TheDashGuy
Well-known member
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA THIS GUY!!!!!!!
I'm laughing so hard right now. I love the internet!
Budget System v2 / Transform PR
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA THIS GUY!!!!!!!
I'm laughing so hard right now. I love the internet!
What makes you so certain it will be implemented in such a way? Did it occur to you to provide constructive comments to the core team to address these types of situations? Only after providing input and seeing it ignored would making a rash decision such as exiting the community over it make any sense.
Do you honestly expect that Evan and the rest of the team would outline every detail of a system that hasn't been designed or implemented yet in his initial post about it? It would run for pages even if the design were that far along. And you expect that the first design would contemplate every possible fringe example (such as death of the proposal owner)? If so, that's pretty unreasonable. I would urge you to participate in the design instead and help us make it better.
As far as I remember, the next version contemplates enabling the creator of a proposal to cancel the proposal at any time (e.g., if the vendor dies, pulls out of the contract, etc) without have to go out and request that the network proactively vote it down. This would allow cancellation of "irrevocable" contracts for any number of willful (e.g., failure to deliver) or accidental (e.g., death) reasons if the vendor shouldn't be paid due to a breach of contract or any number of reasons. Remember, we are only trying to protect against the network exhibiting bi-polar behavior... instances in which a previously-approved multi-month contract is subsequently voted down despite no vendor performance issues, or instances in which it is subsequently overtaken in popularity by another proposal causing it to drop off the list. We need to be able to make a commitment and stick to it for a full term of an agreement, just like the vendors we contract with. You are taking a statement about "irrevocable" contracts a bit to the extreme, meaning they can't be canceled under even the most extreme circumstances. I can assure you that the core team is not thinking so narrowly (or stupidly) as you assume.
If you have scenarios that you think need to be addressed, share them and find out if they are being addressed. Maybe you could even propose a solution or two, and get involved in the design. I'm sure constructive input would be very welcome.
TheDashGuy
Well-known member
Just so we are clear, xdashguy is NOT me, I do not know who that is. I find it extremely funny though.
What about contracts? It's how 100% of corporations, non-profits, and individuals enter into agreements with each other. A proposal is not a contract. Worst-case scenario:
1) I create a proposal for Dash to hire a programmer to do task "X" for 1,000 Dash per month for 4 months.
2) Proposal passes! We sign contract with programmer with deliverables and fees.
3) Proposal pays month one, but the programmer doesn't deliver against any interim goals, so I don't pay him anything.
4) I cancel the proposal and fire the programmer (for breach of contract)
5) I write the community and let them know that the foundation has 1,000 Dash that went towards a contract that was canceled
6) We have proposals submitted from the community on how to spend the 1,000 Dash instead (could be several competing ones and the top one will win)
The proposal itself is NOT where we should be holding a vendor accountable. The CONTRACT is. That contract should be overseen by a member of the core team or the community member that led the proposal. Your assumptions that there would be no way to hold anyone accountable to deliver after a proposal passes are misinformed.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
After reflecting on this more, here are my thoughts about the direction I think this could go. Open to criticism, if any of you think I am totally out to lunch.
- All approved budget proposals must be revokable. This incentivizes vendors to perform as advertised, and protects the network if the vendor does not deliver, whether because they just didn't do it, or died, or whatever.
- If a budget proposal is intended to be funded for multiple months, even if this is written clearly into the proposal, the vendor needs to be entering with the understanding that subsequent payments are not guaranteed. If an enforceable contract with a real legal entity is required in order to actually accomplish the service, then we can have core members (or anyone on behalf of DASH) do that with a vendor. However, to prevent this middle person from incurring unnecessary risk, any such legal contracts must have both parties recognize and be contingent upon the unenforceable agreement with the network.
- The fact that a contract with the network is unenforceable (both ways) does not necessarily mean that it can't be trusted or that it can't still effectively function as a contract.
- Multi-month budget proposals may contain non-binding statements of intent, which can stipulate that a masternode "yes" vote is an affirmation that if passed, the network intends to continue funding this budget proposal provided that X conditions are met. The budget proposal may also contain an affirmation by the vendor of specific conditions under which funding may not be continued. Dash representatives can assist vendors in drafting budget proposals that deliver clear expectations for both parties. Setting expectations, and linking masternode votes and vendor budget proposals to affirmations of intent, incentivize both the network and the vendor to adhere to the terms in order to protect their respective reputations. This is already possible to do in the current framework.
