Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

Lebubar

Active Member
Mar 15, 2014
251
215
103
Congratulation, sound really great idea!
Really excited about this new concept ;)

Just some small comments :
-Like Mr Crouton, 15% can be a lot of money at the end of the month. Not that I want to have more for my MN, but we all here think that the DASH value will increase (with such ideas like this) at 3$ a DASH this will generate the equivalent of ~1200$ per day (36K $ per month), imagine at just 10$ a DASH it will be ~4K $ per day (~120K $ per month).
-The vote can be done on the local or hot MN daemon? (or both)? In the case the vote is done on the hot daemon, this will give more power to Flare's or other person making MN services. Edit: I don't want to say "power" but normally the Flare's service is trust-less, in case he can make the vote then it will not be trustless anymore or maybe I'm wrong..

-The people running shared MN will need to make a vote between them to know where the MN's vote will go... ;)
 

oaxaca

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jul 8, 2014
573
832
263
Amazing concept. Well done to all who pitched in.

I propose a small change to the voting mechanism. We are not living in the 19th century wearing powdered wigs. Change the vote from "yay/nay" to "yes/no".
 
  • Like
Reactions: r-ando

bioly

New Member
Jan 1, 2015
3
3
3
Great idea, I'm very impressed! IMO it's breath of fresh air in cryptocurrency world
 

kot

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Mar 17, 2015
767
2,001
263
eduffield,

This looks fantastic! Finally something more just another payment processor or payment acceptance.
Creative idea that shows the power this technology. Simply amazing...
I am sure it is just the beginning and future of the crypto/blockchain - projects and companies using power of blockchain. Congratulations!
 

alex-ru

Grizzled Member
Jul 14, 2014
2,374
3,243
1,183
-Like Mr Crouton, 15% can be a lot of money at the end of the month. Not that I want to have more for my MN, but we all here think that the DASH value will increase (with such ideas like this) at 3$ a DASH this will generate the equivalent of ~1200$ per day (36K $ per month), imagine at just 10$ a DASH it will be ~4K $ per day (~120K $ per month).
It will not be right 15% from the beginning. First month - 2,5%, second - 5% and so on.
As we have no practical experience with effective spending such money - It will be wise not to spend it immediately - but accumulate for future expenses and projects.
Let's imagine "decentralized exchange" project - it can't be cheap. Lets imagine "7 new full-time DEVs", "5 new videos", "full-time newsman" and other possible options.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lebubar

Active Member
Mar 15, 2014
251
215
103
It will not be right 15% from the beginning. First month - 2,5%, second - 5% and so on.
As we have no practical experience with effective spending such money - It will be wise not to spend it immediately - but accumulate for future expenses and projects.
Lets imagine "decentralized exchange" project - it can't be cheap. Lets imagine "7 new full-time DEVs", "5 new videos", "full-time newsman" and other possible options.
Yeh, you are right. Anyway this is great innovation, the revolution can begin....
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
When I think about it and step back to look at the whole picture I see some amazing potential growth. This system allows anyone with an idea to put it forward, They can discuss it with the community and have a chance to get their project funded. Masternodes will act in the best interests of DASH as a whole because they've got a vested interest. So, with all the debate from everyone, they make as informed a decision as possible. And if a project is given the green light and is funded, then when the project stalls or is dropped, the project can be cancelled immediately. Just like firing an employee. Even so, I see masternode owners needing to rely on boards or committees to inform them of most things going on in the end.

But now take a couple of steps back even further. Imagine DASH grows even bigger. Imagine that one of the helpful projects creates it's own income stream, and that income stream is used to fund a new "chain" of production and so on? These new branches that might have once been funded by the masternode system, might now become the new hub of development entirely funded by their original project and independent of DASH entirely. Do this enough times over time, and you have a web of production, a whole new industry of all kinds of things, based off of DASH. It truly is limitless and truly global.

Now think on this. Money represents time skill and effort. The more time skill and effort put into the system, the more money is created (or the more value money is given). There may only be so many DASH available, but it's only a unit with flexible value. The value will go up multifold as time work and effort are pumped into it. So basically, what I'm saying here is that there is no "physical" reason why DASH couldn't become the world's money ........... period. And yes, it's that much like cash, and that easy to use that DASH actually has every real chance of making it and bringing down the financial system of yesteryear.

