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

[Solarminer]

I understand you are a very passionate person and have a certain outlook on things, I respect that, but this is not a political thing. We do votes every month so we can't let the process become emotional.  Transform has done a really good job for us, anyone on the team that has worked with them can confirm.   My interest is only that our network tries to keep all of its commitments as that is important. That includes paying the reimbursement of the soda machine and also complying with its third party service contracts. We will do both so no worries. We will continue to deal with monthly payments for many years to come so we should not make it more complicated than it really is.

Minotaur,

I understand you are trying to work with a 'contract' with Transform PR.  The network can't give priority to proposals under a contract vs not in a contract.  The network doesn't have any commitment to a future contract, it only pays budgets that have enough votes each pay cycle.

For future contracts, the actual business should be submitting a proposal and accept the Dash volatility and be subject to yes/no votes.  This isn't really a contract though, and they should be clear that funding is pulled if they don't gain and maintain voter interest.  Otherwise, an amount should be saved in advance from a trusted proposal owner and Dash/fiat exchanged for the services under a firm contract.

[Minotaur26]

I understand you are a very passionate person and have a certain outlook on things, I respect that, but this is not a political thing. We do votes every month so we can't let the process become emotional.  Transform has done a really good job for us, anyone on the team that has worked with them can confirm.   My interest is only that our network tries to keep all of its commitments as that is important. That includes paying the reimbursement of the soda machine and also complying with its third party service contracts. We will do both so no worries. We will continue to deal with monthly payments for many years to come so we should not make it more complicated than it really is.

Minotaur,

I understand you are trying to work with a 'contract' with Transform PR.  The network can't give priority to proposals under a contract vs not in a contract.  The network doesn't have any commitment to a future contract, it only pays budgets that have enough votes each pay cycle.

For future contracts, the actual business should be submitting a proposal and accept the Dash volatility and be subject to yes/no votes.  This isn't really a contract though, and they should be clear that funding is pulled if they don't gain and maintain voter interest.  Otherwise, an amount should be saved in advance from a trusted proposal owner and Dash/fiat exchanged for the services under a firm contract.

Yes, those are good suggestions, remember the system is very new for all of us so we are still experimenting. I already can see many fixes that could be added in 12.1 based on our current experience.  Just remember that the network will need to contract with people from time to time in what are normal real life business terms.

For example, if in the future we need legal representation to protect privacy rights or who knows what. We may need a lawyer in retainer or something else.  Is an interesting problem,  how to contract with a blockchain for many possible real life scenarios. We are definitely trailblazing here.

[eduffield]

I understand you are a very passionate person and have a certain outlook on things, I respect that, but this is not a political thing. We do votes every month so we can't let the process become emotional.  Transform has done a really good job for us, anyone on the team that has worked with them can confirm.   My interest is only that our network tries to keep all of its commitments as that is important. That includes paying the reimbursement of the soda machine and also complying with its third party service contracts. We will do both so no worries. We will continue to deal with monthly payments for many years to come so we should not make it more complicated than it really is.

Minotaur,

I understand you are trying to work with a 'contract' with Transform PR.  The network can't give priority to proposals under a contract vs not in a contract.  The network doesn't have any commitment to a future contract, it only pays budgets that have enough votes each pay cycle.

For future contracts, the actual business should be submitting a proposal and accept the Dash volatility and be subject to yes/no votes.  This isn't really a contract though, and they should be clear that funding is pulled if they don't gain and maintain voter interest.  Otherwise, an amount should be saved in advance from a trusted proposal owner and Dash/fiat exchanged for the services under a firm contract.

While that is true presently, I don't see any reason can't we introduce contracts into the next version of the budget system.

[tungfa]

This person smells like a professional trouble-maker. I guess it goes with the territory. Reminds me of the following fable...


A MAN and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: “You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?”
  So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: “See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides.”
  So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn’t gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: “Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along.”
  Well, the Man didn’t know what to do, but at last he took his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passers-by began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor Donkey of yours—you and your hulking son?”
  The Man and Boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the Donkey’s feet to it, and raised the pole and the Donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his fore-feet being tied together he was drowned.
  “That will teach you,” said an old man who had followed them:

           “PLEASE ALL, AND YOU WILL PLEASE NONE.”
[/quote]

love it

[Blazed]

From what I can gather if I were to setup my own masternode it would earn roughly 10-11 DASH per month right now? How often does that change and by how much? Just looking for ballpark figures here.

[Minotaur26]

From what I can gather if I were to setup my own masternode it would earn roughly 10-11 DASH per month right now? How often does that change and by how much? Just looking for ballpark figures here.

