New Member
Jul 17, 2018
Hello everyone!

The following tool aims to help MNOs in the evaluation of proposals submitted to the DAO. Due to the low prices of Dash, it is key to demand high levels of quality in the projects to be approved, in order to guarantee the best use of resources


The tool is based on the standardization of the evaluation criteria, no matter how varied the proposals presented in a cycle could be, they can be evaluated always giving an appropriate weight to the value aspects of each proposal.

For the selection of the evaluation criteria we rely on a publication https://www.dash.org/forum/topic/pre-budget-proposal-discussions.93/ of the moderator @strophy, which is currently among the Dash docs. Although this publication was presented in the form of tips for the development of proposals, it shows some of the aspects of greatest value for the Dash network, specifically in terms of selection

This tool is provided to the community so that it can be used, revised and improved. Its application can serve as a guide in the evaluation of various projects, as well as help to encourage the owners of proposals to maintain the quality of their work.

In the following image you can know more about the tool and in th link below you can access and donwload it

We hope it is useful!

Last edited:


Active Member
May 29, 2017
Hello, @Grupo.certus and thank you for this submission. In previous proposals and pre-proposals we've discussed the possibility of applying rubrics and other more formal, mechanical tools of assessment to proposals, and this has been met with mixed responses. Sometimes it's tough to precisely determine the value of a proposal because so many factors are unknown, but used as a general guide or as a way to visualize or get a different perspective on proposals, I believe these sorts of tools can be very helpful. How did you end up choosing the various categories and metrics you used in this tool?


New Member
Jul 17, 2018

Hi @Arthyron we are glad that you have found interest in the instrument!

For the selection of the most category and items we read the Strophy ‘s post (The clearest antecedent wich was uploaded as a Dash document).
However, in the category "Important conclusions" we add other items that we consider essential to evaluate.

In the first 3 categories:
We use "Yes" and "No" answers (only 2,7% about tota to each item)...
They value THE FORM of the project, and the BACKGROUND of the proposal owner.

In the last 2 categories:
These are evaluated with Likert scale, which allows to give up to 8% about total to each item,
since they evaluate the SUBSTANCE of the project and the added value it will give to the dash network or community

Using exclusion criteria we designate the following percentage values to the categories:

We know that community help is essential, and the goal is to:
Even when a proposal meets all the elements of form,
it needs the clear masternodes criterion regarding the value that it adds to the network to obtain a high score.

If the value that contributes to the network is low or zero,
the masternode will vote negative the last category and the proposal will not have more than 68pts and would not raise "medium" status

We know that it can be difficult to evaluate objectively with a single tool proposals that differ in their nature

That is why we are looking for success fundamental criteria that govern proposals of any nature focused on meeting the network objectives

The contribution of the active community is fundamental, the discussion and mass knowledge of the network objectives, and the suggestions and experience of active masternodes in what they consider criteria that ensure value to the network.

It would be interesting to promote the debate about what voting criteria which are using masternodes are closely related to the objectives of the network​
  • Like
Reactions: Arthyron