But I don't see it happening where the world falls into chaos, rather as the grass-roots effort of DASH (and other blockchain technologies such as Ethereum), the banksters and yes, even governments will eventually have to fold into. This will likely be a double system for a long time to come, but soon blockchain technology will be a part of every infrastructure and through acceptance there, understanding of what we are doing here will evolve, and slowly but surely, the world will come into the fold. Not because of the promise of making tons of money but because it's so extremely trustless and open and the people will demand it.

Ok, I've said it before, I'm quite a dreamer. But if it isn't DASH, the world surely will fall into the fold of blockchain tech, that much I can see! And why not DASH?
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,841
2,649
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
Super busy today, so I'm late to the party although I've already tweeted the good news to all my followers.

Add #DGBB to the long list of Dash innovations. Simply amazing! Details to work out, to be sure, but an excellent effort to get that ball rolling. Dash is truly positioning itself to be quite a competition for Bitcoin. No offense, but good luck Bitcoin!
If you think twice about it you'll see an endless number of applications for "Decentralized Governance By Blockchain" (DGBB).

That's HUGE!

Edit: can we please elect the next president of the U.S. this way?
Canada could use this as well. It is truly mind boggling what we can create here.

For those weak hands and non-believers who were dumping their DASH during the last dip these past few days, thanks for helping me load up on some more! DASH is more than just the ticker price! It's a revolution.

At this rate of development and innovation DASH will become a phenomenon thanks to all of those working behind the scenes to make it the best crypto-currency and blockchain platform ever.
Fools and their money are soon parted. Congrats on the Dash, and let's get started building something awesome!

Fantastic idea. Had to chuckle when in a moment of serendipity, I also read that BTC core developers are joining MIT Digital Currency Initiative in hopes of brining some stability to BTC development. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cor...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Hahaha! They don't know what's about to hit them!
Yes - what a PRESENT! This is the Best innovation in this cryptocurrency!

Sky is no limit now! DASH obviously will outstrip Bitcoin. From this moment it's just a question of time.

Evan, thank you for thinking strategically!

P.S. Masternode operators, please don't worry about less % - do care about more real value you will get as result!
It really is a no brainer. The added value from the usability and multiple income-generating businesses that can be built on the network far surpasses trying to wring out a bigger percentage of much less. I do support crouton's proposal of 40-50-10 though. Nice even numbers, and recognizes the Masternode owners with half of the proceeds.
Quite a brilliant plan Evan, with the potential to transform the entire way we think about decision making and organisational management.

One area that I'm keen to hear yours and other people's views on, is how an approach like this will handle the fact that, unlike say elections of politicians where one vote supposedly has one value (i.e. a wealthy person's vote is equivalent to the vote of a lower socio-economic voter), the power of the vote within a consensus mechanism like this is very much skewed towards those with large masternode numbers. This is in effect no different to shareholder voting within publicly listed companies where large shareholder groups can heavily influence board proposals, even to the point of voting for individuals to be appointed or removed from boards or dramatic mergers and acquisitions agreed to that may be detrimental to smaller shareholders.

Within the voting rights for shareholders it's seen as "he or she that has the highest risk exposure by investing in the stock should therefore have the greatest voting rights" and this is certainly valid to a degree.Where it starts to fall down is when voting is facilitating greater and greater levels of monopolistic control (i.e. "the rich get richer"). Although crypto by default tends to negate some aspects of this, I'm expecting there will still be many ways large masternode holders could end up with substantial "political" weight to influence support for proposals that bring them even greater influence.

