Proposal: Dash ATM Master Compliance Program - Phase I

[HinnomTX]

Voted yes.
We are in a new league of budgeting now. In January 2016, with a 35k monthly budget, this proposal would not have been possible. Today, we actually have a little bit of a chance to catch up to, and maybe even surpass Bitcoin. Bitcoin has a five year head start, but recently development has stumbled. I'm OK with being aggressive with our newfound budget of $100k / month. Part I of this proposal is a single payment and won't clog up months of budgeting, unlike e.g. the Dash.org purchase. I agree with the sentiment that there are other project _ideas_ that would come at a higher priority than this, but these ideas are not materializing into hard proposals yet. If this proposal were competing in the budget system for a solid retail adoption plan or partnership, I would select the latter first. But that's not what we have before us this month.

I don't like ATMs. They are a 20th century invention, and they should be an anachronism in the 21st. The 6-10% fees could be characterized as usurious. Having said that, they have their uses in the right place. Example: the car wash. I generally don't carry much cash. Recently I needed tipping money for the workers there. There was an ATM. It charged only 2%. I was happy to pay it so I could put a smile on the car cleaners' faces, and then pay my housekeeper later that week.

I'm sure that these virtual currency ATMs will find similar niches. Countries with shitty currencies, and/or heavy capital controls. Think Central and South America. Maybe you don't need AML/KYC for some of the places I'm talking about. But I do think it's important to have a game plan to interact with the legacy banking system and their subservient governments in which we find ourselves entrenched, sort of like 'The Matrix'. Once people have their Dash, they can do as they please. If they need to convert Dash to physical currency, they probably have a really good reason to do it, and chances are, an ATM operator will find it.

 

[alex-ru]

You absolutely MUST grow up NOW.

It is a bit strange (and it is frightening me) that we can see lots of critic here towards team - but we don't see not only any tries to help them, but also no alternative budget proposals here http://dashvotetracker.com regarding ATM (and everything other regarding mass adoption).

If so many people declare that they are more experienced and competent in questions of DASH's mass adoption and they don't want to help team, why we don't see their alternative budget proposals and results instead of many-many words...

It is not about camosoul's posts (father of Dash'n'Drink! - my respect to you!) - but too many people are just complaining and criticizing team instead of doing even any tiny efforts of doing "right things" that they are declaring.

Sure people will vote "yes" even for "obviously not the best solution" - just because there is no other alternative.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I think the situations are different for several reasons. First, one is an official Dash product, while this project is a means to encourage third party operators to integrate Dash. Having a crypto ATM without supporting Bitcoin is a non-starter for operators. They aren't going to leave their largest market behind. So if we want to entice them to use our software stack, we simply have to offer Bitcoin.

Second, incorporating Bitcoin into Evolution isn't likely to attract Bitcoin users that otherwise wouldn't consider Dash... there are plenty of other Bitcoin wallets that provide as good of an experience as can be offered with Bitcoin's underlying technology stack already out there. Without any value-add, Bitcoin-only users would see little incentive to use the Dash wallet and the added effort to incorporate Bitcoin would be mostly wasted (no matter how much or little the amount of money was). There would certainly be some Dash users that would value the integration, but not the other way around. We are choosing instead to focus on deploying Evolution swiftly.

The point escaped you, it went right over your head. Adding bitcoin to Evolution is a two-bit project compared to what you're suggesting. You can try adding bitcoin and if it don't work, what's your loss? Compare that to this very expensive and never ending thing you're proposing.

It was YOU that said about co-opting bitcoiners.. and you admit this kind of thing had not been done before in crypto.... so basically, you're unwilling to run with a smaller idea that works on co-opting, yet willing to GAMBLE lots of money that could be better used elsewhere. You don't see the folly of your thinking.

More so, if you feel it's such a great idea, why don't you run it off your own back? The answer is simply; you don't want to take that risk with your own money. It's not going to be profitable and it's just so much easier to fail with someone else's money, right??

