything for the funds spent in the DAO. We have DCG delivering 2 releases this year and mobile wallets and working on Platform and we have incubator delivering videos with Amanda as a co-host. Shifting more dead funds to the treasury makes sense, we can do more with them.
 
Oh come on, how many years did it take to get to this point? Couldn't even upgrade the network without a 16+ hour chain halt. I couldn't possibly mark that up as "success".

Incubator picking up the pieces for stuff that should of been done by DCG.

A wannabee marketing hub that babbles on about "living off crypto" while simultaneously doing KYC to receive zcash payouts.

And still a handful of MNOs vote these amateurs in every single month.

Give me a proposal to abolish DAO funding completely while still allowing MNO voting. We should re-design governance from the ground up and do so without paying a penny to anyone, period.
 
rion said:
DCG will run out of funds in a few months, even if funds are diverted from Incubator.

Increasing the superblock needs to be seriously (re)considered, not just for DCG, Incubator, and others, but for Dash as a whole.
Click to expand...
Copy and pasted from a reply of mine on Dash Central (https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Divert-Incubator-Funds-to-DCG#comments), which i think is also relevant here :

'i think DCG has too high operational costs for the bear market it is in for many years now, and has failed to act appropriate on it.

If Dash Platform was released to Mainnet, then those DCG operational costs could have been brought down far more easily by DCG, as not all devs (and their salaries) would be needed. Now we are in the situation that Dash Platform is still not released and DCG considers current devs vital to deliver Dash Platform, which makes it very difficult for DCG to bring those operational costs down.

Having more funding go to DCG (either from taking it away from Dash Incubator or from extending the Dash budget) does not address the underlying problem for DCG : they need to bring their operational costs down considerably during times of a bear market (which unfortunetely means downsizing number of devs). They can increase this later again during times of a bull market.'

With 'downsizing number of devs' i mean falling back to a bare minimum of devs to keep DCG running and perhaps re-evaluating the salaries of those bare minimum of devs.
 
Last edited:
kot said:
I'm partially with @GrandMasterDash.
DAO in the current form almost promotes abuses and failures. Changes are needed but not in a form of increasing allocation. We need a change that promotes accountability and delivery.
It could be in a form of systemic change, where the current money allocation workflow would be re-designed.
Another option would be a complete change in a way of giving money to participants without workflow chnges. More scrutiny and oversight on MN side, so only those who delivered "last month" would get money "next month".

Situation when something is "almost done" for years (or even months) should not be tolerated anymore. DAO should promote culture of delivery. Without exception.
Click to expand...
DCG wouldn't be in this position if Glenn hadn't gambled with the Reserve Fund. I know that isn't Sam's fault, nor BFoster, but raising the Treasury allocation now would be a bad move, imo.

To pull a @demo tho

 
Last edited:
AgnewPickens said:
DCG wouldn't be in this position if Glenn hadn't gambled with the Reserve Fund. I know that isn't Sam's fault, nor BFoster, but raising the Treasury allocation now would be a bad move, imo.
Click to expand...
How much of the Reserve Fund has DCG lost ? And can you pls clarify how that was lost exactly ? I seem to recall DCG invested in something that turned out to be not that profitable / lost money on ?
 
Ugly truth is that DCG wouldn't be in this position if DCG developers wouldn't blatantly lied to their managers about the ability to deliver Dash Platform within "3-6 months" for years.
If honest and realistic estimates and communication would have been made at the beginning of the development, there would be completely different strategies for finance and delivery in place.
Out of shitty estimates, you have shitty outcomes. Simple.

Other side of the equation is weak management - all dishonest and/or incompetent developers should have been replaced years ago. Especially those, who are very expensive - and there are very expensive developers there.
 
qwizzie said:
How much of the Reserve Fund has DCG lost ? And can you pls clarify how that was lost exactly ? I seem to recall DCG invested in something that turned out to be not that profitable / lost money on ?
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, it was done due to the tax reasons. If DCG would keep all reserves in cash, it would be taxable and the "lost" would be quite significant.
To avoid the above, Glenn decided to invest part of the reserves (not significant portion) in other instruments.
I would gladly learn what was the result of this "gambling" vs what would be the tax. Just to compare.

You are so eager to throw accusations, so I assume you have solid, confirmed information - please give us the numbers @AgnewPickens .
 
kot said:
If I recall correctly, it was done due to the tax reasons. If DCG would keep all reserves in cash, it would be taxable and the "lost" would be quite significant.
To avoid the above, Glenn decided to invest part of the reserves (not significant portion) in other instruments.
I would gladly learn what was the result of this "gambling" vs what would be the tax. Just to compare.

You are so eager to throw accusations, so I assume you have solid, confirmed information - please give us the numbers @AgnewPickens .
Click to expand...
The Reserve Fund should have been in Cash or Cash equivalents, investing in REITs turned out to be a disaster for the reserve fund, as Bfoss pointed out though, the brokers for DCG's reserve funds were told to keep reserve funds in low risk assets and did not comply, it is on Glenn that he didn't follow up, anyway, water under the bridge, I liked Glenn, but this thread is about miner reallocations/DAO treasury expansion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top