• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Pre-Proposal: Coinfirm Trudatum

No network should process transactions if they are not profitable, dash should never have transactions that are running at a loss otherwise all incentives are broken given enough time and the whole system dies. Many analysts consider transaction volume to be a core metric in value as it shows usage which is providing value. The additional cost of transactions and instant send should make master-nodes more money eventually.

Dash is a network and it should not control what runs across it, much like the internet. But should Dash fund a service that uses the Network? I consider it much like if the internet community paid to develop the web browser. More users increases the value in ways that are not seen immediately. So my opinion is a yes.

Technically, I think that every coded interaction with the dash network should be released as a open API that anyone can use to do similar projects. While we might not have a huge benefit right now it's not zero.

Besides, we will need lots of transactions to keep the hardware assisted masternodes busy.
 
ampp said:
No network should process transactions if they are not profitable, dash should never have transactions that are running at a loss otherwise all incentives are broken given enough time and the whole system dies. Many analysts consider transaction volume to be a core metric in value as it shows usage which is providing value. The additional cost of transactions and instant send should make master-nodes more money eventually.

Dash is a network and it should not control what runs across it, much like the internet. But should Dash fund a service that uses the Network? I consider it much like if the internet community paid to develop the web browser. More users increases the value in ways that are not seen immediately. So my opinion is a yes.

Technically, I think that every coded interaction with the dash network should be released as a open API that anyone can use to do similar projects. While we might not have a huge benefit right now it's not zero.

Besides, we will need lots of transactions to keep the hardware assisted masternodes busy.
Click to expand...

Exactly. All we need to know is, is it profitable. If not, then we must fix it. Value-neutrality rules.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
@Coinfirm.io as you can see, there is some concern about chain abuse. I'm wondering if some kind of arrangement can be made between yourselves and Core on a technical level i.e. to develop / test solutions that make things more efficient for both of us?
Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier, Trudatum won't clog or abuse the chain. Files are not stored on blockchain. We store the hash+sig which is around 300bytes transaction. We plan adding support for files when there will be dedicated system for that (ex. Dash Drive).
 
Last edited:
TroyDASH said:
*If* the amount of data being added on the blockchain is insignificant even when scaled to the level you are describing, then I'll withdraw that particular objection.

I'm still not seeing though how this would increase dash adoption. From the perspective of the big hundred-billion dollar institutions, they don't care how you're registering the documents, as long as it is cheap and they are confident that it is secure. Why would they pay for this service in dash when they are already drowning in Fiat? Throwing around those big numbers I think is misleading because I'm not understanding the connection that would make these institutions any more likely to buy dash or use dash themselves.


I don't understand what you mean by this. You are saying if you are not funded by the MNs, you would not pursue your largest potential clients (and largest revenue streams for your company), whom you have already introduced yourselves to and have done pilots with? Why would you change this, is it not profitable? If it is profitable, then maybe it would be more appropriate for you to seek out a loan, not a grant from the MNs. And if it isn't profitable then why should we fund it?
Click to expand...

Great, one objection out of the way. Now to the others. Size of the financial institutions aside, these would be the first major implementations of Dash into the traditional economy or financial system. It is one of the long term goal of Dash to bring Dash and crypto into the mass market through commercial solutions. We’re helping make large scale commercial adoption a reality and doing it now. If that’s with micropayments, one of the unique elements Dash is supposed to provide that doesnt work very well for bitcoin for example or more regular sized transactions it shouldn’t be a concern unless it threatens the blockchain itself which it doesnt. In PR and Marketing alone it would help Dash grow in value and legitimacy within the traditional and mass commercial ecosystem as well as open up doors to it and build your brand within it.
 
Last edited:
Joined: Oct 4, 2017
Click to expand...
Would you please verify yourself as a representative of Coinfirm? I'm just asking because the partnership was announced long before that join date. Ideally a Core Team member or moderator able to check the registration email vouches for you.
 