 

[camosoul]

It is a bit strange (and it is frightening me) that we can see lots of critic here towards team - but we don't see not only any tries to help them, but also no alternative budget proposals here http://dashvotetracker.com regarding ATM (and everything other regarding mass adoption).

If so many people declare that they are more experienced and competent in questions of DASH's mass adoption and they don't want to help team, why we don't see their alternative budget proposals and results instead of many-many words...

It is not about camosoul's posts (father of Dash'n'Drink! - my respect to you!) - but too many people are just complaining and criticizing team instead of doing even any tiny efforts of doing "right things" that they are declaring.

Sure people will vote "yes" even for "obviously not the best solution" - just because there is no other alternative.

And when the other alternatives are present, "the team" shows up to slander, misinform, troll, and so on...

I've got the thing already all laid out. Have had it that way since December of last year. Been discussing it with two other parties that actually get shit done... But, I know what happens to people who present a proposal of actual substance that the "the team" doesn't want stealing their thunder...

If I told you who it was that was trying to keep the DashNDrink out of Miami, 1) you'd shit yourself 2) probably wouldn't believe it anyway. The signs were all there, but it was so unbelievable that the thought didn't even cross my mind. I found out later that the DahsNDrink project was not supposed to succeed. It was "allowed" to go on because it was expected to fail. Turns out I'm exactly as awesome as I say I am, and that only pissed them off more... Turns out, the parties trying to stop the DashNDrink from coming to Miami at the last minute minute were parties inside DASH. It wasn't the venue or some BTC interests that felt threatened...

Moe doesn't care enough about DASH to take the blame. It hardly took any arm-twisting at all.

I know exactly who you are. I know who's clean. Process of elimination and one squealing pig.

There's no point in bothering to submit a proposal that might actually do something if you're not a pal of The King. Only innocuous or useless proposals will be allowed. If a proposal of actual use and substance is landed, "the team" will move heaven and earth playing politics and even buying votes, to make sure it doesn't pass. There's no reason to bother with it. The "governance" is a sham.

 

[alex-ru]

And when the other alternatives are present, "the team" shows up to slander, misinform, troll, and so on...

I've got the thing already all laid out. Have had it that way since December of last year. Been discussing it with two other parties that actually get shit done... But, I know what happens to people who present a proposal of actual substance that the "the team" doesn't want stealing their thunder...

If I told you who it was that was trying to keep the DashNDrink out of Miami, 1) you'd shit yourself 2) probably wouldn't believe it anyway. The signs were all there, but it was so unbelievable that the thought didn't even cross my mind. I found out later that the DahsNDrink project was not supposed to succeed. It was "allowed" to go on because it was expected to fail. Turns out I'm exactly as awesome as I say I am, and that only pissed them off more... Turns out, the parties trying to stop the DashNDrink from coming to Miami at the last minute minute were parties inside DASH. It wasn't the venue or some BTC interests that felt threatened...

Moe doesn't care enough about DASH to take the blame. It hardly took any arm-twisting at all.

I know exactly who you are. I know who's clean. Process of elimination and one squealing pig.

There's no point in bothering to submit a proposal that might actually do something if you're not a pal of The King. Only innocuous or useless proposals will be allowed. If a proposal of actual use and substance is landed, "the team" will move heaven and earth playing politics and even buying votes, to make sure it doesn't pass. There's no reason to bother with it. The "governance" is a sham.

This is exactly what I am talking about:

Complaining, shifting the responsibility on others, pointing to the mistakes of others instead of working with own disadvantages (doesn't it remind us some other "not-so-professional-attempts" down-voted recently?)

It is not a real alternative for most of the investors.

Investors want to see results (and in most cases these results don't related to team and don't require any kind of "approve" or "support" from them).
Investors don't want to see excuse, attempts to blame others for their weakness and so on. This is why they vote such proposals down, not because of "bad insidious team".

