Come on! Why are you telling lies?why did you post this? Because you are shocked that Sam would request such a massive change without more than 13 days on dashcentral and no pre-discussion?
It is objectively absolutely a completely better use of Dash's excess (wasteful) portion of block reward,
*Copied from DashCentral*
Why are you ignoramuses who oppose this proposal (Quizzie, GMD, Socrates,
Since MNO's / delegated voters can only vote yes/no/abstain in Dash Governance system in accordance with approving a proposal (yes), denying a proposal (no) or formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal (abstain), vazaki3/itsdemo is not actually participathing in Dash Governance voting system. He is effectively a non-voter.
Because he is tying his vote to his own little customized rules and promoting those little customized rules everywhere. Which causes confusion to his votes and nullify it.
Copy of my post from the Dashcentral
Hey Dash Community,
After contemplating this for a while, I would like to share my opinion too.
I am torn, because I like the idea of increasing treasury budget. But the rationale offered by the PO, proposed implementation timelines and new split between miners and MNOs is hardly to accept to me.
Let me briefly explain my thoughts.
1. Rationale of relatively quick change in the protocol, due to the internal problems of DCG, is not acceptable to me. Changes in the protocol should be driven by the network needs.
2. Increasing treasury budget won't resolve any problems that DCG has (since years). It will just make an ineffective company exist longer. DCG has to resolve their issues with personnel, low effectiveness, low morale, extremely low predictability. Keeping status quo is a mistake imho. If you don't know how - hire an external management consultant. It will be money very well spent (much better than keeping broken personnel imho). Stop being sentimental and compassionate, if comes to the company and team management.
3. As I understand, this change is proposed to be implemented together within the same software package as Evo. Combining change in the protocol within the same version as Evo is EXTREMELY bad idea to me.
- on one side, it looks like blackmailing ("there will be no Evo, if you won't accept this change")
- on the other side, miners have the right to not accept this change and not implement it. In case they are rejecting it, there will be no Evo neither.
4. We have no idea how the market is going to react to Evo. Let them try. If Evo is going to be a success, Dash price will be higher and the treasury budget in fiat value increases anyway. If market won't care about Evo, it means we were all wrong and it doesn't make any difference if DCG exists or not. Harsh reality that we need to accept.
5. I would rather cut the reward proportionally from MNs and miners atm. At this time we have no idea what the future is bringing. IF Evo is a success, and Evonodes will be actually needed, and miners role really lower, then I would ask for the change - based on facts. Not now, based on highly theoretical predictions.
Considering the above (and every argument I have read on the forum and Dashcentral), I intend to vote "ABSTAIN" or "NO" to this proposal.
PS. I would like to suggest to the DCG leadership implementing necessary changes in the structures and personnel immediately. Without remorse. Otherwise you won't survive, even if this proposal is accepted. Same people will be doing the same mistakes and causing the same problems - I guess you know it well after so many years.
PS2. Instead of so rushed change in the protocol, I would rather suggest asking MNOs for donations for the development efforts (and commitment to execute).