If miner rewards are under scrutiny, so should MNO rewards. At least that will be the objection by miners and non-mno holders. This can not be decided on by a simple proposal over which only MNO's decide. Status quo is comfortable for a reason. Any change to the balance should be backed up by fundamental research and dialog with the community. I could be mistaken but I heard that research on the optimal reward structure was being done by Arizona State University..
Lets expand the treasury by end of this year ?
- Thread starter Dashmaximalist
- Start date
younglegend
Member
I think the amount of money we spent isn't the problem.
Biggest problem is in our marketing.
1. We always talk about bitcoin before talk digital cash.
Why do we use our funds and market bitcoin? why
can we just market digital cash effectively to
none crypto audience around the globe?
2. Right now we are preaching to the wrong audience, who has massive
debts in dollars. We should be marketing and give away in countries where
they have little or no debt, such as russia, uzbekistan, algeria, estonia, and so on.
Even if it takes much longer I really want dash to succeed in becoming
one of the strongest digital currency in the future and
solve lots of problems in the world.
Biggest problem is in our marketing.
1. We always talk about bitcoin before talk digital cash.
Why do we use our funds and market bitcoin? why
can we just market digital cash effectively to
none crypto audience around the globe?
2. Right now we are preaching to the wrong audience, who has massive
debts in dollars. We should be marketing and give away in countries where
they have little or no debt, such as russia, uzbekistan, algeria, estonia, and so on.
Even if it takes much longer I really want dash to succeed in becoming
one of the strongest digital currency in the future and
solve lots of problems in the world.
Last edited:
Arthyron
Active member
One other thing I wanted to add to this that I was thinking about last night, thanks to the work Core has done on the legal end of things, the greater Dash DAO now has a legal standing and Core can enter in to legal agreements on our behalf, and as I understand it, further work is underway to expand and flesh out the DAO's legal presence and capabilities. What this means is--if all goes as planned--the DAO will actually be able to truly *invest* in things, not merely fund them. This means we may end up with equity or shares or whatever in future investment and funding opportunities, which will create another massive stream of revenue for the DAO. So this is yet another reason that I find this change to be unnecessary for now and probably hereafter.
Dashmaximalist
Well-known member
as much I like them, funding companies in US will be extremely challenging for the simple fact that MNOs don't have KYC / AML laws so how will send them the profits earned and sec simply loves to harass crypto community as much as possible. so we need to be cautious about funding companies in US
super crypto friendly nations are switzerland / estonia even they would have issues with KYC crap sooner or later , no govt is ok with losing out as much tax as they can get their dirty hands on
Arthyron
Active member
I'm not necessarily talking about MNOs receiving profits, but the DAO as a whole. If the DAO as a whole could receive profits, then they can just use it to buy more Dash and increase the treasury budget. That's why Dash is a Delware Corporation and a New Zealand Trust and whatever the other thing was that they're working on. We're trying to find the right legal framework to allow such possibilities.
Unstoppable
Active member
I'm absolutely against changing the ratio. No from me. Patience, dashmaximalist. When Dash is back over 1000usd we will again have more money than we can spend. As it is, a significant portion of the payouts already disappear into the ether. I would need to see widespread use of escrow and solid project management, presented to us in a transparent way, in near-real-time, before I would even consider the possibility of changing the ratios.
Even in that case, the simple rise in the price of dash will make this a non-issue. I think it's more likely that in 5 years time, we'll be discussing REDUCING the treasury by 50%. Imagine if Dash really was at 10k usd. What on earth could we possibly do with so much money, other than see it be wasted?
When Dash is really in widespread use, globally, and there is no longer a need for marketing proposals, conferences, educational materials, etc, etc, what on earth will we be funding, beyond retaining our talent in Core?
Think long term.
Even in that case, the simple rise in the price of dash will make this a non-issue. I think it's more likely that in 5 years time, we'll be discussing REDUCING the treasury by 50%. Imagine if Dash really was at 10k usd. What on earth could we possibly do with so much money, other than see it be wasted?
