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

Trust Protector Elections are delayed because.........

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

solarguy

Well-known member
Despite several appeals on all the forums, and an informational proposal seeking candidates for the Trust Protector election, only one person stepped forward.

For various legitimate/personal/life reasons , none of the current Trust Protectors will be standing for election and have stepped down. Core is studying what possible next steps to take to remedy the situation.

At our last few Trust Protector meetings, we felt that making the TP role/position a paid one might produce more candidates willing to put in the work.

Questions are as always.....welcome.
 
Lets built a decision tree

First poll) Do we want Trust protectors?
------------A) NO ---> End
------------B) YES -----------------------> Second poll) Do we want to pay them?
----------------------------------------------- A) NO ---> Dead End
----------------------------------------------- B) YES ------------------------------>Third poll ) How much Do we want to pay them? (vote the numbers)

Lets do governance in Dash, at last!!!
Unchain the masternodes, and unchain them now!

 
Last edited:
vazaki3 said:
Lets built a decision tree

First poll) Do we want Trust protectors?
------------A) NO ---> End
------------B) YES -----------------------> Second poll) Do we want to pay them?
----------------------------------------------- A) NO ---> Dead End
----------------------------------------------- B) YES ------------------------------>Third poll ) How much Do we want to pay them? (vote the numbers)

Lets do governance in Dash, at last!!!
Unchain the masternodes, and unchain them now!

Click to expand...
Do we want Trust Protectors. No

The DAO should not be contorted into a legal entity. We are neutering something powerful. Listen to Erik Vorhees on this.

If DCG wants legal status, fine, no problem. Don't get the DAO involved.
 
@TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou Trust Protectors were appointed for the reason of having control over the significant organization like DCG.
It was an example on how to give legitimate legal power to the decentralized network, using the existing legal framework. And remember - it was created on the request of the network.
Unfortunately, the latest two boards compromised the entire concept by acting to promote themselves, instead of serving the network.

I am absolutely not surprised there is no candidates for the next board. During the last two years Trust Protectors greatly participated in:
- creation of antagonism and fragmentation of the community,
- departure of many competent and passionate people from DCG and not finding replacements,
- implementation of new "great tools and processes" that took effort and time but changed absolutely nothing from the delivery perspective, still producing delays, scope creep and inability to estimate timelines
- creation of a simple internal process and very simple, unattractive website (the entire thing would take about a week for an IT student),
- constant bragging about hard work they do and great results they achieve (that are somehow invisible to others).
What is a reason and advantage of becoming a Trust Protector in such situation?
 
Last edited:
@kot please define control. Please explain why the DAO should have a significant organization like DCG?

The past several years have shown moving away from open-source style development in favor for a centralized entity leads to network freeze (both figuratively and literally).

The DAO already has control over who gets funded. Ultimate control. As long as MNOs demand tangible deliverables for pay (including open-source code) then this legal gymnastics that makes Dash look like a security (and perhaps does make Dash a security) is not needed.

Dash needs to lean into its strengths (the DAO) and away from its weaknesses (its people and legal organizations).

Please listen to the Erik Voorhees piece I shared. Anything the DAO wants from a legal perspective can be handled at the contractor level. There is no need to weaken the DAO to appease the legacy legal system. I'd be interested in any counter examples where this is not true, and a DAO would need legal status of some kind. I can think of none that can't be done by contractors themselves.
 
TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou said:
Please explain why the DAO should have a significant organization like DCG?
Click to expand...
DAO should have as many different organizations as possible.

TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou said:
Dash needs to lean into its strengths (the DAO) and away from its weaknesses (its people and legal organizations).
Click to expand...
Eeee… how do you see DAO functioning without people and organizations?

Actually, I agree that contractual level is enough to make DAO functioning, however that doesn’t eliminate legal aspect of the reality. It doesn’t eliminate people and organizations.
Not to mention conflicts that may arise (and need to be resolved in court) or necessity to sign contracts. You need to sign a contract as a legal entity if you want this contract to be legal and binding.
 
Please listen to the Erik podcast shared. The legal stuff like contracts gets handled at the contractor level. The only decision the DAO needs to make is to provide funding or not. DCG should not be owned by the network. It should be independent and the DAO should be its customer.
 
It is my basic understanding that DCG being a legal entity gave confidence for DCG to stack money for rainy days and general fiscal management. This in turn gives DCG employees the safety net of a fixed salary with a longish runway. That's the theory I think, but seems in practice DCG decided that price and rank was never important. And so today we find dash has finally exited the top 100 and is worth less than 30 USD. And you know what Sam will say? - "it's unfortunate crypto winter is still here", or something to that effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top