Somewhat of a can of worms I'm opening here, but I think this aspect needs to be discussed (certainly prior to a "masternode vote many yay" command gets introduced!) :)
These are valid points, and do need to be discussed in the near future.
eduffield,

This looks fantastic! Finally something more just another payment processor or payment acceptance.
Creative idea that shows the power this technology. Simply amazing...
I am sure it is just the beginning and future of the crypto/blockchain - projects and companies using power of blockchain. Congratulations!
Woot! Woot! DGBB FTW!!! :D:D:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: buster

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
In my opinion, pulling a set amount from the blockchain for future spending encourages frivolous spending. I would instead say that the blockchain amount changes only when there is a need. For example, a proposed video to support Dash needs a 6 month take of 1%. MNs vote and then after approved the split changes. After 6 months the split reverts. We could do the same for new features, wallets, etc. I would encourage each funding proposal to expire after a set time. Putting a permanent 'development tax' on the blockchain sounds really bad to me.

There are other funding opportunities that could return an income. An exchange could be funded that would profit from transaction fees. The profit could go to management, funding other projects, or even paying back the amount funded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thelonecrouton

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
In my opinion, pulling a set amount from the blockchain for future spending encourages frivolous spending. I would instead say that the blockchain amount changes only when there is a need. For example, a proposed video to support Dash needs a 6 month take of 1%. MNs vote and then after approved the split changes. After 6 months the split reverts. We could do the same for new features, wallets, etc. I would encourage each funding proposal to expire after a set time. Putting a permanent 'development tax' on the blockchain sounds really bad to me.

There are other funding opportunities that could return an income. An exchange could be funded that would profit from transaction fees. The profit could go to management, funding other projects, or even paying back the amount funded.

This is not taking a set amount from the blockchain and giving it to someone else to execute, that would not work, this is way deeper. Each masternode operator will reinvest and execute a portion of his rewards in developing the ecosystem he benefits from as part of his social contract with the network and in the best interest of the organization he participates in. There is no additional inflation or change in the emission, and the control of the funds is not forfeit to a central authority, the operators themselves decide and execute the program. Is hard to make a comparison to something else in crypto because it simply does not exist, it is a brand new model.

Anything that furthers the ecosystem can be proposed and submitted for approval but will require the backing of the network as a whole. All currencies will face this same issue if they are more than short term experiments and they really want to execute in the real world, they would need a more formal structure and organization.

The development team will have to present their request for funding to the masternode network and will need the approval and that approval can be removed if necessary there is a check and balance system in place. This is actually very deep.

The Bitcoin core developers are basically being bailed out at the moment by private corporations that is a poor situation to be in. In the case of BTC they are in a "too big to fail" situation in the crypto ecosystem, if they die right now, the whole ecosystem dies as the rest of the projects are not yet mature enough. These private companies would not fund any altcoin if it runs into trouble, that is why projects like Dogecoin are doomed to fail and have no development at all.

Dash is identifying these core issues of crypto and coming up with a practical solution that includes a fair contribution by those that are invested and have a bond of trust with the network, but at the same time those same actors execute their contribution through wisdom of the crowd and fair voting. There is really nothing like it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

alex-ru

Grizzled Member
Jul 14, 2014
2,374
3,243
1,183
... This system allows anyone with an idea to put it forward, They can discuss it with the community and have a chance to get their project funded.
I agree, this is also very important way of popularization. All crypto and non-crypto world must get this clear idea: "There are so many individual ways of being useful and being sponsored (not just mining, not just masternoding)".
Hope this will help us to attract many new talented people in community - everybody can come to us and ask: "I can do *** for DASH. Do you need me? Do you want to pay me?"
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
In my opinion, pulling a set amount from the blockchain for future spending encourages frivolous spending. I would instead say that the blockchain amount changes only when there is a need. For example, a proposed video to support Dash needs a 6 month take of 1%. MNs vote and then after approved the split changes. After 6 months the split reverts. We could do the same for new features, wallets, etc. I would encourage each funding proposal to expire after a set time. Putting a permanent 'development tax' on the blockchain sounds really bad to me.
Liking this idea. If there are approved projects to fund, divert that agreed amount to fund them. If not, why stockpile money? Keep a reserve but cap it at something sensible. Don't take from miners and MN ops when it's not needed.

Contractors should be paid after they deliver to full spec, never before, we shouldn't be fronting money to anyone.