Macrochip said:
Would you please verify yourself as a representative of Coinfirm? I'm just asking because the partnership was announced long before that join date. Ideally a Core Team member or moderator able to check the registration email vouches for you.
Click to expand...

i just spoke to jakub fijolek from confirm on Dev Slack
and yes i / he confirms it is the coinfirm team (him) posting
 
TroyDASH said:
I don't understand what you mean by this. You are saying if you are not funded by the MNs, you would not pursue your largest potential clients (and largest revenue streams for your company), whom you have already introduced yourselves to and have done pilots with? Why would you change this, is it not profitable? If it is profitable, then maybe it would be more appropriate for you to seek out a loan, not a grant from the MNs. And if it isn't profitable then why should we fund it?
Click to expand...

Hi @Coinfirm.io - could you address this part as well? ^^
Thanks --
 
Getting clients of that caliber is no easy feat, that's great work.

Corporate's of that size won't do anything fast, and they will be reluctant to be 'first' in on a new technology. Being used by these company's ticks off a milestone for utilisation/integration with major firms, and can be pointed to for future deals.

If they hit 170k tx's a day is about 2 tx per second on average? That seems like it's well within the roadmap for 3 years hence (.... it would be great to see that level of utilisation).

... and they want to use Instantsend with it.

sounds great.
 
1. Im missing a Video here with a good overview of the projekt with faces for that kind of Dash.

2. Bringing in that kind of proposal 5 days befor voting turn ends is also not a good move.

Is nice that you talk to Core about your projekt but as a MN Onwer an non nativ english speeking person im not informed well enough to vote in this short time.

Voting no at this point

My2cents
 
Dear Schnuppdog,

If you don't feel you are informed enough to vote, then why would you vote? A no vote is a vote. Your strategy would only make logical sense if more than half of the proposals are bad proposals.

That's what "abstain" is for. If you're not sure, why help either side?
 
Last edited:
The way this proposal has been sold to us in the end is along the lines of a "pay-to-play" type arrangement. The underlying tech and solution is great and I have no doubt that the combination of Trudatum on the Dash blockchain is optimal for both Coinfirm and it's clients. Where things fall apart for me is the notion that Coinfirm expects the Dash network to fund them over $500,000 to basically incentivize them to develop then sell their own solution, and to recommend (yes, only recommend) they use Dash as the ledger. There is no exclusivity here, nor is there any guarantee that the dash blockchain will be adopted by a meaningful number of Trudatum clients, even though - by coinfirm's own admission - Dash is clearly the best blockchain for the job!

Then, rather unhelpfully, coinfirm infer that should the proposal not pass they will drop the best blockchain solution (dash - by their own admission) and push their clients towards proprietary solutions such as IBM etc.

Thanks a lot partner!

Partnership is an interesting concept:

"A partnership is an arrangement where parties, known as partners, agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests. The partners in a partnership may be individuals, businesses, interest-based organizations, schools, governments or combinations. Organizations may partner to increase the likelihood of each achieving their mission and to amplify their reach. A partnership may result in issuing and holding equity or may be only governed by a contract." - Wikipedia

When we consider this proposal in light of the above definition it becomes clear that what is on offer isn't really a partnership. It's an investment opportunity without any equity in return.. We've already brought a lot of value to the table in the form of our network. This seems to have been assigned little/no value in this 'partnership' proposal.

When you condense it down to this, it's clear why the majority of Masternodes have voted the way they have.

I - like most Masternode owners i suspect - actually like the underlying idea/concept. It's a very good, real-world use case for the Dash blockchain, however, the value proposition just isn't there with the current deal on the table.

I encourage coinfirm to consider the feedback generated and come back to the network with a revised proposal that actually makes sense for both partners in this deal.. because until the Dash network has the legal framework set up to take equity stakes in these kind of projects I see no way of proposals structured like this will get any funding.

