That's it, both of you to your rooms, no dessert for you!Yeah, you can fuck off as well.
That's it, both of you to your rooms, no dessert for you!Yeah, you can fuck off as well.
It's too late for that to matter; at this point negativity and nitpicking are just concern trolling because they won't change anything.1) - The fact that a logo is also adopting passing Dash code rules, can be a point that needs to be taken seriously.
2) - We have no studies validating T&C's statements. And what says T&C and those who introduced this company can only be taken as a biased opinion.
The old logo is not voted, so IMHO T&C is legitimated to substitute it.Yeah, you can fuck off as well.
To be clear. If the network vote to fund payment to Tharp & Clark in order to use the new branding (I.E. Our chosen branding gets supermajority in the follow-up proposal next month), will you agree to the result of that vote, and switch to using the new T&C logo moving forward - therefore respecting the decision of the Dash DAO (MNOs and Core) regardless of your strongly held personal opinions?Say it whatever way you want, I'm not using the new logo.
Failure of my sense of humor, I was joking, thus the (ducks) 'cause I figured someone would throw the tomatoes at me@TanteStefana Oh... we can do everything we want
But I think as soon as we are going back to that one, mainstream adoption is going bye bye![]()
Yes, totally, I have always done this. It's not possible for the outcome to always be in our favor, we all make the same compromises. I have always respected the outcome.To be clear. If the network vote to fund payment to Tharp & Clark in order to use the new branding (I.E. Our chosen branding gets supermajority in the follow-up proposal next month), will you agree to the result of that vote, and switch to using the new T&C logo moving forward - therefore respecting the decision of the Dash DAO (MNOs and Core) regardless of your strongly held personal opinions?
Yes, totally, I have always done this. It's not possible for the outcome to always be in our favor, we all make the same compromises. I have always respected the outcome.
Demo says that because the old logo was not voted in, in his opinion, the new T&C logo also doesn't need to be voted in. I'd considering agreeing with this to some degree if it wasn't a budget decision, however, because we will be paying for the rights to use the T&C logo, it really needs to hit the 10% supermajority to receive funding, as that's how the funding works in Dash.The old logo is not voted, so IMHO T&C is legitimated to substitute it.
Instead of complaining, you' ve better demand for this case to become the rule.
A voted decision that has more "yes" than "no", substitutes whatever status quo is not voted.
Will you fund this governance question?
I think it would be a great advertising opportunity to open up the logo to a public competition. Let's say, a $50K prize with the condition that the winner must get super majority. It would highlight the strength of dash's governance, that you can't just walk in and make changes.Demo says that because the old logo was not voted in, in his opinion, the new T&C logo also doesn't need to be voted in. I'd considering agreeing with this to some degree if it wasn't a budget decision, however, because we will be paying for the rights to use the T&C logo, it really needs to hit the 10% supermajority to receive funding, as that's how the funding works in Dash.
However, if the T&C funding proposal doesn't receive supermajority and community members choose to donate funds to buy the rights (or core choose to draw from their existing budget to cover it, as is their prerogative), then Demo might have a point, and the YES voting community (or core) might not need a supermajority win to roll out the new T&C logo and replace the current logo within their marketing. What are your thoughts on this?
The payment was agreed in Euros direct with core, so not sure how that affects things.
Michael Tharp is ex partner Lippincott, I'm not sure if a $50k contest will attract the same calibre of work. Core did choose a different path for the rebrand via Ogylvy, and the money that they spent is already gone. Imagine the chaos if we only had the one O&M logo to vote on. We can thank Drako for organising this other option as well as convincing Michael to do this work without any guarantee of payment.I think it would be a great advertising opportunity to open up the logo to a public competition. Let's say, a $50K prize with the condition that the winner must get super majority. It would highlight the strength of dash's governance, that you can't just walk in and make changes.
I'm not entirely sure about the mechanics but perhaps utilize a non-free sms vote to determine who goes into the final proposal.
O&M had the privilege of a lot of time to work on their effort, as well as a ton of resources with guaranteed payment regardless of the outcome.Let's not forget that T&C had the privilege of seeing O&Ms entry before all MNOs. They are the ones that made this a two horse race.
No I didnt said that. What I said is that the T&C logo was voted and reached majority (but not supermajority), while the old logo was not voted at all !!! So, in my humble opinion, T&C logo is more legitimated to become the DASH logo. At least until someone puts the old logo into a vote so that we can compare its vote results to the results of the T&C logo. This is my personal sense of justice, but of course the community has not decided this as a rule yet.Demo says that because the old logo was not voted in, in his opinion, the new T&C logo also doesn't need to be voted in. I'd considering agreeing with this to some degree if it wasn't a budget decision.
However, because we will be paying for the rights to use the T&C logo, it really needs to hit the 10% supermajority to receive funding, as that's how the funding works in Dash.
