[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[aigeezer]

Would it not be easier to sign contract with bitpay to accept dash? Or offer them money to do the development as they have contacts, experience and 'infrastructure". Like Tresor did ?
Instead of financing the current budget agreement?

I have come to the conclusion that adding Bitpay or other intermediaries is a toxic step in crypto-evolution, partly because it extends the life/utility/appeal of fiat indefinitely and - despite first impressions - it actually works against crypto progress.

My moment of enlightenment(?) came when I tried to renew a VPN contract and pay with crypto. The VPN provider's payment button redirected to Bitpay. A glitch resulted in Bitpay acceptiing my crypto payment, and the VPN provider (merchant) saying they did not receive it from Bitpay, that they had no leverage with Bitpay but that I should "reach out" to Bitpay to try and claw my payment back (so I could pay it again). Grumpiness aside, my takeaway was that if you value crypto as a privacy-enabler, then such privacy is at risk if you have to engage with the intermediary in a transaction, Bitpay in my example.

Bitpay and its various equivalents have genuine appeal, especially for merchants, but they subvert the peer-to-peer essence of crypto transactions and, in effect, become one more PayPal overhead.

That said, I take no position on the vending-machine++ funding proposal. My comments are about the general case of intermediaries in crypto transactions and my suggestion is that crypto design structure should always thwart the use of intermediaries, despite arguments from ease (I get it) or the temptation to grow markets (I get it).

Put another way, I value DASH over BTC partly because it more closely embodies the peer-to-peer model that was once normal in fiat. Adding an intermediary to any crypto subverts that peer-to-peer model, as I just learned the hard way when a transaction went awry - up to then, I was fairly pleased with the one-click convenience of intermediaries such as Bitpay. I had lost sight of my goals, blinded by ease of use.

[1715117717]

1715117717

[1715117717]

1715117717

[1715117717]

1715117717

[TanteStefana2]

Would it not be easier to sign contract with bitpay to accept dash? Or offer them money to do the development as they have contacts, experience and 'infrastructure". Like Tresor did ?
Instead of financing the current budget agreement?

I have come to the conclusion that adding Bitpay or other intermediaries is a toxic step in crypto-evolution, partly because it extends the life/utility/appeal of fiat indefinitely and - despite first impressions - it actually works against crypto progress.

My moment of enlightenment(?) came when I tried to renew a VPN contract and pay with crypto. The VPN provider's payment button redirected to Bitpay. A glitch resulted in Bitpay acceptiing my crypto payment, and the VPN provider (merchant) saying they did not receive it from Bitpay, that they had no leverage with Bitpay but that I should "reach out" to Bitpay to try and claw my payment back (so I could pay it again). Grumpiness aside, my takeaway was that if you value crypto as a privacy-enabler, then such privacy is at risk if you have to engage with the intermediary in a transaction, Bitpay in my example.

Bitpay and its various equivalents have genuine appeal, especially for merchants, but they subvert the peer-to-peer essence of crypto transactions and, in effect, become one more PayPal overhead.

That said, I take no position on the vending-machine++ funding proposal. My comments are about the general case of intermediaries in crypto transactions and my suggestion is that crypto design structure should always thwart the use of intermediaries, despite arguments from ease (I get it) or the temptation to grow markets (I get it).

Put another way, I value DASH over BTC partly because it more closely embodies the peer-to-peer model that was once normal in fiat. Adding an intermediary to any crypto subverts that peer-to-peer model, as I just learned the hard way when a transaction went awry - up to then, I was fairly pleased with the one-click convenience of intermediaries such as Bitpay. I had lost sight of my goals, blinded by ease of use.

+1001  This is why I'd like everyone to re-read the Vendor Experience proposal, which has been refined, and vote yes.

https://www.dashwhale.org/p/Vendor-Experience

[ddink7]

Would it not be easier to sign contract with bitpay to accept dash? Or offer them money to do the development as they have contacts, experience and 'infrastructure". Like Tresor did ?
Instead of financing the current budget agreement?

I have come to the conclusion that adding Bitpay or other intermediaries is a toxic step in crypto-evolution, partly because it extends the life/utility/appeal of fiat indefinitely and - despite first impressions - it actually works against crypto progress.