Walter

Edited: $500,000 not $1,000,000
 
Last edited:
Walter said:
The way this proposal has been sold to us in the end is along the lines of a "pay-to-play" type arrangement. The underlying tech and solution is great and I have no doubt that the combination of Trudatum on the Dash blockchain is optimal for both Coinfirm and it's clients. Where things fall apart for me is the notion that Coinfirm expects the Dash network to fund them over $1,000,000 to basically incentive them to develop then sell their own solution, and to recommend (yes, only recommend) they use Dash as the ledger. There is no exclusivity here, nor is there any guarantee that the dash blockchain will be adopted by a meaningful number of Trudatum clients, even though - by coinfirm's own admission - Dash is clearly the best blockchain for the job!

Then, rather unhelpfully, coinfirm infer that should the proposal not pass they will drop the best blockchain solution (dash - by their own admission) and push their clients towards proprietary solutions such as IBM etc.

Thanks a lot partner!

Partnership is an interesting concept:

"A partnership is an arrangement where parties, known as partners, agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests. The partners in a partnership may be individuals, businesses, interest-based organizations, schools, governments or combinations. Organizations may partner to increase the likelihood of each achieving their mission and to amplify their reach. A partnership may result in issuing and holding equity or may be only governed by a contract." - Wikipedia

When we consider this proposal in light of the above definition it becomes clear that what is on offer isn't really a partnership. It's an investment opportunity without any equity in return.. We've already brought a lot of value to the table in the form of our network. This seems to have been assigned little/no value in this 'partnership' proposal.

When you condense it down to this, it's clear why the majority of Masternodes have voted the way they have.

I - like most Masternode owners i suspect - actually like the underlying idea/concept. It's a very good, real-world use case for the Dash blockchain, however, the value proposition just isn't there with the current deal on the table.

I encourage coinfirm to consider the feedback generated and come back to the network with a revised proposal that actually makes sense for both partners in this deal.. because until the Dash network has the legal framework set up to take equity stakes in these kind of projects I see no way of proposals structured like this will get any funding.

Walter
Click to expand...
couldnt agree more
 
I also have a bit of an issue with the budget breakdown, I think it's inadequate and looks inflated to me..

"Other Costs (travel, living, hardware, software licences, etc)
$490 000,000"

That's a lot of travel, living, hardware and software! Cripes! It doesn't pass the sniff test that 'other costs' in a $1m combined budget (that we're funding half off) amount to.. well.. half the budget.. o_O In my view anything over 5% of a budget should be itemized. Dropping some ambiguous items such as travel, living, HW/SW etc then slapping a $490,000 figure on them is not enough to justify the funding when the Dash network is on the hook for half the funding.

Walter
 
Walter said:
I also have a bit of an issue with the budget breakdown, I think it's inadequate and looks inflated to me..

"Other Costs (travel, living, hardware, software licences, etc)
$490 000,000"

That's a lot of travel, living, hardware and software! Cripes! It doesn't pass the sniff test that 'other costs' in a $1m combined budget (that we're funding half off) amount to.. well.. half the budget.. o_O In my view anything over 5% of a budget should be itemized. Dropping some ambiguous items such as travel, living, HW/SW etc then slapping a $490,000 figure on them is not enough to justify the funding when the Dash network is on the hook for half the funding.

Walter
Click to expand...
absolutely
 
solarguy said:
Dear Schnuppdog,

If you don't feel you are informed enough to vote, then why would you vote? A no vote is a vote. Your strategy would only make logical sense if more than half of the proposals are bad proposals.

That's what "abstain" is for. If you're not sure, why help either side?
Click to expand...

i would vote Abstain if i dont have a prefferance but.....

No Video, no Faces and only 5 Days to deside , i think the have to present ther proposal better and this is a clear No for me not an Abstain.

i atleast give feedback

and i also think that more than half of the proposals are bad btw.

p.s. nextime pm me if you wanna know somthing from me würde ich bevorzugen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top