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

MNOs - Are you OK with DashIncubator backers supporting proposals?

Are you OK with the DashIncubator model of 10 Dash paid to proposal backers?

  • YES I'm OK with it, since backers also risk losing their Dash.

    Votes: 11 100.0%
  • NO, I'm not OK with it; backers shouldn't profit from the budget system.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters


Well-known member
At DashIncubator ( https://d-msg.com/dashincubator ) our backers pay the 5 Dash proposal fee on selected projects, which helps those with good projects who cannot afford the 5 Dash fee. If the proposal passes, 10 Dash is paid back to the backers out of the budget proposal. If the proposal doesn't pass, the backers lose their Dash.

My question is, are MNOs OK with this model? Or, do MNOs resent DashIncubator for taking advantage of the budget system to profit?

It is my hope that MNOs will have a positive association with DashIncubator projects. But if they have a negative association, then it wouldn't work.
There are two ways I could see it as something negative:
  1. If the 5 extra dash were a large part of the total proposal budget
  2. If the proposal was pretty much a sure pass, i.e. the risk of not passing was really low. 100% return for the backers is then a bit much.
The first would be easy to avoid by not supporting small projects.
The second issue would be solved if the backers could give their required return, rather than always require 100% return. The backers that require the lowest return are then chosen.

But that said, I probably wouldn't care too much about it. Other benefits like improved proposal quality and follow up may be worth the extra 5 dash anyway.
If the 5 extra dash were a large part of the total proposal budget

What would be a rough estimate of what you think the minimum proposal amount should be? For example, would a 20 Dash proposal (half going to the backers) be too low? 40 Dash (1/4 to backers)?

If the proposal was pretty much a sure pass,

The "sure pass" proposals help mitigate the risk of the "not sure pass" proposals. Without some "sure pass" proposals in the mix, backers would be hesitant to back other proposals. Also the "sure pass" proposals are more likely to get the fee funded by other means.
It's a risk, over and above all the other risks of crypto & MNO so doing it for free isn't realistic so yes I'm ok with remuneration. Perhaps 5 dash is a bit steep. Might it not be possible for the market to decide a fair price?
1.). Thanks for asking!
2.). Yes. The current model is acceptable.
2a). As @martinf mentioned lower returns and even negative returns would be a nice option. I donated to the Venazela conference proposal, and I would do break even or even negative return bets on proposals that I like.

Governance/voting/funding is a big part of Dash's value proposition and I thank you and anyone else who takes the effort to improve it and make it more accessible.
the backers could give their required return, rather than always require 100% return. The backers that require the lowest return are then chosen.
I would also like to see this free market mechanism, if it is not big problem.
So, what I envision is there being several proposals in a given month, and each backer makes their own assessment for each proposal about the chance of passing. Since backers make their pledges in 0.5 Dash increments, they are able to pledge more on the proposals they think have a higher chance of passing. In this manner they manage their risk exposure to each proposal.
Each backer will have a different rate of return, depending on how well they pick proposals to back.

Let's say Bob backs 4 proposals for 1 Dash each, investing 4 Dash total, and only 1 passes. Bob's ROI would be a 50% loss. Lets say Alice did the same thing, but 3 of her picks passed, giving her an ROI of 50% gain.

So, not everyone has a 100% return, even though 100% is what is returned to the backers as a whole (or 0% on those proposals that don't pass).
I always thought the idea of supporting others who cannot afford to put up the 5 dash as a good idea. If you don't make some money on the activity, you will not be able to afford to lose a single proposal. If you did, you would be out of business in a heart beat.
I thought out the idea as a charity that answers to the MNOs. You come to the MNOs with a budget for a group of projects that are too small to account for the 5 DASH fee. Out of that you pay your prospects. Your ability to choose productive and successful prospects determines if the MNOs gives you money again.

Like a charity that's actually accountable and not a complete scam, as charities generally are...
Hmm, where is the 10 dash to pay back coming from?
Now people make a proposal, and then it requires 5 dash added. Will all the proposals now require 10 dash added?
Will all the proposals now require 10 dash added?

Only proposals submitted with DashIncubator backing have 10 Dash added. It's accepted by MNOs that proposals routinely include 5 Dash reimbursement for proposal fee. I want to make sure they are accepting of DashIncubator proposals that add 10 Dash.
I don't know how DashIncubator exactly works but I think it would be better if the backers could bid and then if there is enough backers then 5 dash worth of the best bids would be used to make the proposal. Rest would be returned to backers.

For example if backer A wants to back 3 Dash for 150% return and backer B wants to back 1.5 Dash for 170% and backer C 3 dash for 200% then the reimbursement would be 3*1.5+1.5*1.7+0.5*2.0=8.05 Dash.

2.5 Dash would be sent back to C.