You did not answer to my question!
You did not answer to my question!
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MONEY IN CASE THE JOB IS A FAILURE? WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MONEY IN CASE THERE IS NO DELIVERABLE? DO THIS MONEY ALWAYS REMAIN IN THE WALLET ADDRESS?
Proposal: Business Development (January)
- Thread starter Ryan Taylor
- Start date
You did not answer to my question!
You did not answer to my question!
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MONEY IN CASE THE JOB IS A FAILURE? WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MONEY IN CASE THERE IS NO DELIVERABLE? DO THIS MONEY ALWAYS REMAIN IN THE WALLET ADDRESS?
In case that happened and the budget was not spent, the funds would be use for a similar project. That has been said many times in different proposals.
I answered in an edit before seeing this polite reminder.
Read any proposal I've submitted. Near the bottom of every single one it clearly states how unused money will be spent.
You wrote:
This is not clear to me.babygiraffe said:
You should say "In case of a failure to accomplish the job, funding from this proposal will be reserved for business development purposes".
And who defines what "business development purposes" is?
And WHEN those fundings will be given to business development purposes?
In a month? In 100 years?
Last edited:
It is by category. Conferences and Travel is always spent on conferences and travel. Business development is always spent on business development. Development funds are always spend on development expenses. Legal funds on legal. Etc.
There is admittedly a bit of judgment involved in categorizing an expense that could fall in two categories, but we are diligent about utilizing available funds for the betterment of the network in ways consistent with the approved intent. On the one occasion we wanted to completely redirect funding to another purpose, we actually submitted a "decision" proposal to the network (YES / NO to redirect funds) to ensure we had the network's approval.
IMHO you should always submit a "decision" proposal to the network in case the money is not used.
Because if you, the responsible of the proposal, and you, the one responsible to judge whether the project was failure or success, is the same person who at the same time judges what "a similar project" is and gives the money to whoever and whenever, then the whole thing becomes a very dangerous situation!!
The community does not trust you, because nobody have ever voted for you.
The masternodes do not trust you either, they have not voted for you to become an employee.
You are just an employee of the core team. Always remember that.
Last edited:
At a certain point, if you don't trust the team to execute you should just vote a different team to do the job... one willing to subject themselves to that. To expect that we seek approval for every decision would cost a tremendous amount of nimbleness and productivity that in my opinion would cause more harm than whatever "very dangerous" bad decision making myself and the rest of the team might make. Firstly, we could only receive input once a month (delayed by at least 1-5 weeks depending on the budget cycle timing). Secondly, it would cost a ton of the team's time. It would also, in my opinion, be incredibly demoralizing, demotivating and frankly insulting to most of the highly skilled volunteers working for peanuts to have their decision-making ability removed and be micromanaged. A move like that would likely doom this project to failure.
Well demo... I for one, definitely disagree with that, as I'm sure most do.
But hey, this question is an opportunity for you to start yet another of your famous polls...
The forum does not repesent the community, because there is not a proof of individuality scheme on it, so everyone may vote more than once.
One thing that may be done is @babygiraffe to add an appropriate proposal to the budget, and ask the mastenodes to approve him as the responsible to judge whether a proposal submited by the core team is a success or a failure .
Last edited:
You clearly have your opinion, though I expect it is not shared by the majority of the community. I don't think the size of the money involved ever justifies micromanagement. The very real costs of micromanagement exceed the risks of bad decision-making from skilled individuals in most instances, and surely in our case that would be true. This is why stockholders in even the world's largest corporations don't micromanage the companies they own. Instead, they delegate decision making to a management team and replace them if they are ineffective.
If you feel strongly that your position would be supported by the community, submit a decision proposal to see if that's what they want.
I am not a masternode owner, and I have not 5 dash, so I cannot submit any proposal.
And a wise man once said, "The forum does not repesent (sp) the community".
I couldn't resist... just chiding you a bit.
Micromanagement requires a lot of effort to be done in terms of information and infrastructure and technology and code. Micromanagement is the ultimate goal, it is what cryptocoins aspire to do to money, to micromanage it and inspect every transaction of it.
If stockholdes are right to delegate every decision making to the managers, then why do you have the budget system and the masternodes vote here in Dash? Let the managers decide everything about Dash and do not ask the masternodes at all!
You are a manager, and your point of view is twisted towards the interests of the manager clan. Your views are dangerous and undermine the future of the budget system and the future of the governance in general.
Last edited:
The community are the people that own at least one (or more) dash wallets.And a wise man once said, "The forum does not repesent (sp) the community".
I couldn't resist... just chiding you a bit.
If one day you will be able to run a proof of individuality among wallets, then you will discover the community.
Last edited:
The separation of powers requires the separation of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary power.
The executive power is the core team.
The legislature power is the masternodes owners.
But a judiciary power is also needed, so let @babygiraffe be named by the masternodes the first judge.
Someone has to add a proposal about it, into the budget system.