Who's in control of this pot anyway? There's someone out there with 600 MNs or something. What % of votes are needed to decide a poll?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
Liking this idea. If there are approved projects to fund, divert that agreed amount to fund them. If not, why stockpile money? Keep a reserve but cap it at something sensible. Don't take from miners and MN ops when it's not needed.

Contractors should be paid after they deliver to full spec, never before, we shouldn't be fronting money to anyone.

Who's in control of this pot anyway? There's someone out there with 600 MNs or something. What % of votes are needed to decide a poll?
I've just read through this thread and am having the same questions.
 

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
Liking this idea. If there are approved projects to fund, divert that agreed amount to fund them. If not, why stockpile money? Keep a reserve but cap it at something sensible. Don't take from miners and MN ops when it's not needed.

Contractors should be paid after they deliver to full spec, never before, we shouldn't be fronting money to anyone.

Who's in control of this pot anyway? There's someone out there with 600 MNs or something. What % of votes are needed to decide a poll?
I think 51% to approve a proposal, we have 2500 MN and growing, 600 votes would not get you very far, this would require consensus. About contractors I guess there would be permanent members of the team that we would fund, like Udjin or Flare.

If is an external service we can always give a portion in advance to start and then the rest upon completion or by installments. Is just normal business we would not be reinventing the wheel there.
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
This is not taking a set amount from the blockchain and giving it to someone else to execute, that would not work, this is way deeper. Each masternode operator will reinvest and execute a portion of his rewards in developing the ecosystem he benefits from as part of his social contract with the network and in the best interest of the organization he participates in. There is no additional inflation or change in the emission, and the control of the funds is not forfeit to central authority, the operators themselves decide and execute the program. Is hard to make a comparison to something else in crypto because it simply does not exist, it is a brand new model.
I probably said that incorrectly. Why are we holding the portion of the block rewards in escrow BEFORE we know how much is needed? This is really the same as saying a portion of the block rewards are taken from the masternodes and miners, which is voted on how it is spent. Doesn't this not sound like a tax? If we fix the proportion that goes to projects forever, we may be in trouble when the DASH value goes down(yeah right) or be putting way too much into projects when the value goes up(of course).

A project by project %/time vote is much better. The percent for each masternode/miner would change with each project that gets approved. This vote would then be a logical funding decision instead of the which is the best of the good or bad potential projects available. This would also allow funding projects instantly instead of waiting for enough in escrow to fund a project.

I am totally on board with paying for development, so don't get me wrong. Projects would be offered for x mo/years at x% to develop x key feature. Hopefully, there are several options to choose and that will drive development in the most efficient way.

As for funding upfront, I would suggest the project is paid as the block rewards come through and not all at once. If the project is failing, there would be a vote to stop the payments. That way no party is holding the funds in escrow.
 

David

Well-known Member
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
I probably said that incorrectly. Why are we holding the portion of the block rewards in escrow BEFORE we know how much is needed? This is really the same as saying a portion of the block rewards are taken from the masternodes and miners, which is voted on how it is spent. Doesn't this not sound like a tax? If we fix the proportion that goes to projects forever, we may be in trouble when the DASH value goes down(yeah right) or be putting way too much into projects when the value goes up(of course).

A project by project %/time vote is much better. The percent for each masternode/miner would change with each project that gets approved. This vote would then be a logical funding decision instead of the which is the best of the good or bad potential projects available. This would also allow funding projects instantly instead of waiting for enough in escrow to fund a project.

I am totally on board with paying for development, so don't get me wrong. Projects would be offered for x mo/years at x% to develop x key feature. Hopefully, there are several options to choose and that will drive development in the most efficient way.

As for funding upfront, I would suggest the project is paid as the block rewards come through and not all at once. If the project is failing, there would be a vote to stop the payments. That way no party is holding the funds in escrow.
I don't see this working solar, because it depends on masternode owners voting to reduce their income to fund projects. By building it into the protocol, it's automatic.

I don't think it's wise to give mn owners sixty percent of the block reward by default, and then tell them they can divert some of this money to development if they like. That's the weakness of the donation model that already exists!
 