Team - they are not "aliens", they are the same ordinary people who do not like to do someone else's work, who don't like to be blamed for other people's mistakes, who don't want to fix problems of others, who need help and support, etc.

IMO

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Can't even get Evolution or the lamassu thing done in a timely manner, let alone this. And people want to blow even more money and wait how long before they recognise this as a failure? In twelve months time you'll have next to nothing to show for this except a lot of fancy words and more empty promises.

Far more importantly, while this delusion continues, competition in the crypto space will accelerate and quite possibly overtake dash. My guestimate; crypto has about 12 - 18 months before big names with deep pockets emerge and trounce all over the current crop of crypto.

3.5M ATMs in the world and this time next year, how many dash enabled ATMs will there be? At what cost to reach a lucky few?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I think we should also have a MNO Compliance Program, including full identification of all operators; background checks, biometrics, published passport photos etc. This should be done in the name of transparency. Some of the highlights would include:

• Prove to the world this is indeed a fully decentralised project
• Ensure the good name of dash, that the key players are not affiliated with criminal activity.
• Prevent conflicts of interest between Project Managers and outside companies / suppliers

Indeed, as a responsible DAO, we should also extend compliance to the Evolution wallet with a view that all other wallets will eventually be switched off at some future date.

 

[TroyDASH]

With the arguments about project management and money handling aside, I don't support the push for ATMs in the first place, so I will be voting no. ATMs are the least bang for our buck right now. What we need to do is make it profitable to have a Dash ATM, at which point ATM software and hardware will be coming out of the woodwork by the free market, without any need for a blockchain subsidy. And the way to make Dash ATMs profitable is to increase demand for them. Just building ATMs won't increase demand for the coin if there is no places to spend Dash.. Let's spend this money to speed up Evolution development instead, or to speed up merchant integration to improve the vendor experience.

This proposal is asking for $10,000 already and it looks like a practically limitless money sink. We've already fallen prey to the sunk cost fallacy, "we've already invested so much into these ATM projects we can't let it go to waste" - well if you think that now then how much worse will it be after a few more months of this, phase 1, phase 2...etc. Sometimes the fastest way to get to your destination is to make a U-turn, I would suggest we do that and focus elsewhere.


Also about this proposal in particular, if the creation of such an organization is going to be profitable like you claim then why don't you gather private funding for it? You can make money on your own without even having to get funding from, or pay back the Masternodes. Who would decide how much of a cut the MNs get back if any, and how is that enforceable? If this organization is to be for profit and receive any fees at all then why should the blockchain fund your startup, allowing the organization to profit without incurring any risk?

 

[camosoul]

With the arguments about project management and money handling aside, I don't support the push for ATMs in the first place, so I will be voting no

ATMs are a mess of problems.

A huge pile of compliance crap that could easily be avoided by just going straight to the point, dealing with vendors, who are already doing the compliance.

ATMs are just another middle-man. Middle-men don't work for free. Which means more fees. Which, again, could be entirely avoided by just getting to the point and providing for vendors, who are already paying fees and already doing all the compliance.

ATMs are self-defeating busywork pork from several angles.

 

[camosoul]

This is exactly what I am talking about:

Complaining, shifting the responsibility on others, pointing to the mistakes of others instead of working with own disadvantages (doesn't it remind us some other "not-so-professional-attempts" down-voted recently?)

I already did. I already learned my lesson. Sorry you haven't figured it out. There is a ton of dirty shit going on behind the scenes.

I've already dealt with it once. It's as if you expect me to be as much of a slow learner as you are, or else I'm the stupid one...

I've already got the solution all hammered out, but the majority of the community, MNOs and virtually all of the Devs shit all over it when it was proposed. Why do it again?

Why does IX even exist if every effort to put it to use is going to be stifled?

IMO

Being NOT based in reality, isn't worth a whole lot. If I believed the false narratives that you do, I'd probably agree. But, I know better.

 

[camosoul]

This proposal is asking for $10,000 already and it looks like a practically limitless money sink.

