In a number of different places on the Internet, I have seen accusations of conflict of interest directed at the DASH system. These accusations amount to saying that, because of the alleged instamine, a small number of people own a large fraction of circulating DASH, and that nobody can be sure who these people are, and they may be able to vote for many budget proposals in favor of their own projects. It's not clear just how valid these accusations are. In the business world, small closely-held companies are often subject to this type of conflict of interest. For example, suppose five people invest equal amounts of money to start a company. Any three of these people can form a coalition and vote together, and thus invest all funds in their preferred direction, denying the two-person minority any say in how their 40% investment is spent. What usually saves the situation is that this type of problem is obvious, because everybody knows who is voting for what. In the DASH system, on the other hand, nobody knows who owns which masternode. So if a coalition of 51% of masternode owners is always voting in favor of its own budget proposals, there's no way to tell. I searched these fora for the string "conflict of interest" and found lots of hits, but no clear discussion of this issue and no rebuttal of the type that I think we do need. I think we need a good rebuttal to this type of accusation of conflict of interest. Otherwise the accusations will never die down. The more successful DASH becomes the more these accusations will occur, and at some point, will begin to undermine the credibility of the entire system. Right now the growing value of DASH may simply indicate a greater demand to buy dash to run a masternode. In the long run we need greater demand from non-masternode owners who just want a reliable and private currency. That's when credibility will become critical. One possible solution will be for all involved in budget proposals to disclose their DASH holdings. This may be very unpopular. Also, the truthfulness of any disclosure may be impossible to prove. Perhaps there are other solutions not requiring such disclosure.