My moment of enlightenment(?) came when I tried to renew a VPN contract and pay with crypto. The VPN provider's payment button redirected to Bitpay. A glitch resulted in Bitpay acceptiing my crypto payment, and the VPN provider (merchant) saying they did not receive it from Bitpay, that they had no leverage with Bitpay but that I should "reach out" to Bitpay to try and claw my payment back (so I could pay it again). Grumpiness aside, my takeaway was that if you value crypto as a privacy-enabler, then such privacy is at risk if you have to engage with the intermediary in a transaction, Bitpay in my example.

Bitpay and its various equivalents have genuine appeal, especially for merchants, but they subvert the peer-to-peer essence of crypto transactions and, in effect, become one more PayPal overhead.

That said, I take no position on the vending-machine++ funding proposal. My comments are about the general case of intermediaries in crypto transactions and my suggestion is that crypto design structure should always thwart the use of intermediaries, despite arguments from ease (I get it) or the temptation to grow markets (I get it).

Put another way, I value DASH over BTC partly because it more closely embodies the peer-to-peer model that was once normal in fiat. Adding an intermediary to any crypto subverts that peer-to-peer model, as I just learned the hard way when a transaction went awry - up to then, I was fairly pleased with the one-click convenience of intermediaries such as Bitpay. I had lost sight of my goals, blinded by ease of use.

You make excellent points. I do think intermediaries are necessary to make the transition to crypto easier. One day we very well may realize the dream of a fiat-free world, where we have perfect peer-to-peer transactions without intermediaries. But I think we need an incremental approach for now; if we show ordinary people a really complex technology and tell them "take it or leave it; we're not going to make it easy for you to adjust" that they will just leave it.

I have always been fascinated with the argument that more vendors accepting Bitcoin result in lower prices for Bitcoin. It's ironic, but possibly true. Yet once people become comfortable using Bitcoin and know they can spend it at their favorite retailers or service providers, they will be more comfortable holding a bit more crypto than they need to use immediately. This could result in a significant uptick in demand, and eventually help "close the loop" and get people to go to a crypto-only or predominately-crypto position.

[aigeezer]

if we show ordinary people a really complex technology and tell them "take it or leave it; we're not going to make it easy for you to adjust" that they will just leave it.

I agree. Presumably the goal is to hide the complexity from the end-users, as done with cars, TVs, cell-phones and so forth. Computers make an interesting middle-of-the-road example. They are far too complex for some potential end-users, but "just right" for others. If we all had to think about transistor logic when we made forum posts we wouldn't get far, but the industry has "made it simple" with Windows and such.         

Eye of the beholder stuff, but I'm very happy if crypto wallets get easier and easier to use as long as third parties don't insert themselves into the process. Hmmn. I like Trezor, although I don't have one yet, and I like Slush. Is Trezor itself a third party of the kiind I'm fussing about? Aieee - my head hurts.

Again, I would never have started thinking along these lines without the sudden realization that I would have to deal with a third party - not a party of my choosing - in order to resolve a disputed transaction with a privacy provider. I abandoned the payment and switched VPN providers, rather than do that, fwiw - a little windfall for Bitpay, but peace of mind for me.

[ddink7]

if we show ordinary people a really complex technology and tell them "take it or leave it; we're not going to make it easy for you to adjust" that they will just leave it.

I agree. Presumably the goal is to hide the complexity from the end-users, as done with cars, TVs, cell-phones and so forth. Computers make an interesting middle-of-the-road example. They are far too complex for some potential end-users, but "just right" for others. If we all had to think about transistor logic when we made forum posts we wouldn't get far, but the industry has "made it simple" with Windows and such.         

Eye of the beholder stuff, but I'm very happy if crypto wallets get easier and easier to use as long as third parties don't insert themselves into the process. Hmmn. I like Trezor, although I don't have one yet, and I like Slush. Is Trezor itself a third party of the kiind I'm fussing about? Aieee - my head hurts.

Again, I would never have started thinking along these lines without the sudden realization that I would have to deal with a third party - not a party of my choosing - in order to resolve a disputed transaction with a privacy provider. I abandoned the payment and switched VPN providers, rather than do that, fwiw - a little windfall for Bitpay, but peace of mind for me.

A privacy service requiring an intermediary is definitely sub-optimal, to say the least!

I definitely see the crypto world ultimately functioning as an entire ecosystem. I envision numerous businesses, centralized and decentralized, existing around a common decentralized core. But we definitely need to at least partially close the loop. We need people who once receiving Dash will respend that Dash instead of converting to fiat.