The executive power is the core team.
The legislature power is the masternodes owners.
But a judiciary power is also needed, so let @babygiraffe be named by the masternodes the first judge.
Someone has to add a proposal about it, into the budget system.
Last edited:
The technology does allow for more involvement than an annual board meeting election like with stocks, so we should take advantage of more oversight capabilities of the system. However, that doesn't mean it's an effective use of thousands of MN owner's time to weigh in on whether I am permitted to use the leftover funds from a conference to buy some pens to give out at the next one. I don't think they even WANT that type of oversight. Additionally, it doesn't scale and is completely impractical. Just because it is possible to do something, doesn't mean we should.
Simply downloading a wallet (which has zero cost, and doesn't even constitute an "owner", "customer" or "user" of the network) is explicitly NOT the mechanism through which we make decisions in Dash.
If there is a voted threshold that defines how much money should be required in order to start micromanagment, then it scales. For pens and pencils, the amount is below the voted threshold and micromanagement is not required. And if micromanagement becomes a nuissance, people can vote and raise the threshold. This is yet another use of voting with numbers.
It is different thing the community, and who decides about it.
Last edited:
I dunno... who actually comprises the community? I'm not sure downloading a wallet is a sufficient, or necessary condition to being a member of the Dash community... I'll bet that you, demo - considered yourself 'a member of the Dash community' long before you ever downloaded a wallet.
Edit: in fact, not just a member but a very active member.
Correct. The community is everyone who is interested in Dash regardless he has or he has not a wallet. But I think it is rare to find someone who is interested in Dash but has not downloaded a wallet. So my definition seems 99% accurate.
You first. Name a cryptocoin that has governance.
Dash is neither an ordinary company, nor an ordinary cryptocoin.
Dash is a pioneer, so it is normal there are no similar cases.
We are not talking about a complicated judiciary system. You need a person-judge that he will be independant of the core team, he will be elected and paid by the budget system, and he will have the responsibility to judge whether the projects have been delivered as described in the proposal and whether the people involved deserve to be paid or not.
Last edited:
Although this thread has been derailed a bit, I'd like to address the original topic: the January Business Development proposal.
I support the Dash core development team, and believe they are doing a good job shepherding the project in a competent fashion. If I didn't, I wouldn't own masternodes, and I'd sell them off for BTC/XMR/ZEC/Beanie Babies. A project like Dash hasn't really been done before: a decentralized payment system/currency that is governed directly by its investors. The core team is literally running into challenges that have never been faced before. Kudos to them.
That being said, I'm voting no with my masternodes on this specific proposal. I'm troubled by the unknown status of Daniel Diaz, who is still listed as the "Head of Business Development" for Dash, and until that is cleared up, I'm voting "no" on any core-team business development proposals. We haven't heard from him in months, and no one is willing or able to give us a concrete update. Add to that the problems with the Lamassau ATM proposal, and my confidence in this specific area of the core team is lacking. And because of this history, I'm not comfortable with voting for an ambiguous business development proposal with few details.
I think Ryan is doing a bang-up job, and I'm sure he's sincere that these funds will be used well, but the whole point of a governance system is that it allows investors a concrete way to register their views. In this specific situation, my view is that until the business development part of the core team is cleaned up, no more funding for it. If that means missed opportunities, that is unfortunate, but long-term this part of the house needs to be cleaned up for Dash to succeed.
I support the Dash core development team, and believe they are doing a good job shepherding the project in a competent fashion. If I didn't, I wouldn't own masternodes, and I'd sell them off for BTC/XMR/ZEC/Beanie Babies. A project like Dash hasn't really been done before: a decentralized payment system/currency that is governed directly by its investors. The core team is literally running into challenges that have never been faced before. Kudos to them.
That being said, I'm voting no with my masternodes on this specific proposal. I'm troubled by the unknown status of Daniel Diaz, who is still listed as the "Head of Business Development" for Dash, and until that is cleared up, I'm voting "no" on any core-team business development proposals. We haven't heard from him in months, and no one is willing or able to give us a concrete update. Add to that the problems with the Lamassau ATM proposal, and my confidence in this specific area of the core team is lacking. And because of this history, I'm not comfortable with voting for an ambiguous business development proposal with few details.
I think Ryan is doing a bang-up job, and I'm sure he's sincere that these funds will be used well, but the whole point of a governance system is that it allows investors a concrete way to register their views. In this specific situation, my view is that until the business development part of the core team is cleaned up, no more funding for it. If that means missed opportunities, that is unfortunate, but long-term this part of the house needs to be cleaned up for Dash to succeed.
@ericsammons hehe... Thank you, your post just jolted my train of thought back to the actual topic at hand...
and what you say there is very valid food for thought for all MNOs.
and what you say there is very valid food for thought for all MNOs.
The community seems to agree with you , but the masternodes not. So what is the next step? To reveal the operators who are hiding behind the masternodes.