The current situation is quite clear. The governance system has been compromised by MNOs putting too much trust in Core. It begs the question, "who is driving this bus?". If Core is allowed to have such discretion then it seems to me, claims of centralization have merit. It means, at some point in the future, if the state of Dash Core Group is put into jeopardy, then dash as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization might struggle to make decisions for itself.I agree with you that a budget decision requires supermajority, but what kind of supermajority it requires? Is the 10% suppermajority appropriate, for a somehow trivial issue like the Dash logo?
The kind of supermajority that is required, is yet another governance decision that should be made.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...age-user-so-uninvolved.8940/page-2#post-94323
Of course you are also right.The current situation is quite clear. The governance system has been compromised by MNOs putting too much trust in Core. It begs the question, "who is driving this bus?". If Core is allowed to have such discretion then it seems to me, claims of centralization have merit. It means, at some point in the future, if the state of Dash Core Group is put into jeopardy, then dash as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization might struggle to make decisions for itself.
The process is more important than individual outcomes. Without a solid decentralized process, there is likely to be big problems ahead.
My thoughts are as follows.Of course you are also right.
When we asked about the reduction of the proposal fee, or about adaptive proposal fees, the decision was considered negative by the core team because it didnt pass the supermajority. While at the same time, the status quo (5 dash proposal fee) was not voted a all !!!
So I agree with you.
It is not fair for some decisions who passed the majority but not the supermajority, the core team to consider them legitimate, while for some other decisions not to apply the same.
Dash community certainly needs a solid decentralized process, that will not change upon the will of the core team.
Or maybe there is no decentralisation at all, and the vast majority of the masternodes is still controlled by a few individuals of the core team. Anyway....The decentralisation process in the Dash DAO is still fine imo.
Wow, thanks for bringing up this inconsistency. I have been advocating for lower/adaptive proposal fees for awhile now, having noticed that small but effective proposals are no longer being submitted and are crowded out by the 5 Dash requirement. Seeing that both of the proposals regarding proposal fees were passed in favor of doing something (based on a simple majority), this is an issue that needs to be addressed.Of course you are also right.
When we asked about the reduction of the proposal fee, or about adaptive proposal fees, the decision was considered negative by the core team because it didnt pass the supermajority. While at the same time, the status quo (5 dash proposal fee) was not voted a all !!!
So I agree with you.
It is not fair for some decisions who passed the majority but not the supermajority, the core team to consider them legitimate, while for some other decisions not to apply the same.
Dash community certainly needs a solid decentralized process, that will not change upon the will of the core team.
I guess it means Core cannot be expected to make everyone happy all of the time, but as long as we are pointing in the right direction most of the time, progress is being made.Or maybe there is no decentralisation at all, and the vast majority of the masternodes is still controlled by a few individuals of the core team. Anyway....
In any case, the masternode operators obviously will not defund the core team for a trivial issue like the Dash logo, but this does not mean that they are happy whenever the core team arbitrarily changes the governance rules.
Has this result been discussed with anyone at core. It could be possible that something is already underway but they wish to get a provisional patent before announcing anything.Wow, thanks for bringing up this inconsistency. I have been advocating for lower/adaptive proposal fees for awhile now, having noticed that small but effective proposals are no longer being submitted and are crowded out by the 5 Dash requirement. Seeing that both of the proposals regarding proposal fees were passed in favor of doing something (based on a simple majority), this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
I don’t think it makes any sense to go back in time and look at other decision proposals and evaluate them on the basis of a simple majority as MNOs may not have voted in the same way if they had this information upfront.Wow, thanks for bringing up this inconsistency. I have been advocating for lower/adaptive proposal fees for awhile now, having noticed that small but effective proposals are no longer being submitted and are crowded out by the 5 Dash requirement. Seeing that both of the proposals regarding proposal fees were passed in favor of doing something (based on a simple majority), this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Let vote on this. If i well understand, if no vote, it's mean we stay with the same logo as today ?we can have a fully developed proposal by late April or early May
T&C + remaks and suggestions = Actual logo without any reprinting all materialstry to take into account some of remarks and suggestions that was publish here on Forum and in Discord chat during discussions...
There is a much better and solid way to solve this, by far better than the destruction of the rules you choosed as a "solution".I know some people have complained about us changing the rules and not requiring this proposal to get 10% net vote approval. However, I want to insist in the fact that we are using a binary funding tool for something it is not designed for. In this vote we had three options: keep old logo, use Ogilvy's or use Tharp&Clark's. The two change proposal were at a disadvantage because they would get the no votes of the other change one plus the no votes of the ones that preferred not to make changes. Because of that you need to convince more than 50% of people just to be net positive. That combined with the 20% participation requirement make for a pretty strong case that most of the network desired this outcome.