- Voting thresholds for initially approving a multi-month budget proposal, or thresholds required for de-funding one, are up for debate. This is the part that would require a change to the budget protocol. We could require a higher threshold to initially approve a multi-month proposal (for example, two-thirds yes vote with higher participation), and/or a higher threshold to de-fund subsequent payments once it has already passed (for example, two-thirds no vote with higher participation). These thresholds could be either hardcoded into the protocol, or perhaps the protocol could potentially a dynamic de-funding threshold that is submitted in each budget proposal itself, in which case the act of approving a budget forces the masternodes to meet a certain criteria in order to de-fund it.
- There is also the issue of de-funding a budget item due to going over-budget. This does need addressing as well because it seems that it is too easy for this to happen and the network could unintentionally damage its reputation. Evan suggested doing some sort of priority budgeting, which is a possibility, but I would be interested to hear some other thoughts on this as well.
The end goal here of course is to have a system where both the network and vendors can feel confident establishing longer-term agreements even though the agreement between the network and the vendor (or between the network and the Dash representative) is ultimately still revokable and not legally binding.
- All approved budget proposals must be revokable. This incentivizes vendors to perform as advertised, and protects the network if the vendor does not deliver, whether because they just didn't do it, or died, or whatever.
- If a budget proposal is intended to be funded for multiple months, even if this is written clearly into the proposal, the vendor needs to be entering with the understanding that subsequent payments are not guaranteed. If an enforceable contract with a real legal entity is required in order to actually accomplish the service, then we can have core members (or anyone on behalf of DASH) do that with a vendor. However, to prevent this middle person from incurring unnecessary risk, any such legal contracts must have both parties recognize and be contingent upon the unenforceable agreement with the network.
- The fact that a contract with the network is unenforceable (both ways) does not necessarily mean that it can't be trusted or that it can't still effectively function as a contract.
- Multi-month budget proposals may contain non-binding statements of intent, which can stipulate that a masternode "yes" vote is an affirmation that if passed, the network intends to continue funding this budget proposal provided that X conditions are met. The budget proposal may also contain an affirmation by the vendor of specific conditions under which funding may not be continued. Dash representatives can assist vendors in drafting budget proposals that deliver clear expectations for both parties. Setting expectations, and linking masternode votes and vendor budget proposals to affirmations of intent, incentivize both the network and the vendor to adhere to the terms in order to protect their respective reputations. This is already possible to do in the current framework.
- Voting thresholds for initially approving a multi-month budget proposal, or thresholds required for de-funding one, are up for debate. This is the part that would require a change to the budget protocol. We could require a higher threshold to initially approve a multi-month proposal (for example, two-thirds yes vote with higher participation), and/or a higher threshold to de-fund subsequent payments once it has already passed (for example, two-thirds no vote with higher participation). These thresholds could be either hardcoded into the protocol, or perhaps the protocol could potentially a dynamic de-funding threshold that is submitted in each budget proposal itself, in which case the act of approving a budget forces the masternodes to meet a certain criteria in order to de-fund it.
- There is also the issue of de-funding a budget item due to going over-budget. This does need addressing as well because it seems that it is too easy for this to happen and the network could unintentionally damage its reputation. Evan suggested doing some sort of priority budgeting, which is a possibility, but I would be interested to hear some other thoughts on this as well.
The end goal here of course is to have a system where both the network and vendors can feel confident establishing longer-term agreements even though the agreement between the network and the vendor (or between the network and the Dash representative) is ultimately still revokable and not legally binding.
Last edited by a moderator:
amanda_b_johnson
Well-known member
No mention of Dash's sponsorship of The Daily Decrypt, a purchase which overlapped itself with our highest-viewed video to date? A video which likely has an order of magnitude more views than most or all of the articles cited above? A video which has spawned at least two regular commenters on my channel to remark that they bought Dash after learning about it on my show?
Ouch, that hurts a little.
HinnomTX
Active member
I'm sure it was an oversight. Truth is, nobody can explain the price of Dash. Just keep doing what you're doing, and the rest will sort itself out. We love your show!
His point was that there were and are MANY variables (not all listed). As with any complex system, they overlap and can feed off of each other or even cancel each other out.