[oaxaca]

But we definitely need to at least partially close the loop. We need people who once receiving Dash will respend that Dash instead of converting to fiat.

Agreed.  Make it happen.  Vote YES!

dash-cli mnbudget vote-many 1cfc2525f33d8dee81640f6860fc85751acea552724ec58d6619f7fcee694ea1 yes

[TanteStefana2]

Would it not be easier to sign contract with bitpay to accept dash? Or offer them money to do the development as they have contacts, experience and 'infrastructure". Like Tresor did ?
Instead of financing the current budget agreement?

I have come to the conclusion that adding Bitpay or other intermediaries is a toxic step in crypto-evolution, partly because it extends the life/utility/appeal of fiat indefinitely and - despite first impressions - it actually works against crypto progress.

My moment of enlightenment(?) came when I tried to renew a VPN contract and pay with crypto. The VPN provider's payment button redirected to Bitpay. A glitch resulted in Bitpay acceptiing my crypto payment, and the VPN provider (merchant) saying they did not receive it from Bitpay, that they had no leverage with Bitpay but that I should "reach out" to Bitpay to try and claw my payment back (so I could pay it again). Grumpiness aside, my takeaway was that if you value crypto as a privacy-enabler, then such privacy is at risk if you have to engage with the intermediary in a transaction, Bitpay in my example.

Bitpay and its various equivalents have genuine appeal, especially for merchants, but they subvert the peer-to-peer essence of crypto transactions and, in effect, become one more PayPal overhead.

That said, I take no position on the vending-machine++ funding proposal. My comments are about the general case of intermediaries in crypto transactions and my suggestion is that crypto design structure should always thwart the use of intermediaries, despite arguments from ease (I get it) or the temptation to grow markets (I get it).

Put another way, I value DASH over BTC partly because it more closely embodies the peer-to-peer model that was once normal in fiat. Adding an intermediary to any crypto subverts that peer-to-peer model, as I just learned the hard way when a transaction went awry - up to then, I was fairly pleased with the one-click convenience of intermediaries such as Bitpay. I had lost sight of my goals, blinded by ease of use.

You make excellent points. I do think intermediaries are necessary to make the transition to crypto easier. One day we very well may realize the dream of a fiat-free world, where we have perfect peer-to-peer transactions without intermediaries. But I think we need an incremental approach for now; if we show ordinary people a really complex technology and tell them "take it or leave it; we're not going to make it easy for you to adjust" that they will just leave it.

I have always been fascinated with the argument that more vendors accepting Bitcoin result in lower prices for Bitcoin. It's ironic, but possibly true. Yet once people become comfortable using Bitcoin and know they can spend it at their favorite retailers or service providers, they will be more comfortable holding a bit more crypto than they need to use immediately. This could result in a significant uptick in demand, and eventually help "close the loop" and get people to go to a crypto-only or predominately-crypto position.

Not if we support a team to create direct access to the system for merchants via the Vendor Experience proposal, creating a 3rd pillar of Dash Core Teams.  Structures do not stand on two pillars, they are blown over by the wind, but give it 3 pillars, you have a very stable structure.  We have Core Development, Core Marketing, and are missing Core Merchant integration. 

With Merchant integration, we have a USE for Dash.  Dash is nothing without being USEFUL. 

[GhostPlayer]

 I am voting no. Here is why.

 First off - I have the utmost respect for what Solar and Camo did with the soda machine. It was the right thing at the right time, and like I stated before, hats off to you gentlemen.

 But, basically, idealism and reality do not go hand in hand.

 As ddlink mentioned, to close the loop and people not cash out Dash for FIAT, we need to create an ecosystem large enough to support Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theorem - which is basically factual evidence in today's society - that I here apply to Dash.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

 Until you can pay for food, rent, clothing, healthcare, etc etc with Dash, you can never close the loop.

 While I totally applaud the effort, no one will use these vending machines with Dash. They may use the blockchain and Apple Pay or NFC, but never Dash. Why? 'Cos you have to buy Dash to spend Dash.

 The DGbB system will only be a victory if we think strategically on what are the basic necessities that Dash has, to build the first "floor" of this pyramid. You may ask "hey, isnt vending machines providing food and drink" ?

 Yes... but the vendor must then pay for distribution of soda's with Dash, distributers need to pay wharehouses with Dash, pay for suppliers with Dash, drink producers must pay raw materials with Dash, and agriculture must pay for seeds, water, fodder and farmers with Dash, who in turn pay rent, food etc etc.

