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

Proposal: Business Development (January)

demo said:
This is a quick Poll.

DO YOU AGREE THE 607 dash to be burned?
If you want the 607 dash to be burned, rate this comment with an "Agree" rating.
If you want the 607 dash to remain in the wallet of the core team, rate this comment with a "Disagree" rating.
Click to expand...

<poll history>
clear.png
Disagree x 5 = fible1 flare JGCMiner TroyDASH AjM
</poll history>
 
TroyDASH said:
And how @UdjinM6 was supposed to know what the future votes were going to be?
Click to expand...

He certainly knew it, because he is a forum moderator and because @fible1 announced into the forum that he was about to reverse all his votes to "Νο".

So, in case @UdjinM6 had already sent the budget finilization command, he should have re-send it.
Or in case he had not already sent the command, he should have delay the budget finilization command until all the "No" votes of @fible1 propagate.
 
Last edited:
mranderson010 said:
I think part of that 600+ DASH that should/shouldn't have been paid out should go to @demo for doing the research and discussing these important topics.
Click to expand...

This 607,41 Dash are not fair money.
If this community was an honest one, then this money should already have been burned.
Decent and honorable persons should not accept dirty money.
So I dont want part of this money either.
 
Last edited:
David said:
Careful examination of voting numbers and patterns made it obvious to me some months ago that this is the case. There appear to be 300-500 votes that routinely don't get cast--unless an important proposal is in jeopardy at the last minute. They may be Core Team votes, it may be Otoh (who we know does not normally vote), but whoever it is seems to vote very strategically. Honestly, it's no different than "sniping" an auction on eBay.
Click to expand...
That would be Otoh - I remember him saying (on the old Slack I believe) that he only votes his MNs if asked to do so by @babygiraffe.
 
bertlebbert said:
That would be Otoh - I remember him saying (on the old Slack I believe) that he only votes his MNs if asked to do so by @babygiraffe.
Click to expand...
When @Otoh votes the last minute in favor of the core team, this is considered as a smart move.

But when @fible1 and the rest masternodes are trying to vote the last minute against the core team (in order to prevent for the core team to be able to summon @Otoh), this is considerd as bad ninja voting practice. When this is happening (and in case it is too late for the core team to summon the sleepy @Otoh), then the core team eliminates the bad ninja voters by calling the good ninja, the infamous budget_finalizer ninja.

This is the way the core team understands fairness and justice.
 
Last edited:
bertlebbert said:
That would be Otoh - I remember him saying (on the old Slack I believe) that he only votes his MNs if asked to do so by @babygiraffe.
Click to expand...
Considering he has a more vested interest than anyone else in the community, I suggest that this is appropriate.
It should ensure management is able to keep Dash on the best course for future success.
 
bertlebbert said:
Considering @Otoh has a more vested interest than anyone else in the community, I suggest that this is appropriate.
Click to expand...

No it is not appropriate.

Because , althought @Otoh has more vested interest than any other single masternode operator in the success of Dash, the Dash community as a whole has much more vested interest than @Otoh has. Nobody is above the community as a whole, and nobody should be allowed to play games against the community.

And speaking about @Otoh , where was he when the lamassu problem occured? Why @babygiraffe didnt call @Otoh to downvote lamassu and that way prevent the community's money from being spent aimlessly?
 
Last edited:
Dont really vote unless someone really impresses me, got a handfull tho..maybe something to ease the process could be a built in tab for a special MN wallet. It might do the trick.. with features like MN voting scores for reference, maybe you could give a thumbs up or down a project without voting for reference for other MN ops.. etc.. there are so many ideas ... Its currently a fulltime job keeping up with the forums and nobody that values theyr time really got time for that.. so most just say fukit the 10% that do vote know theyr shit..and dont vote.. voting numbers are a real concern.. maybe there is something that can be done in that department ? so many requests for improvement over last year. None were heard ? :(

@kot ..sorry.. dont know who to tag, please find someone to fix this or bring it up on next meeting becource its really sad to see the total number of active votes each month.. make it super easy.. it can be done I have faith in you all !
 