I offered to do something that would actually be useful, and already done 8x over, 8 months ago.

MNOs are blind rubes and think that continuing to march off a cliff in solidarity is "winning." This isn't even my opinion. Its the statement of the business owners that were once interested, but now can't get far enough away after watching MNOs and the community at large behave like absolute buffoons. Business doesn't trust people who are so utterly clueless and make such amazingly and obviously bad decisions. You're in public view! Vendors are not the same as the typical brain-dead Cryptotard. Businesses do due diligence. They educate themselves. You can't act like clowns and expect it to just slide by. You embarrass the fuck out grown-ups. I put myself on the line for you and you made a fool of me in front of people that actually matter.

You people are your own worst enemy...

 

[camosoul]

Can't even get Evolution or the lamassu thing done in a timely manner

Lets not make this into a dogpile... There are external factors, and Evolution is a huge undertaking.

There is a part of me that wonders if the Evolution time frame is nothing but meant to string along the golden goose for as long as they think it'll take people to catch on and explode... Pork while you can, etc..

It's as if they simply don't take their own project seriously. It's meant to be nothing but a long pump then abandon it...

It's really, really hard to avoid those thoughts because 1) Welcome to Crypto. 2) It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. It shits all over the patio like a duck...

Why avoid the most obvious move that DASH was supposedly designed to make? Why work so hard to make sure anyone who tries is shut out? If they put the same amount of effort into helping vendors as they do stifling anyone who tries to help vendors; DASH would have been a household name 4 months ago.

Why work so damned hard at preventing this?

There are several coders working in DASH right now that could do this in less than half a day's time. But I don't dare approach them because their positions are already known. Political glad-handing is more important that the project. So you can convince a bunch of fools to vote the roof down on their own heads. That's not winning.

 

[camosoul]

Also about this proposal in particular, if the creation of such an organization is going to be profitable like you claim then why don't you gather private funding for it? You can make money on your own without even having to get funding from, or pay back the Masternodes. Who would decide how much of a cut the MNs get back if any, and how is that enforceable? If this organization is to be for profit and receive any fees at all then why should the blockchain fund your startup, allowing the organization to profit without incurring any risk?

Isn't this exactly the same complaint that these same business devs had about anyone else trying to do the exact same thing?

It's acceptable as long as it's them. Those who have a proven track record of total failure, but talk nice and stoke the egos...

 

[GrandMasterDash]

This proposal continues to bother me too much.

The two main pillars of cypto are permissionless payments and flat fee structures. Most ATMs / exchanges have fees based on transaction size (not flat fees), and AML / KYC rules which could become far more imposing with little or no notice.

1. If this is to be run at a profit, why should we be funding someone elses startup, that they take no financial risk of their own?
2. If this does turn out to be a successful venture, why aren't MNOs getting a cut of the profits?
3. If this is being run at a loss, why would we vote for it?
4. What are the costs to capture each new dash ATM user?
5. We've been told that we'd be co-opting bitcoin users.. so what happens if, despite our best efforts, the majority of people still buy bitcoin because that's the name they trust / more places to spend it?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Tbh, proposals like this make me increasingly disenchanted with crypto in general. By the time crypto is the "norm" and in everyone's hands, I would of moved on to something new and more liberating / stimulating. Basically it's going to cost money to move / convert it when it was mine in the first place. And for what benefits? Are those benefits worth jumping through AML / KYC hoops and paying percentages on each conversion (reduced or otherwise)? So crypto succeeds in lowering costs and making money transmitters more competitive, but then what?

This proposal isn't just wrong, for me it's having a negative effect in general.

 

[Solarminer]

This proposal isn't addressing the toughest part. It is the LOCAL regulations and paperwork. The US federal application is easy. Every state is different.

