Indeed. From now on, on every governance proposal, I am going to vote against it by default unless it is clearly stated what the terms are. Time limits should also be required because, as we saw with the 2MB block increase, it could go back years and yet we're expected to uphold it. Just to add salt, it wasn't even a governance proposal, it was a proposal to pay O&M for the re-brand. Tbh, I'm totally disappointed and exhausted how this has been handled. Dash's governance is under attack and it appears the majority don't see it or care enough.
https://demodun.github.io/mnowatch/the_results_dashd_01-04-2018.html Put "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804" in the YES filter. There are 103 MNOs who voted YES on both. You may also want to see how many voted NO on both. Put "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804" in the NO filter. There are 188 MNOs who voted NO on both.
Thank you. How many masternodes voted for one but not the other? Those too are unknown / uncertain. Voting yes on one does not necessarily mean no to the other.
In the original proposal, where was T&C? What we have is a situation where T&C was introduced later and given foresight of the O&M logos before most MNOs (see T&C stream). It's okay to open it up to one group but not others? A closed tender for work, how cozy.
Voted (yes/no/abstain) only for "core-branding-om-201804" (didnt express opinion for "core-branding-tc-201804") Code: curl -s https://demodun.github.io/mnowatch/the_results_dashd_01-04-2018.html|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804"|grep "core-branding-om-201804"|grep -v "core-branding-tc-201804"|wc -l Voted "yes" only for "core-branding-om-201804" (didnt express opinion for "core-branding-tc-201804") Code: curl -s https://demodun.github.io/mnowatch/the_results_dashd_01-04-2018.html|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804"|grep "core-branding-om-201804"|grep -v "core-branding-tc-201804"| awk -F"\"container2" '{for(i=2;i<=NF;i++){{print $i}}}'|cut -f1 -d"/"|cut -f2- -d"v"| grep "core-branding-om-201804"|wc -l Voted "no" only for "core-branding-om-201804" (didnt express opinion for "core-branding-tc-201804") Code: curl -s https://demodun.github.io/mnowatch/the_results_dashd_01-04-2018.html|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804"|grep "core-branding-om-201804"|grep -v "core-branding-tc-201804"| awk -F"\"container3" '{for(i=2;i<=NF;i++){{print $i}}}'|cut -f1 -d"/"|cut -f2- -d"v"| grep "core-branding-om-201804"|wc -l Voted "abstain" only for "core-branding-om-201804" (didnt express opinion for "core-branding-tc-201804") Code: curl -s https://demodun.github.io/mnowatch/the_results_dashd_01-04-2018.html|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804"|grep "core-branding-om-201804"|grep -v "core-branding-tc-201804"| awk -F"\"container4" '{for(i=2;i<=NF;i++){{print $i}}}'|cut -f1 -d"/"|cut -f2- -d"v"| grep "core-branding-om-201804"|wc -l --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Voted (yes/no/abstain) only for "core-branding-tc-201804" (didnt express opinion for "core-branding-om-201804") Code: curl -s https://demodun.github.io/mnowatch/the_results_dashd_01-04-2018.html|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804"|grep "core-branding-tc-201804"|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804"|wc -l Voted "yes" only for "core-branding-tc-201804" (didnt express opinion for "core-branding-om-201804") Code: curl -s https://demodun.github.io/mnowatch/the_results_dashd_01-04-2018.html|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804"|grep "core-branding-tc-201804"|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804"|awk -F"\"container2" '{for(i=2;i<=NF;i++){{print $i}}}'|cut -f1 -d"/"|cut -f2- -d"v"| grep "core-branding-tc-201804"|wc -l Voted "no" only for "core-branding-tc-201804" (didnt express opinion for "core-branding-om-201804") Code: curl -s https://demodun.github.io/mnowatch/the_results_dashd_01-04-2018.html|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804"|grep "core-branding-tc-201804"|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804"| awk -F"\"container3" '{for(i=2;i<=NF;i++){{print $i}}}'|cut -f1 -d"/"|cut -f2- -d"v"| grep "core-branding-tc-201804"|wc -l Voted "abstain" only for "core-branding-tc-201804" (didnt express opinion for "core-branding-om-201804") Code: curl -s https://demodun.github.io/mnowatch/the_results_dashd_01-04-2018.html|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804 core-branding-tc-201804"|grep "core-branding-tc-201804"|grep -v "core-branding-om-201804"| awk -F"\"container4" '{for(i=2;i<=NF;i++){{print $i}}}'|cut -f1 -d"/"|cut -f2- -d"v"| grep "core-branding-tc-201804"|wc -l I currently have no access to my lubuntu, so I cannot execute the above commands. Someone should execute them and tell us the result. (please forgive me for any inconvenience, I wrote the above in the notepad and I was unable to test them)
If I were a Masternode owner, I would rather say: "From now on, on every governance proposal, I am going to vote against it by default unless I am allowed to vote about the terms"
https://twitter.com/AmandaB_Johnson/status/981593578798370816 https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurr...should_cryptocurrency_say_goodbye_to_bitcoin/
That's a separate issue then. The terms were clear but you think that T&C was given an advantage over O&M because they were able to compare with the other one?