 So while I totally get how this is indeed a very cool project, I consider it a waste of valuable resources for, essencially, something that has no ground to stand on, and can be developed posteriorly very very very quickly.

 Essentially, I just think it is too early for this. The first merchant adopters will be Service Providers, where no physical goods are produced.

[HinnomTX]

+1001  This is why I'd like everyone to re-read the Vendor Experience proposal, which has been refined, and vote yes.

https://www.dashwhale.org/p/Vendor-Experience

The revised proposal looks better, but I'm afraid camosoul is going to ragequit DASH before the proposal has a chance to get its wings. Because?? No one will come immediately to pick up the Dash n' Drink from him?  That has nothing to do with the proposal per se. Because we ask for some more details about the proposal when it was setup to run for 8 years without a clear explanation? Yeah 'you can vote it down anytime', but knowing the capriciousness of human nature, it will be difficult to reach consensus to get the funding revoked. No one has a clue what the crypto world will look like in 8 months, much less 8 years.

The Dash n' Drink vending machine was, and is, a brilliant idea brought to fruition on a ridiculously short schedule. This initiative had a major impact on the DASH brand. Google dash n drink and we are right at the top. Lots of articles and youtube videos. The thing is, the Dash n' Drink is such a showstopper that it needs to go on tour. It needs to go to more nerd conventions. Not the Bitcoin echo chamber conventions. Think CES in Vegas. It just can't end up at the back of someone's QuikStop (or camosoul's storage shed for that matter). But it might take a little patience before a plan comes together. So I really hope that camosoul can find some.

[GhostPlayer]

+1001  This is why I'd like everyone to re-read the Vendor Experience proposal, which has been refined, and vote yes.

https://www.dashwhale.org/p/Vendor-Experience

The revised proposal looks better, but I'm afraid camosoul is going to ragequit DASH before the proposal has a chance to get its wings. Because?? No one will come immediately to pick up the Dash n' Drink from him?  That has nothing to do with the proposal per se. Because we ask for some more details about the proposal when it was setup to run for 8 years without a clear explanation? Yeah 'you can vote it down anytime', but knowing the capriciousness of human nature, it will be difficult to reach consensus to get the funding revoked. No one has a clue what the crypto world will look like in 8 months, much less 8 years.

The Dash n' Drink vending machine was, and is, a brilliant idea brought to fruition on a ridiculously short schedule. This initiative had a major impact on the DASH brand. Google dash n drink and we are right at the top. Lots of articles and youtube videos. The thing is, the Dash n' Drink is such a showstopper that it needs to go on tour. It needs to go to more nerd conventions. Not the Bitcoin echo chamber conventions. Think CES in Vegas. It just can't end up at the back of someone's QuikStop (or camosoul's storage shed for that matter). But it might take a little patience before a plan comes together. So I really hope that camosoul can find some.

 Totally agree! I would definitely vote "yes" to tour Dash 'n Drink around !

[oaxaca]

While I totally applaud the effort, no one will use these vending machines with Dash. They may use the blockchain and Apple Pay or NFC, but never Dash. Why? 'Cos you have to buy Dash to spend Dash.

The driver here is the merchant, not the customer.  The customer can simply use apple pay attached to a credit card because they don't see a cost associated with that.  The Merchant on the other hand, sees 3-5% bank fees, chargebacks, disputes, delays in getting funds from the bank.  DASH solves those problems for the Merchant.

[ddink7]

The revised proposal looks better, but I'm afraid camosoul is going to ragequit DASH before the proposal has a chance to get its wings.

^This

[GhostPlayer]

While I totally applaud the effort, no one will use these vending machines with Dash. They may use the blockchain and Apple Pay or NFC, but never Dash. Why? 'Cos you have to buy Dash to spend Dash.

The driver here is the merchant, not the customer.  The customer can simply use apple pay attached to a credit card because they don't see a cost associated with that.  The Merchant on the other hand, sees 3-5% bank fees, chargebacks, disputes, delays in getting funds from the bank.  DASH solves those problems for the Merchant.

 It does, but the driver can only drive if there is an engine, and in this case that's the consumer.

 A consumer will only consume if there is a necessity, or a problem solved.

 If the merchant can sell a soda cheap enough for the hassle of the consumer to go out and buy Dash, bingo. Unfortunately, that is impossible right now. The actual Point of Sale makes it cheaper, but down the chain he'll have to convert to FIAT to keep his business alive. Add volatility, and the merchant is now a gambler. That is why BitPay et al. exist.