The work is already done to teach you how to do it anyway, just read the 101 and 102 classes from this link.
https://coinatmradar.com/blog/how-to-start-a-bitcoin-atm-business/

This is the key point from this:
While running a bitcoin ATM on your own might require a lot of investment in legal field, e.g. creating your KYC/AML compliance policy, obtaining proper legal licenses, there is still a cheaper way — find existing bitcoin ATM operator in your area, approach and suggest a collaboration, so that you work under their legal licenses umbrella. In order to find operators around you — check our bitcoin machine locations map, for majority of listings operator information is provided.

So find someone near you and collaborate so you don't have to do all the paperwork.

This would be a far better proposal if a crypto ATM company was created as a legal entity that leased machines and handled the licensing. It then hires employees to manage the machines and pays to lease a space. Since Bitcoin and Dash have the same regulations, there is no sense in this just being Dash.

 

[stan.distortion]

This proposal isn't addressing the toughest part. It is the LOCAL regulations and paperwork. The US federal application is easy. Every state is different.

The work is already done to teach you how to do it anyway, just read the 101 and 102 classes from this link.
https://coinatmradar.com/blog/how-to-start-a-bitcoin-atm-business/

This is the key point from this:
While running a bitcoin ATM on your own might require a lot of investment in legal field, e.g. creating your KYC/AML compliance policy, obtaining proper legal licenses, there is still a cheaper way — find existing bitcoin ATM operator in your area, approach and suggest a collaboration, so that you work under their legal licenses umbrella. In order to find operators around you — check our bitcoin machine locations map, for majority of listings operator information is provided.

So find someone near you and collaborate so you don't have to do all the paperwork.

This would be a far better proposal if a crypto ATM company was created as a legal entity that leased machines and handled the licensing. It then hires employees to manage the machines and pays to lease a space. Since Bitcoin and Dash have the same regulations, there is no sense in this just being Dash.

That sounds like a hell of a lot better plan, grow an existing network rather than starting from zero.

 

[halso]

This proposal continues to bother me too much.

The two main pillars of cypto are permissionless payments and flat fee structures. Most ATMs / exchanges have fees based on transaction size (not flat fees), and AML / KYC rules which could become far more imposing with little or no notice.

1. If this is to be run at a profit, why should we be funding someone elses startup, that they take no financial risk of their own?
2. If this does turn out to be a successful venture, why aren't MNOs getting a cut of the profits?
3. If this is being run at a loss, why would we vote for it?
4. What are the costs to capture each new dash ATM user?
5. We've been told that we'd be co-opting bitcoin users.. so what happens if, despite our best efforts, the majority of people still buy bitcoin because that's the name they trust / more places to spend it?

If dash usage increases as a result of this, then so to will the mkt cap. Thats the whole point, right?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

If dash usage increases as a result of this, then so to will the mkt cap. Thats the whole point, right?

How do you know that without some kind of work to ascertain the potential cost-of-acquisition-per-user? Even if there were a few hundred ATMs in the US, that's still highly targeted. I mean, no one is going to travel a couple of hundred miles just to buy dash. And what if, despite all our best efforts, the public at large decide that bitcoin (or ethereum) is the better option to buy? (more widely known and accepted). There are way too many assumptions built into this proposal. At least offer us a backup plan if it doesn't pan out as expected.

As camosoul said, the whole point of crypto is to cut out the middle man. This proposal takes away everything that crypto was meant to stand for. A widely accept Dash in this form would mean AML / KYC for the majority of people. It would mean the continuation of charges based on percentages (instead of flat fees). It would mean a more volatile currency than the dollar (great on the way up, disaster on the way down). So why, as a regular Joe, would anyone use this other than speculation of a price rise?

 

[TroyDASH]

Could you please explain how "any profits would be returned to the network"? What does that mean? Why would the owners of the company feel obligated to return any profits indefinitely after the network has already funded their startup cost and they are no longer reliant on blockchain funding? How much will the company pay themselves (part of revenue-cost calculation)? Is anyone going to put up their own money at risk or is the entire startup cost coming from the blockchain?