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
I probably said that incorrectly. Why are we holding the portion of the block rewards in escrow BEFORE we know how much is needed? This is really the same as saying a portion of the block rewards are taken from the masternodes and miners, which is voted on how it is spent. Doesn't this not sound like a tax? If we fix the proportion that goes to projects forever, we may be in trouble when the DASH value goes down(yeah right) or be putting way too much into projects when the value goes up(of course).

A project by project %/time vote is much better. The percent for each masternode/miner would change with each project that gets approved. This vote would then be a logical funding decision instead of the which is the best of the good or bad potential projects available. This would also allow funding projects instantly instead of waiting for enough in escrow to fund a project.

I am totally on board with paying for development, so don't get me wrong. Projects would be offered for x mo/years at x% to develop x key feature. Hopefully, there are several options to choose and that will drive development in the most efficient way.

As for funding upfront, I would suggest the project is paid as the block rewards come through and not all at once. If the project is failing, there would be a vote to stop the payments. That way no party is holding the funds in escrow.
I see where you are coming from, the reason why I don't like this idea is because it provides an incentive to masternode operators to not fund projects, abstain or simply vote no. I feel that would be a weakness of the system, the amount of money we would have to work with as things stand today is not even the budget of a small business. There does not need to be any waste as we could keep a reserve, about having too much funds in the future, well that would only be the result of the success of the initiative, the ecosystem growing, more features, more adoption. In that theoretical situation, we can always make adjustments is a good problem to have. The alternative of being underfunded and people voting no because they have an incentive to keep the rewards would just leave us where we already are. Operators should vote no, because they don't like a proposal, not because they get to keep the money. A system like that would not work in practice, IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strix and aleix

masternode

New Member
Mar 9, 2015
39
68
18
I don't see this working solar, because it depends on masternode owners voting to reduce their income to fund projects. By building it into the protocol, it's automatic.

I don't think it's wise to give mn owners sixty percent of the block reward by default, and then tell them they can divert some of this money to development if they like. That's the weakness of the donation model that already exists!
David you are exactly right. The idea is that funds are set aside to be used ONLY for the advancement of Dash or it's ecosystem. MN holders then decide where best to apply these funds. I'm a big believer in the wisdom of crowds and this will be a fantastic application of it. If money is being wasted you'll see those projects quickly voted away, and the most important initiatives will obviously get the most attention.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
I don't see this working solar, because it depends on masternode owners voting to reduce their income to fund projects. By building it into the protocol, it's automatic.

I don't think it's wise to give mn owners sixty percent of the block reward by default, and then tell them they can divert some of this money to development if they like. That's the weakness of the donation model that already exists!
^^^^ THIS ^^^^

And like I said in the other thread, if there is a surplus in the future, the surplus could be automatically deposited into yet another account at the end of a year, and a % of it added to each block reward throughout the year in order to pay it back to the miners. However, I don't see this happening for a long long time. There are a lot of projects that should be started here, but there won't be nearly enough to fund them with even 15% of the block rewards. But it'll be a good start, and as value is added to DASH via these projects, the price of DASH should go up, increasing the real value of the coin/budget.

But yes, we can't do this as a donation, it won't be funded then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r-ando

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
I see where you are coming from, the reason why I don't like this idea is because it provides an incentive to masternode operators to not fund projects, abstain or simply vote no.
There is an incentive for MNs to grow the value of DASH. The alternative would be to fund projects with only miner block rewards or a larger portion than the MN block rewards.
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
I think 51% to approve a proposal, we have 2500 MN and growing, 600 votes would not get you very far, this would require consensus. About contractors I guess there would be permanent members of the team that we would fund, like Udjin or Flare.

If is an external service we can always give a portion in advance to start and then the rest upon completion or by installments. Is just normal business we would not be reinventing the wheel there.
I have no problem with Evan, Flare, Udjin, Crowning etc -ie, proven contributors- being paid a retainer or salary, subject to continued quality input.