Last edited:
babygiraffe said:
I cannot provide an update on all of these projects, because I am not the owner of any of them. I do own Wall of Coins, the Office Space project, the Miami conference, and of course financial activities from planning to payments. But I will do my best to provide you with what I know about the various projects. Also, it is not yet publicly viewable, but we've actually created a new section of the Forum for project updates that will have a thread for each of the projects you listed and other major ones. That was just completed today, so next step is to start populating it which should happen within the next week.

I know that Robert publishes monthly core team updates, which may contain more up-to-date information on status. To the extent the following conflicts with those reports, the reports are probably more accurate because the below is my own understanding.

Legal Work - This project was delayed because the lawyer we hired (Marco Santori) left Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, and joined Cooley LLP. Because of the change, we had to transfer our already-funded retainer from Pillsbury to Cooley in the fall. Work finally began last month, and the law firm completed the first document call the "Statement of Facts" this month. I do not have an updated completion date yet, but I have requested one. The funding for "Legal Work Part II" has not been distributed to Cooley (it remains in our wallet), and we are still using the initial retainer funded with "Legal Work Part I", most of which is still unspent.

ATM Master Compliance Program - I do not have a current status update on this. The latest I know is quite stale. There was as issue with Cogent Law's BitPay account that prevented us from funding the retainer for several weeks before they managed to resolve it, but this was way back in September and October. It was finally funded in October and to the best of my knowledge, the work began at that time.

Marketing - Brand and Design - This funded in November with the intention of kicking off the work in December. I know the project was kicked off, but is not yet complete. I will be sure to request an update on tomorrow's core team call.

Lamassu - The project is obviously delayed, but I do know work continues on it. Multiple issues have caused the delays, from major changes to Lamassu's official stack to unforeseen technical limitations of that new software that caused the entire architecture / approach to require changes. I prefer to not provide the full update on this project myself because I'm frankly not exposed / familiar enough to the details. I understand that an update is in the works on what issues were encountered and what the effects were. This project predates my involvement with management of the finances. I know that in addition to the project delays, there is a lot of concern over the amount paid as Dash appreciated. Two tenants I've followed since taking over the finances are 1) no Dash denominated contracts lasting more than three months (because of potential price appreciation), and 2) no payments directly to vendors (the core team should be the intermediary unless the network decides otherwise). This approach is working well with Wall of Coins, which is on budget and on time right now.

ProtonMail - There are delays in the project, but they have all been on ProtonMail's side. We were working with them on updated documentation as of last month and I'm afraid I don't have any updated information on the status this month. To the best of my knowledge, it is still ProtonMail's intent to integrate Dash.

Mycelium - The original estimate for this project was publicly published in the press release as October. It was Mycelium's best estimate at the time of the news release back in July. We continue to work with them and in fact I know we were supporting them just last week. The delays are not specific to Dash... the entire release in which Dash will be included is delayed. So we continue to work with Mycelium and they continue to plan to include Dash in the next version.

I recognize the need to provide more information, and as soon as I get the Miami conference, office lease, and liability insurance stuff complete, I plan to use that freed-up capacity to dig into some of these stale / partially completed projects to hopefully figure out what can be done to bring them to completion. We've put a lot of time and effort into all of them, so finally closing them and gaining the associated benefits is important to me, and I'm sure to the entire community.

I'm sorry for not being more responsive and I hope this is sufficient until a more comprehensive update can be gathered.
Click to expand...

For the legal work, can more details be given and would the opinion be available for us to see? Or at least a summarized version of it.

For the stuff that is not under you, who is the person we should look for for e.g. ATM Master Compliance Program and Lamassu?

The Lamassu is a particularly sore point specially since they announced Ethereum support.

Looking forward to an update though it is way overdue. Personally I would vote "No" for this until we are certain that this Business development is delivering value or at least tying up the loose ends before we pump more money into it.