Solarminer
Well-known member
Don't be offended....I should have put TheDailyDecrypt on the list. - Like your show, by the way.
We also had a prototype video for Evolution
Dash Faces Video
Darq podcast
Did I leave anything else out?
I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I've been digesting some of the comments and the plan Evan put forth. I think MN operators are starting to take this voting thing a lot more seriously. Even so this was an embarrassing glitch, we're all learning a lot from it. I think the goal is to make a system that is flexible and has as little human interference as possible. Remember, anyone touching fiat has to account for it, and this is a responsibility I certainly wouldn't want to touch. Lord knows what laws the powers that be will come up with to make an example of us. That's why having vendors, etc... accept Dash as payment is the optimal solution. A 51% yes requirement is pretty hefty. If the MN operators pass a project like this, I think they will discuss it thoroughly. Which BTW, should be done before actually putting up the actual proposal. Because such a proposal will undoubtedly have changes to the terms demanded of the contractor.
I wish I could just get people to start thinking ahead, and hash out the terms before submitting proposals. Hopefully all the rejected proposals we've had will get people to take the system more seriously. I'm really happy to see more per-proposals showing up in the forums.
So yah, I suspect a contract won't get passed that 51% requirement with much more than a 3 month term - and only awarded to reputable vendors, but we'll see! Since the other proposal options are also available, I would think this can only make us more reliable to contractors while staying flexible for short term, on the fly stuff that comes up and requires a quick decision. It seems OK to me?!?! Still fully decentralized, I like that. If we can add the features mentioned someday, this system can become quite sophisticated.
I wish I could just get people to start thinking ahead, and hash out the terms before submitting proposals. Hopefully all the rejected proposals we've had will get people to take the system more seriously. I'm really happy to see more per-proposals showing up in the forums.
So yah, I suspect a contract won't get passed that 51% requirement with much more than a 3 month term - and only awarded to reputable vendors, but we'll see! Since the other proposal options are also available, I would think this can only make us more reliable to contractors while staying flexible for short term, on the fly stuff that comes up and requires a quick decision. It seems OK to me?!?! Still fully decentralized, I like that. If we can add the features mentioned someday, this system can become quite sophisticated.
masternode
Member
I disagree with you here. The list of publications that Terpin delivered to us in no way brought new money into the Dash ecosystem. Within crypto, people are already well aware of Dash. The kind of reach he gave us in my opinion would not have affected the price of Dash (not to mention, some of us in this community have the reach needed to get Dash into those publications without paying as much).
The price movement in Dash had significant volume behind it and only occurred because Mike Hearn threw a temper tantrum and disparaged BTC on his way out while joining R3. As result, speculators in the shaky BTC markets were looking for alternatives to BTC, and a decent amount of that money naturally came over to Ethereum and Dash.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with Ryan (BabyGiraffe). The original budget system had a discussion thread consisting of dozens of pages, numerous posts by Evan, and the plan was changed at least three times in response to community feedback.
Historically, Evan comes to the community with ideas, gets feedback, and makes changes as needed. I don't see why it should be any different this time. (Yes, I agree that there needs to be some sort of hard-to-achieve cancellation feature, but this is just the first draft. Let's see how he responds.)
Last edited by a moderator:
i do not agree
Being on the floor at Miami Conference really showed us that people have no idea about Dash and what we do.
Any News helps, the wider spread the better, there is still a LOT of educating to do.
I think the price rise was more connected to the Conferences than anything, (i saw people buy right there at the conference after talking to us) but the Terpin PR helped, there is no doubt.
On a general note
we are still sending out Press Releases to Crypto Publications as we always have, we stopped it (direct) in the Terpin times, but we are back on it and have done so since 1,5 years. As mentioned before, sending them out does not mean they get published, sometimes they do, sometimes they do not.
Daniel and me are running our Marketing/Press department since day 1, we are doing it as nobody else stepped up and we came a long way with our efforts.
Please remember that we are a small team, and everybody in Core is doing 20 things stereo and parallel ! it is easy to sit on the sidelines (no offence) and ask for this, and somebody should do that, why haven'y you done so..... (same old story) .... the day only has 24h and everybody has a lot of other things to maintain and update + survive on a day job !
as we are a decentralised organisation, there is room for everybody to step up and help out, no need to ask 'do that' , do it yourself or help others who are trying to do it (whatever that is)
The community was asking for Marketing and Press again and again and we all agreed we need professional help (i am the 1st to agree), we had that, did not work out (voted out), i have my fingers crossed for the next Pro Marketing Help, as we really need it !