My concern, put bluntly, is that an ever-replenishing DASH hoard is going, (as Solarminer said, rather more politely) to get pissed away on a bunch of half-assed crap that might not ever even materialise. I have my doubts about the real world business acumen of certain people here. :tongue:

15% is just far too much IMO. I'd rather see a min 5% - max 10% as needed type arrangement. Arguing that MN ops would all no-vote everything for short term gains is disingenuous, the same could be said for those wishing to rubber stamp 15% of the money supply for their own ends while disallowing the rest of us a say in the matter.
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
What I understand is Evan already has his cost of living set and covered for two years so he can devote his time for this project. All I see the names for the payroll currently should be only: flare, Udjin, crowning, and if other devs have put in their time and effort then they should be paid according to their one-time inputs each time. That's it, i don't see anyone else should be on payroll for me to pay them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solarminer

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
What I understand is Evan already has his cost of living set and covered for two years so he can devote his time for this project. All I see the names for the payroll currently should be only: flare, Udjin, crowning, and if other devs have put in their time and effort then they should be paid according to their one-time inputs each time. That's it, i don't see anyone else should be on payroll for me to pay them.
That is why the system relies on the wisdom of crowds theory and the ability to actively change your votes. The aggregated opinions of a group that is invested in the outcome of an enterprise will quickly adjust looking for the best possible outcome. If developer X is not perfoming, funding is taken away not when one person feels like it but when the weighted opinion of the investors determines is the right move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strix

JGCMiner

Active Member
Jun 8, 2014
364
217
113
David you are exactly right. The idea is that funds are set aside to be used ONLY for the advancement of Dash or it's ecosystem. MN holders then decide where best to apply these funds. I'm a big believer in the wisdom of crowds and this will be a fantastic application of it. If money is being wasted you'll see those projects quickly voted away, and the most important initiatives will obviously get the most attention.
This is exactly right. Maybe I just don't have enough faith in humanity in general, but I believe that if you give people the choice of keeping their money or using their money for a cause that might make them more money in the future then 9/10 people will just keep the money.

Quibble about whether 5%,10%, 20% or whatever % should be reserved, but whatever number we decide on it should be fixed. I doubt money will pile up anyway. There are always new things to work on and existing work can almost always be speed up by hiring more people.

Minotaur eduffield
In general I think the proposal is really good, but I am concerned about the apparent lack of checks and balances. What would happen if a proposal that is really bad for the longterm prospects of the coin but is really good for the short term profit of the MN owners is approved? Let's say a proposal to change the reward split to 85/10/5 (MN/dev funds/miners). Again, maybe I just lack faith in people, but I really worry about selfiness in this system if there are no safeguards. Obviously that example is extreme, but what is the current plan to prevent such abuses?
 
  • Like
Reactions: strix

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
What I understand is Evan already has his cost of living set and covered for two years so he can devote his time for this project. All I see the names for the payroll currently should be only: flare, Udjin, crowning, and if other devs have put in their time and effort then they should be paid according to their one-time inputs each time. That's it, i don't see anyone else should be on payroll for me to pay them.
moli, with due respect, I think your view is very narrow-minded. The core developers have their hands full just fixing any loop hole, smoothing out ease of use and refining what we have created. Who is going to do all the other things we need? We have someone working on the android wallet, voluntarily (unless it costs to download?) The same goes for the ios wallet. Shouldn't they be compensated? Maybe not? It's a question that could be put before the MNs. What about other possible projects that couldn't ever get off the ground due to the main core developers not having enough hours in the day? Like a decentralized exchange? Not only that, if the Masternodes approved a decentralized exchange that would be integrated into the Masternode network, heck, they could earn extra coin providing a side service! (maybe 1% of all exchanges!) Some of those funds could be set aside like those from mining for side ventures as well! What about a tor like network that runs through masternodes, far more effective than TOR, with micro payments to use. Super cheap, but strong enough to stream unlimited information? A secondary network, which could even hook up with Ethereum for a broader market (or other projects I'm not aware of) A decentralized auction/marketplace site? Those are just the obvious projects. I can come up with more:

A secure trustless masternode sharing system
A traveling informational team that promotes and lectures on DASH.
A marketing fund.

It goes on and on, and all these value added services increase the usefulness of DASH and therefore the price, benefiting all investors and users.

So only wanting to care for a core team is extremely small thinking, in my honest opinion :)