Hello folks Since this is a decentralised network I'd like to inform prospective proposers that they can have my vote(s) unconditionally if they are able to comply with the accountability provisions made in this protocol. In addition, I will pay 2 Dash to the first two proposals which comply with the protocol, EVEN if they don't get funded by the Dash proposal treasury. Conditions A: The "spirit" of the protocol is very simple. You need to demonstrate that you have an understanding of: the difference between capital costs and expenses whether the funding you are requesting is being used to capitalise a business or to subsidise an expense (in the latter case, section 4.2.2 applies with a reasonable time interval such as up to a 12 months) Conditions B: the proposal will not be prejudiced by blockchain. Any coin or cause can apply and I will judge them solely on the the degree of adherence to the "spirit" of the D.E.E.P. protocol if the proposal is not from the Dash community, it must demonstrate how it would significantly benefit the relevant coin. (The Dash treasury may still fund it since there is more common interest than competitive interest in the industry) a maximum of 4 Dash will be paid out during the next funding cycle regardless of other conditions. If there are more than 2 compliant proposals, they will be arbitrated on according to merit (by me) you agree to having your proposal made public (which is part of the proposal mechanism anyway) Notes Normally, the idea of "capitalising a business" is unambiguous because the funding appears in the bottom half of the corporate balance sheet which represents equity owed to investors. However the Dash network treasury is an informal funding mechanism who's contributions will always appear in the top half of the proposer's balance sheet (amount owed to creditors/owed by debtors). In accounting terms therefore, the Dash network treasury is left out of the loop both in terms of accountability (because is is not a creditor) and profitability (because it is not an investor). This is something that Evan probably did not consider when he invented the Dash treasury but is one reason (IMO) why we are funding so many applicants that provide no measurable benefit to the network (in terms of @BabyGiraffe's "performance indicators"). There are of course some significant exceptions but they are the exception, not the rule. Conclusions and Commitments Evan had great foresight in conceiving of some subtle but genius adaptations to the bitcoin protocol while respecting its core priorities. However in creating the Dash treasury he never addressed how it should formally interact with commercially regulated recipients. This oversight made it possible for them to receive the funding as a "donation" with no accountability back to the network. It is a loophole which was left to the community to solve and close. However the community has not hitherto taken any initiative in this direction. I'd like to address that loophole far as far as the capacity of my stakeholding in Dash permits by withholding votes from any proposal that cannot formally account for the expenditure it receives from the treasury - unless there's some notable exceptions such as established "deliverers of value". Conversely, I will support any project that IS able to account for itself, using the formal approach.