Pre-proposal: Dash Core Group fiat guarantee losses reimbursement

[RealMrHack]

This will open a new can of worms going forward, especially given that core, escrow et al

Will always seek to use the treasury as a stop-loss

 

[glennaustin]

Dash Core providing a fiat guarantee is a valuable service for the network and helps ensure that proposal owners can successfully complete their goals.

Every proposal that uses Dash Core as escrow and/or for fiat guarantee should clearly state that in their proposal so the masternodes can make an informed decision. Additionally, proposal owners should agree to cash out a substantial portion of their Dash funding immediately, rather than gambling that if Dash increases in price they benefit, and if Dash decreases in price then the losses are socialized across the Dash network via the fiat guarantee. We need to prevent moral hazard.

Dash Core should also submit a dedicated proposal to fund future fiat-guarantees to ensure that Masternodes agree that this is a good use of funds.

Ideally, the solution in the long-term is that the Core Team doesn't need to provide fiat guarantees. Rather, several companies dedicated to providing fiat guarantees compete with each other to win the business while charging the proposal owners competitive fees.

I view this proposal as a proxy for how Masternodes think about Dash Core providing future fiat-guarantees.

 

[Nuancer]

Ideally, the solution in the long-term is that the Core Team doesn't need to provide fiat guarantees. Rather, several companies dedicated to providing fiat guarantees compete with each other to win the business while charging the proposal owners competitive fees.

I view this proposal as a proxy for how Masternodes think about Dash Core providing future fiat-guarantees.

I don't think that's quite right - many people would likely vote yes on this proposal solely to replenish the Dash Core marketing budget so that the existing marketing initiatives are not impacted. This is a separate decision from Dash Core being a long-term provider of fiat guarantees.

The fiat-guarantee concept and funding pool is a good one, and whoever steps up to manage it should create a proposal to get dedicated funding for this purpose. I agree that competition is good, so I'd like to see multiple proposal owners try to provide this service.

 

[feedbands]

From our perspective, we certainly were not anticipating the market to crash the way it did. By pegging our escrow payout to USD, we truly felt at the time that would help the network hedge against appreciation, allowing us to still receive the amount we were asking for even if the value of the dash embedded in the proposal rose significantly. To be honest, we feel uneasy about how it played out, as we do not want to ask for, or receive, too much and putting any sort of strain whatsoever on Core is the absolute last thing we would ever want to do. In retrospect we would have been happier just receiving the Dash amount embedded in the proposal and making it work amidst market conditions, like we had done with all our previous proposals, but again we pegged it to the USD thinking Dash would likely appreciate we and didn't want to end up receiving more than $330,000 for the ad campaign since it was already significant.

All that said, we are happy with how the advertising has been going. We've been able to capture a full 10% of the displays on Coindesk and Cointelegraph, we have some excellent native content debuting on TechCrunch calling on entrepreneurs and startups to build upon Dash's payments system, and integrations going live with CCN.com and newsBTC, two of the most frequently appearing blockchain news sites related to crypto.

We will have no qualms whatsoever if the network chooses to discontinue funding for the third month. And if the network does choose to continue funding for the final month of the campaign, we will of course go above and beyond to get the greatest value out of the marketing spend that we possible can because that is our responsibility.

Whatever happens, Core needs to be reimbursed and it is unacceptable to us for their budget to be impacted in any way by Feedbands. One option would be to use the third and final payout as reimbursement for the previous payout and conclude the campaign this month. I would gladly sign off on this Glenn.

 

[AshFrancis]

Would it not make sense for the majority of (if not all) fiat-guarantee proposals to request the full amount up front which can be immediately converted to fiat by Core, completely mitigating volatility risk? It would then be remitted monthly by Core in accordance to milestones.

The only negative for this is that the largest proposals would have to run monthly proposals. Considering the scale these larger proposals operate at and the fact their initial proposal can either lose funding due to downvotes, attrition or budget competition this seems to make sense anyway.

Obviously this also means that smaller proposals that asked the full amount up-front couldn't be defunded but that also makes a lot of sense if they're going for a secure cash flow approach, they would still be liable to meet their escrow demands. Then the onus would be on the proposal owner to choose which approach they take based on their attitude to risk.