Thanks @babygiraffe
 
babygiraffe said:
That is an incorrect assumption. I have not conversed with Otoh in a few months.
Click to expand...
He did say that was his voting policy. But if you two haven't communicated, maybe someone else spoke with him... or maybe he decided to submit votes unsolicited... or maybe those blocks were someone else's. (Who really cares?) :)

Edit: or maybe you have keys to vote without prior conversing - like I said, who cares?
 
Last edited:
bertlebbert said:
He did say that was his voting policy. But if you two haven't communicated, maybe someone else spoke with him... or maybe he decided to submit votes unsolicited... or maybe those blocks were someone else's. (Who really cares?) :)

Edit: or maybe you have keys to vote without prior conversing - like I said, who cares?
Click to expand...

Otoh isn't as active in Dash as he used to be, and the last time I talked to him he didn't really follow the proposals carefully. You are correct that he rarely votes--at all. If I were to guess, it would be a member of Core Team or somebody very close. Perhaps even Evan himself. My theory is that we have a highly active whale either on Core Team or very close to it who only votes with a fraction of his/her masternodes (under normal circumstances). When needed, he/she votes with all of them. Otoh is actually a great "false flag" to have, because anytime somebody sees a few hundred votes they automatically think of him. In any event, the important thing is that at the end of the day, Core has enough votes for any reasonable proposal. That's a good thing, IMO.
 
David said:
In any event, the important thing is that at the end of the day, Core has enough votes for any reasonable proposal. That's a good thing, IMO.
Click to expand...

It might be fine now (and it is understandable now with a large early-adoptor MN segment), but I don't think long-term that is a healthy situation. Over time I'd rather have greater checks and balances, so that the core team is answerable to a truly independent MN owner population. I agree that currently the core team has a lot going for it, but I also thought Bitcoin's core team was doing fine under Gavin, and look what happened there. If core is able to conjure up enough votes for any proposal they make (and I note you did say "any reasonable proposal"), then it would be de facto no different than the situation that plagues Bitcoin.

Also, the knowledge that any core proposal can be pushed through if needed will likely suppress voting totals, as many will see little reason to register their apparently meaningless vote.

But again, I'm talking long-term here; right now we are still in the early stages and our current MN owner population is in keeping with that stage.
 
ericsammons said:
It might be fine now (and it is understandable now with a large early-adoptor MN segment), but I don't think long-term that is a healthy situation. Over time I'd rather have greater checks and balances, so that the core team is answerable to a truly independent MN owner population. I agree that currently the core team has a lot going for it, but I also thought Bitcoin's core team was doing fine under Gavin, and look what happened there. If core is able to conjure up enough votes for any proposal they make (and I note you did say "any reasonable proposal"), then it would be de facto no different than the situation that plagues Bitcoin.

Also, the knowledge that any core proposal can be pushed through if needed will likely suppress voting totals, as many will see little reason to register their apparently meaningless vote.

But again, I'm talking long-term here; right now we are still in the early stages and our current MN owner population is in keeping with that stage.
Click to expand...

You are correct with respect to the long term. However, instead of saying "any reasonable proposal" I should have said "any reasonable proposal without tons of opposition." As long as only 15-20% of MNOs vote on a proposal, then Core probably does control enough votes on its own to have it pass. But if it's extremely controversial, there are more than enough MNOs outside of Core Team that they could easily vote down the proposal. If Core Team (hypothetically) controls 15% of the network's votes and only 20% of the network votes, then Core Team will win every time. If 30%, 40%, or more of the network votes, then solid opposition would easily defeat Core Team.

In the long run, I think a rising Dash price will gradually divest masternodes from the top holders, including Core Team. That combined with continued emission should reduce the voting power of Core Team in time. One thing that has gone largely unnoticed is how Otoh has divested a number of his nodes. He still seems to have every confidence in Dash, but he's also decreasing the centralization of ownership that was previously present...which is a good thing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top