When Dash is really in widespread use, globally, and there is no longer a need for marketing proposals, conferences, educational materials, etc, etc, what on earth will we be funding, beyond retaining our talent in Core?
Think long term.
Dashmaximalist
Well-known member
ok in all due respect . this statement has so many flaws. Dash is a budding nascent crypto startup thats 3% of bitcoins market cap and 0.0000001% of USD's market cap, so we have a very very very long battle ahead of us that would easily take decades or more. We need a lot of firepower to convince the whole planet to use dash and that is going to take a lot of money, marketing and so on, not to mention, Ryan wants to launch a global support center for dash.
Second point, you want to have less money for dash treasury because it's not being spent efficiently now, how about give it more money and make it efficient, what stops you from doing that anyway ? Think of this for a moment, if you are a marketing head for a company and you have 1% market share of crypto, do you think you would be happy to have a limited amount of budget , ofcourse not you want to more , how much more ? as much as possible , thats how successful companies think.
Why do big Fortune 500 companies billions and billions on marketing when those with 70% market share ? are they crazy ?
Are their marketing heads happy with the budgets they have, not they are not and that's a good thing, that's what makes successful?
Finally, should we spend our money more efficiently? absolutely.
should we have more money to spend? absolutely, as much as we can please
Dashmaximalist
Well-known member
For all those who think we have enough marketing budget already, just like to remind you the marketing budget dropped from 6600 dash to 6150 dash and apparently this keeps dropping every year 
Unstoppable
Active member
Patience, man. Take a deep breath. We will win this thing, but not by getting ahead of ourselves.
Dashmaximalist
Well-known member
I don't need consoling, I want logical statements that give us a path to success
Dashmaximalist
Well-known member
same old Dashmaximalist
nothing needs to change as nothing is broken !
is the budget full every month ?
are great projects not funded as there is not enough coins in Budget ?
are miners and MN's can afford to 'lose' another x % ?
exactly
.... moving on
from this month's budget it will be full- yes
will we lose some great projects, i would say yes ( you might say the ones who lost or not that great after all )
can miners and MN's afford to lose x% , this interesting, but its a yes- because if we double our treasury and we raise some good noise about dash and the price doubles , i dont mind losing even 2x%
younglegend
Member
I like the way it is know. I think duffield did
a good job on distributing to 10 45 45, but
decision will be up to the masternodes.
Mining is such a good way to distribute fairly. If some how
people agree to raise the treasury, then I suggest we take 5% from master nodes
and 5% from mining. 20 40 40.
a good job on distributing to 10 45 45, but
decision will be up to the masternodes.
Mining is such a good way to distribute fairly. If some how
people agree to raise the treasury, then I suggest we take 5% from master nodes
and 5% from mining. 20 40 40.
Last edited:
Dashmaximalist
Well-known member
just to clarify mining is not a great way to distribute becuase 95% of mining is centralised in big companies so its just handful of people who get all the benefit if any , having said that , lets really really understand this once forever.
The main and sole reason for mining is offering the network security that comes with the massive hashpower , having said that we don't need that much security any way spending 10% of the new coins on mining is more than enough from the security point of view , Rest is really just wasted on elecriticty bills and becomes fodder for media to say titles like " will bitcoin mining expedite global warming ? "
The main and sole reason for mining is offering the network security that comes with the massive hashpower , having said that we don't need that much security any way spending 10% of the new coins on mining is more than enough from the security point of view , Rest is really just wasted on elecriticty bills and becomes fodder for media to say titles like " will bitcoin mining expedite global warming ? "
Dashmaximalist
Well-known member
i am happy to cut 5% as a start from both Miners and MNOs ,would support it !!
Dashmaximalist
Well-known member
its not actually that complex because it is not a technical thing, its an economic thing, which you can think from common sense, having said that, Ryan somehow has forgotten about this, but as things stand, we will run out of budget this month , so by next month this will become a burning topic , so not to worry