Since everyone's bragging about their contribution to the Dash price rise, maybe I should mention mine which didn't make the list.
Price started to rise about the time I've started talking about the Dash masternode project, a project in which I wanted to involve my friend ChrisJ
He had a successful Bitcoin node project which he presented on the Keiser Report. Even though we didn't actually carry on with the idea all the way, Chris talked about it in some of his World Crypto Network hangouts, tweeted it to his followers and also created a Dash Masternode setup video tutorial. He is respected and followed by prominent Bitcoin evangelists like Keiser or Antonopolous.
Last edited by a moderator:
I propose to make a step back and evaluate where do we stand. That's because I believe the confusion about marketing goes deeper than the conundrum around Transform PR developments.
Firstly let us face it: we are the lunatic fringe (in the most positive sense of the term) of society. What DASH wants to achieve? Perhaps to be accepted as "A Privacy-Centric Crypto-Currency" as the original Darkcoin / DASH Whitepaper states. It is based on Satoshi work that defines Bitcoin as "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash (that) would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution," so it is quite clear that what Bitcoin / DASH and the crypto community as whole wants (can, it may be able to...) achieve is a gigantic shift of biblical proportions that would disrupt the very core of the way how the world works. Never before an invention had a chance to face off with the powers to be and, perhaps, even win. (or at least find its niche)
At one hand we have a brilliant team of developers and tireless people around the foundation putting endless hours into creating a narrative about this exciting project but we got caught into the ancient PR (as in Press Releases) thinking that does not live up to the genius of the project itself. Moreover, we face the very core question each new product (idea) faces: who is our "buyer persona," who is our ideal customer, our target?
To place a PR or an interview into CriptoNoticias or CoinTelegraph, contrary to the popular belief, does not do us much good.
Luckily we have several very CLEAR pointers:
-- DASH is an ASSET. In the U.S. it is a virtual currency and as such "treated as property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes," and in tungfa and flare's native Germany, it is a "private money" that can be used in "multilateral clearing circles," and in Australia DASH, and all other crypto-currencies is "an asset for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes." A crystal clear disclaimer ("DASH fiat value might go to zero") can than be used to promote Class "A" shares of the DASH, that are its MASTERNODES. As I type this, one DASH is priced at $3.70 and each MN provides an income of 0.34 DASH per day. That gives 0.34 DASH x 365 days = 124.10 DASH a year x $3.70 = $459.17 dividend per a year on an investment of $3,700.00 pays an investor a hefty 12.41% interest a year. The Wolf of Wall Street anyone? We can sell the idea of PROFIT to the wider audience. With a fantastic twist: think of Jobs and Wozniak working in the garage on Apple. And now think of them giving you a chance to MAKE PROFIT while they are still development what ended up being the most valuable company in the world. if this is not a framework for a fantastic pitch, I do not know what it is. Thusly, we have our targets - investors all over the world. A small script can run these numbers in real time and provide with historical values, all of which are beneficial for the DASH.
-- DASH transfers MONEY. (instantaneously, almost fee free) Yes, we want DASH to become The Money of the future but for now we have a huge number of people that transfer the money via Western Union et.al, a money-grubbing bastards I'd like to see vanishing from the face of Earth. "WorldRemit Gets $45M At A $500M Valuation To Grow Its Mobile Money Transfer Business," to "a remittance market that the World Bank estimates will be worth $610 billion in 2016." Well, isn't that a service for the future our Governance model can fund to be developed and than reach out toward the retail customer and venture capital alike?
-- DASH is PRIVATE. Kristof Atlas was paid to analyze the code and "identified no significant security vulnerabilities in the closed source Darkcoin (now DASH) code." Now think:
a) of people like Nick Szabo etc., that may be approached to analyze what DASH's advantages might mean for the new world of the crypto;
b) of people like Snowden, Occupy, Ai Weiwei, Assange, Greenwald and yes, Chomsky et.al, that value privacy and anonymity in the Orwellian nightmare the powers to be have been creating for all of us and think dissidents, journalists or simple a people in need for private and anonymous payments to their therapists... and you'll see how we'd be able to start building, not only awareness, but also the businesses around numerous features DASH offers;
c) of academics like David Graeber and his Debt: The First 5000 Years book. We approach him to pull Atlas, and analyze (and publish) what DASH might mean. And yes, we pay him for his work. Compare that with the idiotic payment for Press Releases Google started to penalize a year or so ago...