 It's not viable for either at this moment. That, unfortunately, is the cold truth.

[oaxaca]

While I totally applaud the effort, no one will use these vending machines with Dash. They may use the blockchain and Apple Pay or NFC, but never Dash. Why? 'Cos you have to buy Dash to spend Dash.

The driver here is the merchant, not the customer.  The customer can simply use apple pay attached to a credit card because they don't see a cost associated with that.  The Merchant on the other hand, sees 3-5% bank fees, chargebacks, disputes, delays in getting funds from the bank.  DASH solves those problems for the Merchant.

 It does, but the driver can only drive if there is an engine, and in this case that's the consumer.

 A consumer will only consume if there is a necessity, or a problem solved.

 If the merchant can sell a soda cheap enough for the hassle of the consumer to go out and buy Dash, bingo. Unfortunately, that is impossible right now. The actual Point of Sale makes it cheaper, but down the chain he'll have to convert to FIAT to keep his business alive. Add volatility, and the merchant is now a gambler. That is why BitPay et al. exist.

 It's not viable for either at this moment. That, unfortunately, is the cold truth.

Why would anybody use email when we have a perfectly good postal system?

Why would anybody drive in an automobile when we have perfectly good horses?

[TanteStefana2]

I am voting no. Here is why.

 First off - I have the utmost respect for what Solar and Camo did with the soda machine. It was the right thing at the right time, and like I stated before, hats off to you gentlemen.

 But, basically, idealism and reality do not go hand in hand.

 As ddlink mentioned, to close the loop and people not cash out Dash for FIAT, we need to create an ecosystem large enough to support Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theorem - which is basically factual evidence in today's society - that I here apply to Dash.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

 Until you can pay for food, rent, clothing, healthcare, etc etc with Dash, you can never close the loop.

 While I totally applaud the effort, no one will use these vending machines with Dash. They may use the blockchain and Apple Pay or NFC, but never Dash. Why? 'Cos you have to buy Dash to spend Dash.

 The DGbB system will only be a victory if we think strategically on what are the basic necessities that Dash has, to build the first "floor" of this pyramid. You may ask "hey, isnt vending machines providing food and drink" ?

 Yes... but the vendor must then pay for distribution of soda's with Dash, distributers need to pay wharehouses with Dash, pay for suppliers with Dash, drink producers must pay raw materials with Dash, and agriculture must pay for seeds, water, fodder and farmers with Dash, who in turn pay rent, food etc etc.

 So while I totally get how this is indeed a very cool project, I consider it a waste of valuable resources for, essencially, something that has no ground to stand on, and can be developed posteriorly very very very quickly.

 Essentially, I just think it is too early for this. The first merchant adopters will be Service Providers, where no physical goods are produced.

What is this about Vending machines?  This is about merchant integration, not vending machines!  It's about making sure that nothing gets between merchants and direct access to the payment network.  Sure, they'll probably go through an exchange to change their Dash for fiat, just like overstock did, but that's a choice.  If they had to buy expensive equipment through someone because they can't upgrade their checkout registers, or they can't afford to install another payment system at their gas pumps, or someone comes along to do this at high profit, it'll never happen.  If we keep this cheap or free for them to try it out, they might take a chance on cryptos.  Lets face it, it might be years before it becomes worth the trouble, but maybe if we help it along it'll be more like a year.  We're trying to build a cycle.  Merchants make the option available, and if the customer uses the option, they get a discount.... hummmm  But how do I get Dash?  Well, maybe the Merchant sells it too, via the same system they just created in Canada, it could be part of this project.  So now, the merchants sell Dash, and accept Dash.  

This project isn't about vending machines, its all about creating Merchant solutions, that are open sourced for anyone to build on top of, and using simple equipment that anyone can buy, and providing at least basic support.  Thus creating a USE for Dash, without which Dash is just another crypto play thing for the markets.

I can then see small businesses building these systems and installing them in their areas on the cheap because it will all have been worked out for them and the merchants.

Things merchants need:

Integrated inventory control
Change systems
quick secure storage, and ability to have a cashier deal with the wallet without having access to its funds.

beyond that, god only knows, but the team will find out! 

[toknormal]

I thought the DGBB was intended for coin development and the associated funds were intended for coin development.