In case anyone is interested in my opinion, I wrote smth there https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-visual-identity-tharp-clark.33043/#post-180438 TL;DR: It's not just about math, it's a conceptual one. This definitely needs a clear final proposal with all formal governance rules applied for changes to be applied.
As I understand it, T & C will have to pass a formal proposal this (edit: or maybe next) cycle requiring the usual 10% as they are still owed 88K euros. I haven’t seen it clearly stated what will happen if it doesn’t pass, but my assumption is that we will stay with the current logo (as there won’t be money to pay for the T & C logo). So for all intents and purposes, your request for formal governance will be honored. . . . Also, just my 2cents here, but it probably would be a good idea for Core to be all on the same page before trying something like this again. If you guys don’t have each other backs with a potential controversial issue such as temporarily changing the voting criteria — then there is little hope that the community will get behind the results. @fernando @kot
So you are offering to the MNOs something of a decent quality for free, and they insist of spending the community money for buying something worse. This is yet another proof that stupid and spies bought masternodes in order to stop effective governance.
Ignorant posts like this drive people to not give your considerable efforts more credit. Having a functional logo that accomplishes many tasks and enables growth takes more than a 5 minute sketch in gimp. However, I wouldn't expect you to understand after taking a glance at your avatar. Watch the T&C Webinar on youtube for a master class on logo design.
And how much does this logo cost? Because if I am about to choose between the best logo of the world that costs 1000000 dash, and a somehow mediocre logo that costs zero dash, I will choose the second. It is a "vote the numbers" case, once again...Or an "adaptive logo's cost" case, if you want to use @GrandMasterDash 's terminology. That both require altenative budget systems ( [1], [2] ) of course....
I agree a good logo takes effort and could easily be worth $100K or more, but I wouldn't use the word "functional", that's too explicit. I take exception to calling T&C's livestream as a "masterclass". It was nothing of the sort. They had initially concluded that the dash "D" was "iconic" and most of their efforts from that point was based off it. Re-watch their video and you'll see this was the basic error they made. They showcased a bunch of "D" variations except, say, for the hare which they considered spriteful... but a simple google image search shows strikingly similar and generic results. For all the words and re-phrasing they gave in their pitch, it lacked imagination. Talking of rabits and hares, the Playboy logo is something I would call iconic, distinct and unique. What did T&C offer in that realm? - nothing, because they had essentially committed themselves to modifying the "D" than seriously entertaining new ideas. While imo, O&M also got it wrong, credit for them to step it up and give something that was fresh. There's nothing wrong with fresh - and there's nothing wrong with evolving a logo - but seeing O&M's design is compelling evidence that our existing logo is flat and outdated. Evolving the current logo may not truly reflect the new and exciting journey we are on. The DAPI architecture is not best described as "evolution", but more a statement that dash is, once again, innovating (evidenced by patents filed). Is this how we tell the world we are innovators, by rounding a few corners? I feel an icon representing three birds would best describe dash. Birds are, as a matter of fact, the fastest animals on earth - yes, Instant Send. And three wings of the birds could represent the three layers of dash; miners, masternodes and DAPI. I am not saying my previous attempt at such a logo is a winner (far from it, it's not my realm), but I am saying that perhaps this concept of three birds should be explored by professional artists.
Evolution of the Dash visual identity: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/evolution-of-the-dash-visual-identity.36394/
Both logo proposals are nice. I like current banding because it give me a FAST and FUTURISTIC meaning.
Evolution of Dash visuals - Vote for freedom Background The community has recently been presented with 2 options for a new Dash logo. - The first was commissioned from O&M and paid by Dash Core then revealed to the community. - The second appeared mysteriously around the same time from T&C. - The O&M solution was broadly rejected. - That left the T&C option which received mixed responses - however out of the two, was deemed preferable and has now qualified for funding. Concerns: - It looks like we'll be changing the most fundamental visual element of the Dash brand with an option decided on the basis of it being the 'safer of 2 options'. - Because there was no announcement or invitation to submit proposals - only 1 company had an opportunity to do so. Choice is vitally important when considering something as important as a logo. - We also believe that it is unwise to deploy a new logo in isolation to the broader brand. Dash is broad and complex eco-system that has continuity issues. There is great scope to improve not just the logo but how the broader dash world all ties in, with an newly refreshed logo sitting on top of all that.
The Double D simply doesn't work in my opinion. I understand the progressive evolution of logos but there simply isn't anything to justify it. The chain can be represented in much better graphic ways, but it's an already seen logo. See Chaincoin as just one example!
The new logo needs to be fixed. Though better than the O&M attempt, it's got problems. The dashmark should be more unique and alien. The D needs a straight part on it's right to sync/solidify the angle with the rest of the logo. The "a" is terrible. It "gets stuck in my eye". Needs to be a bit thicker again. The 10 degree slant is too boring. 12 degrees should be a minimum, maybe up to 16 degrees. (Old logo was at 18 degrees.) (And you can use 12, 14 or 16 degrees, depending on your taste, design, and/or target audience.) This is 12 degrees on top (wht bg), and 16 degrees (blk bg). [Also, it only costs 21 Dash!]