Opportunities are endless!
-- DASH is INNOVATIVE. Evan is Benjamin Franklin of crypto. His Governance Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain idea is a social experiment of the highest order. Academics and students alike can, in real time (Dash Whale) follow the experiment and talk / write about it...
I can go on forever but would like to hear is what I wrote here idiotic or not first :smile:
Firstly let us face it: we are the lunatic fringe (in the most positive sense of the term) of society. What DASH wants to achieve? Perhaps to be accepted as "A Privacy-Centric Crypto-Currency" as the original Darkcoin / DASH Whitepaper states. It is based on Satoshi work that defines Bitcoin as "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash (that) would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution," so it is quite clear that what Bitcoin / DASH and the crypto community as whole wants (can, it may be able to...) achieve is a gigantic shift of biblical proportions that would disrupt the very core of the way how the world works. Never before an invention had a chance to face off with the powers to be and, perhaps, even win. (or at least find its niche)
At one hand we have a brilliant team of developers and tireless people around the foundation putting endless hours into creating a narrative about this exciting project but we got caught into the ancient PR (as in Press Releases) thinking that does not live up to the genius of the project itself. Moreover, we face the very core question each new product (idea) faces: who is our "buyer persona," who is our ideal customer, our target?
To place a PR or an interview into CriptoNoticias or CoinTelegraph, contrary to the popular belief, does not do us much good.
Luckily we have several very CLEAR pointers:
-- DASH is an ASSET. In the U.S. it is a virtual currency and as such "treated as property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes," and in tungfa and flare's native Germany, it is a "private money" that can be used in "multilateral clearing circles," and in Australia DASH, and all other crypto-currencies is "an asset for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes." A crystal clear disclaimer ("DASH fiat value might go to zero") can than be used to promote Class "A" shares of the DASH, that are its MASTERNODES. As I type this, one DASH is priced at $3.70 and each MN provides an income of 0.34 DASH per day. That gives 0.34 DASH x 365 days = 124.10 DASH a year x $3.70 = $459.17 dividend per a year on an investment of $3,700.00 pays an investor a hefty 12.41% interest a year. The Wolf of Wall Street anyone? We can sell the idea of PROFIT to the wider audience. With a fantastic twist: think of Jobs and Wozniak working in the garage on Apple. And now think of them giving you a chance to MAKE PROFIT while they are still development what ended up being the most valuable company in the world. if this is not a framework for a fantastic pitch, I do not know what it is. Thusly, we have our targets - investors all over the world. A small script can run these numbers in real time and provide with historical values, all of which are beneficial for the DASH.
-- DASH transfers MONEY. (instantaneously, almost fee free) Yes, we want DASH to become The Money of the future but for now we have a huge number of people that transfer the money via Western Union et.al, a money-grubbing bastards I'd like to see vanishing from the face of Earth. "WorldRemit Gets $45M At A $500M Valuation To Grow Its Mobile Money Transfer Business," to "a remittance market that the World Bank estimates will be worth $610 billion in 2016." Well, isn't that a service for the future our Governance model can fund to be developed and than reach out toward the retail customer and venture capital alike?
-- DASH is PRIVATE. Kristof Atlas was paid to analyze the code and "identified no significant security vulnerabilities in the closed source Darkcoin (now DASH) code." Now think:
a) of people like Nick Szabo etc., that may be approached to analyze what DASH's advantages might mean for the new world of the crypto;
b) of people like Snowden, Occupy, Ai Weiwei, Assange, Greenwald and yes, Chomsky et.al, that value privacy and anonymity in the Orwellian nightmare the powers to be have been creating for all of us and think dissidents, journalists or simple a people in need for private and anonymous payments to their therapists... and you'll see how we'd be able to start building, not only awareness, but also the businesses around numerous features DASH offers;
c) of academics like David Graeber and his Debt: The First 5000 Years book. We approach him to pull Atlas, and analyze (and publish) what DASH might mean. And yes, we pay him for his work. Compare that with the idiotic payment for Press Releases Google started to penalize a year or so ago...