What about this ?

[ddink7]

While I totally applaud the effort, no one will use these vending machines with Dash. They may use the blockchain and Apple Pay or NFC, but never Dash. Why? 'Cos you have to buy Dash to spend Dash.

The driver here is the merchant, not the customer.  The customer can simply use apple pay attached to a credit card because they don't see a cost associated with that.  The Merchant on the other hand, sees 3-5% bank fees, chargebacks, disputes, delays in getting funds from the bank.  DASH solves those problems for the Merchant.

 It does, but the driver can only drive if there is an engine, and in this case that's the consumer.

 A consumer will only consume if there is a necessity, or a problem solved.

 If the merchant can sell a soda cheap enough for the hassle of the consumer to go out and buy Dash, bingo. Unfortunately, that is impossible right now. The actual Point of Sale makes it cheaper, but down the chain he'll have to convert to FIAT to keep his business alive. Add volatility, and the merchant is now a gambler. That is why BitPay et al. exist.

 It's not viable for either at this moment. That, unfortunately, is the cold truth.

Why would anybody use email when we have a perfectly good postal system?

Why would anybody drive in an automobile when we have perfectly good horses?

Email is thousands of times faster, and free, and simple to use.

Cars are hundreds of times faster and easier to maintain.

Crypto-currency saves money on fees and takes control away from centralized banks and (currently) is complicated as hell to understand and use.

...there's really no comparison. The advantages aren't nearly as compelling.

[BrainShutdown]

While I totally applaud the effort, no one will use these vending machines with Dash. They may use the blockchain and Apple Pay or NFC, but never Dash. Why? 'Cos you have to buy Dash to spend Dash.

The driver here is the merchant, not the customer.  The customer can simply use apple pay attached to a credit card because they don't see a cost associated with that.  The Merchant on the other hand, sees 3-5% bank fees, chargebacks, disputes, delays in getting funds from the bank.  DASH solves those problems for the Merchant.

 It does, but the driver can only drive if there is an engine, and in this case that's the consumer.

 A consumer will only consume if there is a necessity, or a problem solved.

 If the merchant can sell a soda cheap enough for the hassle of the consumer to go out and buy Dash, bingo. Unfortunately, that is impossible right now. The actual Point of Sale makes it cheaper, but down the chain he'll have to convert to FIAT to keep his business alive. Add volatility, and the merchant is now a gambler. That is why BitPay et al. exist.

 It's not viable for either at this moment. That, unfortunately, is the cold truth.

Why would anybody use email when we have a perfectly good postal system?

Why would anybody drive in an automobile when we have perfectly good horses?

+1 new products/services are always introduced by merchants/providers not consumers.

[ddink7]

I thought the DGBB was intended for coin development and the associated funds were intended for coin development.

What about this ?

I always viewed DGBB as being intended for ecosystem development. But that may just have been a personal opinion rather than a statement from the core team.

[TanteStefana2]

+1001  This is why I'd like everyone to re-read the Vendor Experience proposal, which has been refined, and vote yes.

https://www.dashwhale.org/p/Vendor-Experience

The revised proposal looks better, but I'm afraid camosoul is going to ragequit DASH before the proposal has a chance to get its wings. Because?? No one will come immediately to pick up the Dash n' Drink from him?  That has nothing to do with the proposal per se. Because we ask for some more details about the proposal when it was setup to run for 8 years without a clear explanation? Yeah 'you can vote it down anytime', but knowing the capriciousness of human nature, it will be difficult to reach consensus to get the funding revoked. No one has a clue what the crypto world will look like in 8 months, much less 8 years.

The Dash n' Drink vending machine was, and is, a brilliant idea brought to fruition on a ridiculously short schedule. This initiative had a major impact on the DASH brand. Google dash n drink and we are right at the top. Lots of articles and youtube videos. The thing is, the Dash n' Drink is such a showstopper that it needs to go on tour. It needs to go to more nerd conventions. Not the Bitcoin echo chamber conventions. Think CES in Vegas. It just can't end up at the back of someone's QuikStop (or camosoul's storage shed for that matter). But it might take a little patience before a plan comes together. So I really hope that camosoul can find some.

he rage-quits all the time, it's part of his therapy, he comes back later in a better mood after either realizing he was wrong or getting his way   If he gets his way, it's because he was right, who cares if it inflates his ego, his ego is the same thing that drives him to do things, and do them well, so it's win win.