The community should mark the masternodes who voted YES in this proposal, mark their transactions, their IP adresses, their vote in several proposals e.t.c, and that way create a masternode profile for every single one of them. This is the only thing the community can do, in order to protect itself against the masternodes and against any member of the core team which supports the fuzzy way of dealing with the budget money.
Last edited:
If I cared what an ambiguously-defined, troll-infested "community" thought, I'd be all-in with Bitcoin. All that matters is the masternode vote - that represents the only community that counts. I'm voting "no," but I accept the results of the masternode vote.
@babygiraffe
@ericsammons
I am, unfortunately, also changing my votes to "no", given Daniel's long and unexplained absence, as this is a business proposal.
I feel like core should take a more decisive stance, from within, on this issue, so that we can all move away from this situation. For example: @isysd 's presence on slack over the past day has served to defuse a good deal of tension about GitGuild, I feel that if we start openly discussing other non-performing issues, such as Daniel's absence since at least mid October, past: "its ok," and "he's coming back" it will be cathartic for all parties involved.
I think the time has come for core to take decisive action, before this issue affects the communities feelings and votes on business development at large.
Thank you,
Pablo.
@ericsammons
I am, unfortunately, also changing my votes to "no", given Daniel's long and unexplained absence, as this is a business proposal.
I feel like core should take a more decisive stance, from within, on this issue, so that we can all move away from this situation. For example: @isysd 's presence on slack over the past day has served to defuse a good deal of tension about GitGuild, I feel that if we start openly discussing other non-performing issues, such as Daniel's absence since at least mid October, past: "its ok," and "he's coming back" it will be cathartic for all parties involved.
I think the time has come for core to take decisive action, before this issue affects the communities feelings and votes on business development at large.
Thank you,
Pablo.
You are confused if you consider as community the votes. The community is not the votes of the masternodes.The community is the people behind, the community is the operators of the masternodes. You have to start knowing the community you belong to. Who are they, how they think, and who of them are the big decision makers. By knowing them you can predict their behavior in the future, and that way you can protect yourself in case they decide something against your hopes and interests.
Additionaly, why the only Dash community that counts are the masternode operators? Why the people who own at least 1000 dash and one masternode are the only people that count? The masternode operators inherit their voting power from the core team. Your faith is irrational, especially because this faith is based in magic numbers like 1000 is. By believing blindly to the authority of the core team to define the electorate, you are yet another faithfull servant of the core team priesthood. This makes me feel pitty about you, as I feel pitty for everyone that has an irrational faith. No, the masternode operators are not the only Dash community that counts.
You have better stop believing (in the authority of the core team to define the electorate), and start knowing (the masternodes operators, the people hiding behind the masternodes)
Stop believing, start knowing. This is the motto.
Last edited:
The net votes of this proposal are 389 votes, thus it is below 10% and it needs 44 more YES votes to be approved. But for a strange reason the requested amount of 607.410 dash have been paid!
So despite the fact that the masternode operators did not finnally approve the proposal, for a strange reason the wallet of @babygiraffe is now 607 Dash richer! And of course now, he is the only one capable to decide where those 607 dash (9712 USD) will go and to who!
Well done masternode operators! After the lamassu proposal, yet another great decision on behalf of your community (the only community that counts and matters according @ericsammons)
@babygiraffe, the employee of the core team, is the only one now that can judge where the total remaining of 2173 dash (34768 USD) will go. One single guy ( and not an elected one) controls tottaly an amount more than the 1/4 of the total monthly budget ! And you call this decentralization?
Poor masternode operators! You paid 1000 dash for every masternode in order to get your votes, but this @babygiraffe guy controls more money than the richest one of you! And not only he paid nothing for gaining this control, but the core team is paying him a salary for doing it!
It seems to me that the infamous managers and marketeers clan, together with the lawyers and the Timocracy formed by the masternodes operators, have devoured almost entirely the healthy thinking Dash community.
So despite the fact that the masternode operators did not finnally approve the proposal, for a strange reason the wallet of @babygiraffe is now 607 Dash richer! And of course now, he is the only one capable to decide where those 607 dash (9712 USD) will go and to who!
Well done masternode operators! After the lamassu proposal, yet another great decision on behalf of your community (the only community that counts and matters according @ericsammons)
@babygiraffe, the employee of the core team, is the only one now that can judge where the total remaining of 2173 dash (34768 USD) will go. One single guy ( and not an elected one) controls tottaly an amount more than the 1/4 of the total monthly budget ! And you call this decentralization?
Poor masternode operators! You paid 1000 dash for every masternode in order to get your votes, but this @babygiraffe guy controls more money than the richest one of you! And not only he paid nothing for gaining this control, but the core team is paying him a salary for doing it!
It seems to me that the infamous managers and marketeers clan, together with the lawyers and the Timocracy formed by the masternodes operators, have devoured almost entirely the healthy thinking Dash community.
Last edited: