Geert
Active member
Andy Freer has publicly stated in the following proposal that his goal is to dismantle DCG:
I didn't really want to touch on these issues publically before Evo is on mainnet but my real problem with this proposal is that it is against a backdrop of some serious structural problems that have emerged in recent years within the Dash ecosystem, and is likely to make them worse not better.
The issue and the reason why Dash has lost so much valuation, is due to a failure not of the governance system itself but weaknesses within at by allowing huge amounts of centralization to grow which has throttled the historical lifeblood of our growth, massively delayed our innovation, and pushed a lot of people away from the project.
This is in the form of DCG, which was originally conceived to just help Core development but has since grown into essentially an all encompassing government in Dash that's trying to do many things at once, with our innovation to make Dash usable always second place to strategies that consider Dash good enough today and to try to improve payment integrations and SOV.
As a closed-source DFO that's highly centralized internally and the people with the crypto expertise kept at the bottom of the hierarchy and often demotivated or wrapped up in layers of middle-management and having to seek permission for everything, it's exceedingly inneficient at development and people getting burned out, demotivated and leaving is a regular event.
The MNOs have one yes / no choice each month - allow DCG to continue to grow or a nuclear option to defund it. And that is with zero transparency and DCG going away from our original vision - for example for the price of several developers working on our key innovation (Platform) they are hiring a marketing manager when that innovation is years late.
The issue with our governance system isn't therefore that MNOs dont know which proposals to fund - its that the most important proposal is essentially removed from any choices by MNOs or market forces to correct problems when it doesn't perform well, whether that's by allowing decisions on what scope DCG should be taking on, how much of the budget should be allocated to development and not tertiary activities that could probably function much better in the open market, what is command structure and how much say devs have got in that, what vision is DCG following and how well are they doing on that.
My issue with this proposal is that the user proposing it is already close to DCG and hasn't raised any of these real issues and has in fact been highly critical of the solution (our long planned upgrade for usibility) and without any substantive explanation of why.
Instead, the centralization & loss of vision are elephant's in the room, this proposal is a essentially an argument to authority - its not the innovators with proven contributions to Dash who would gain this additional influence on strategy, but will likely be a think-tank of people with zero track record in Dash bolting on to the existing 'government' that is being constantly constructed (DCG, DIF, Trust etc etc) which is always sold as being democratic via elections etc but in reality all the same people following the same strategy which for me is against the vision of our founder and the vision me and a lot of the developers are trying to work to.
What we do need is a proposal to correct these real issues. We want the people with the actual track records of innovation in Dash to have the influence and the funding they need to continue to do that and accelerate and grow that. The Incubator I have been working on is supposed to be demonnstrating the kind of solutions we need to allow others to go ahead and create them, although we're only maybe 70% of putting all the parts for that in place.
Voting yes on this is going to make that harder I feel..we do need to give voices to the people who can improve Dash and restore our position and beyond, but we need radical change for that, not just supplementing the existing situation where we have government not governance, which is the breakdown of the governance system... that is what MNOs need to fix.
Now that we have the actual innovation and final piece of vision for Dash from our founder even with the suppression of that, we are going to need to fix this structure to be able to grow that in the market...we don't want random 'experts' because that is typical of the kind of failed strategies regularly being use in Dash right now... we need people with a proven track record in Dash of delivery and adherance to the vision that the network agreed to and has been funding all these years.
We should be working on a solution to the real problems by dismantling the 'government' in Dash which the longer and larger it grows the lower Dash valuation gets, not adding to it in my view.
This solution should be something like this:
- Core developers should control their own funding directly and their organization should be fully transparent and decentralized
- They work to a vision, and that vision is open for debate and agreed by the network, but their voices are the largest because their contributions that we can verify are the biggest. "Experts" are welcome to jon in, but when they just parachute in with zero history, their influence is tempered by that (Currently our vision *should* delivering and investing in the promotion and growth of our forthcoming ease-of-use features.)
- Any non-Core development parts of DCG should be moved to separate DFOs that are required to compete and earn funding based on actual performance
- We should avoid allowing 'government' bodies to be setup, outside of a single one - protocol development - because what Dash essentially is, is a protocol, and its the one thing needed centrally (and even then it should be transparent and internally decentralized as I mention)
- Restore the vibe in Dash of a smart project that innovates to succeed so that we attract people who like to create, innovate, try new things with free market principles, take risks - not join some virtual corporation where decentralization has become a bad word no matter how loud the wider market shouts that this is not what people want.
Andy Freer
I think it would be inappropriate for him to run as Trust Protector and I am publicly calling on him to withdraw his candidacy.