Opportunities are endless!
-- DASH is INNOVATIVE. Evan is Benjamin Franklin of crypto. His Governance Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain idea is a social experiment of the highest order. Academics and students alike can, in real time (Dash Whale) follow the experiment and talk / write about it...
I can go on forever but would like to hear is what I wrote here idiotic or not first :smile:
Last edited by a moderator:
TheDashGuy
Well-known member
BenTucker
Member
I'm no one, and I am NOT dumping what little DASH I own (if I could afford to own more, I would), and I think it is ridiculous to do so over this, although looking at the price, clearly dumping is happening. That should clue us into how important this is. Here is my take:
I would never accuse anyone here of anything, but I grew up poor and in the ghetto, and I am hyper-vigilant and tend to be good at seeing scams. Again, I'm not saying this is in any way a scam (why would I have money in it if I did?). However, if I were to scam people from the inside, I would implement unbreakable contracts and then set up shell groups, get those contracts approved, and then scam the community out of a lot of money that way. The DAO cannot have unbreakable contracts. If someone dies, if they turn out to be a scam artist, if they stop working, etc., etc., the contracts have to be breakable. I don't care if the threshold is 75%, 85%, whatever...but the contracts have to be breakable. No contract in real life is unbreakable (except the mythical "social contract"...lol).
All I'm saying is, even though I don't believe the devs/DAO is scammy, it is possible to use it in a scammy way if the contracts are unbreakable. The problem is not that they are breakable, but the threshold for breaking them. Perhaps have short term, relatively low cost, contracts unbreakable if you're so convinced they must be...but long term, and high cost contracts MUST be breakable. If you guys didn't grow up in the 'hood, you may not see what I see, but I assure you, others do see this and will dump more if this is implemented. Not because they are wrong, but because the unbreakable contract idea sets up a bad incentive and a possibly bad situation.
Just think about it. If you were running Dash as a scam, and now wanted it to pay off without it being obvious, how would you do it? Unbreakable contracts, set up a shell company, pay yourselves via that contract and company, and do precious little. Then the DAO can say they didn't know, can't end the contract, etc. They might even change it later, to save the project for later scams using other creative methods, but the scam would already be successful in the meantime. This isn't about what you guys are doing...i DO NOT think you're scam artists or this is just another shitcoin scam. NOT AT ALL. This is about public perception. Let's just think about this hard and make a logical decision with outside eyes in mind.
Thanks for your very valuable time. Go Dash.
I would never accuse anyone here of anything, but I grew up poor and in the ghetto, and I am hyper-vigilant and tend to be good at seeing scams. Again, I'm not saying this is in any way a scam (why would I have money in it if I did?). However, if I were to scam people from the inside, I would implement unbreakable contracts and then set up shell groups, get those contracts approved, and then scam the community out of a lot of money that way. The DAO cannot have unbreakable contracts. If someone dies, if they turn out to be a scam artist, if they stop working, etc., etc., the contracts have to be breakable. I don't care if the threshold is 75%, 85%, whatever...but the contracts have to be breakable. No contract in real life is unbreakable (except the mythical "social contract"...lol).
All I'm saying is, even though I don't believe the devs/DAO is scammy, it is possible to use it in a scammy way if the contracts are unbreakable. The problem is not that they are breakable, but the threshold for breaking them. Perhaps have short term, relatively low cost, contracts unbreakable if you're so convinced they must be...but long term, and high cost contracts MUST be breakable. If you guys didn't grow up in the 'hood, you may not see what I see, but I assure you, others do see this and will dump more if this is implemented. Not because they are wrong, but because the unbreakable contract idea sets up a bad incentive and a possibly bad situation.
Just think about it. If you were running Dash as a scam, and now wanted it to pay off without it being obvious, how would you do it? Unbreakable contracts, set up a shell company, pay yourselves via that contract and company, and do precious little. Then the DAO can say they didn't know, can't end the contract, etc. They might even change it later, to save the project for later scams using other creative methods, but the scam would already be successful in the meantime. This isn't about what you guys are doing...i DO NOT think you're scam artists or this is just another shitcoin scam. NOT AT ALL. This is about public perception. Let's just think about this hard and make a logical decision with outside eyes in mind.
Thanks for your very valuable time. Go Dash.
TheDashGuy
Well-known member
/fistbump