Hi masternode rewards vary with the number of masternodes on the network and it could also vary with mining difficulty. If difficulty goes down, block rewards would go up to attract more miners and masternodes. Although we have consistently being on the minimum block rewards as hashrate has being high for a while and it seems like it will continue high.

So the current numbers should remain relatively stable. The average reward per node is currently 0.38 DASH/day. It will soon go down by around 7% as our block reward decreases by 7% each year instead of doing abrupt block halving every 4 years.  So a good ballpark number to use for estimates would be 0.35 DASH/day or 10.60 DASH/month.

This site keeps track of masternode payment statistics check it out:

http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Dash/masternode_payments_stats.html

[TanteStefana2]

I understand you are a very passionate person and have a certain outlook on things, I respect that, but this is not a political thing. We do votes every month so we can't let the process become emotional.  Transform has done a really good job for us, anyone on the team that has worked with them can confirm.   My interest is only that our network tries to keep all of its commitments as that is important. That includes paying the reimbursement of the soda machine and also complying with its third party service contracts. We will do both so no worries. We will continue to deal with monthly payments for many years to come so we should not make it more complicated than it really is.

Minotaur,

I understand you are trying to work with a 'contract' with Transform PR.  The network can't give priority to proposals under a contract vs not in a contract.  The network doesn't have any commitment to a future contract, it only pays budgets that have enough votes each pay cycle.

For future contracts, the actual business should be submitting a proposal and accept the Dash volatility and be subject to yes/no votes.  This isn't really a contract though, and they should be clear that funding is pulled if they don't gain and maintain voter interest.  Otherwise, an amount should be saved in advance from a trusted proposal owner and Dash/fiat exchanged for the services under a firm contract.

While that is true presently, I don't see any reason can't we introduce contracts into the next version of the budget system.

Personally, I can't believe we made a contract with a PR firm in Dash not in fiat.  Unless a Dash representative had to pay in advance, and deserves to be paid back in the number of Dash they could have bought otherwise.  That particular contract pays out to you, Evan, so I assumed it was to pay you back.  If i knew it went directly to a PR firm, I'd have evaluated the proposal differently myself.  It makes a difference to me.  People should only be paid the value of their work, and we shouldn't be speculating with the value of Dash either way - unless they want to speculate, but then it has to be clear that they are taking the responsibility.  I hope I make sense.

Core Development budget :  I think we all are looking forward to that gaining in value to the point where you guys are all making a decent income and can work full time with Dash (even so some of you already are working full time, you're certainly not being paid for it)  And if our core team levels out at 20 people, lets say, then when the alocated Dash is worth a decent salary for everyone, it should be modified not to over-pay (though pay well, is fine) 

Marketing Budget : I figured that taking a % of the budget to pay for marketing, with the increase in value enabling us to do more, was a great idea.  In this case I saw it as our needs growing with the value.

The Dash Domain Name:  Here, we know you guys put up the cash/dash to pay for his.  These are funds you either cashed out from your Dash or could have bought Dash with at the time.  This should be paid back Dash for Dash (or potential Dash)  Again, all is clear.

Lamassu and Transform, I was assuming, myself that you guys, again, put up your own money.  They both pay to Evan.  If you, Evan, did not put up these funds up front, all these funds, that are being requested, then this is not right.  If you, on behalf of Dash, have made a deal with an outside party, to be paid over time, then it should be in fiat, and the Dash amounts should be adjusted over time.  If THEY would have claimed the proposal, then I would have understood that they were hoping to earn exponentially more over time.  I would have voted accordingly for that.

I guess I'm holding my votes, as insignificant as they are, until I get the whole picture in the future.  I always thought this system made Dash a flaky entity to do business with, but I thought if we never went over budget, it would probably be ok, but that's obviously not going to happen.

So, I think we need to rethink how this works.  There needs to be more planing to the system so it doesn't leave contractors out in the cold, but at the same time, there can be more thought put into where money should be spent.  Just my opinion, but I think we're seeing the warning signs ahead.  If we keep going on this trajectory, we'll be booked up, having spent all the funds available for the next 100 years.  Which by the way, the paying ahead of time for stuff, I think that's gotta stop.  Instead of having to pay back people ever more expensive Dash, we should have a fund building up that the Foundation can use for emergency/opportunistic purchases of things or services.

Again JMO

[TanteStefana2]

From what I can gather if I were to setup my own masternode it would earn roughly 10-11 DASH per month right now? How often does that change and by how much? Just looking for ballpark figures here.

This is another area that I think will have to be re-evaluated.  If Masternodes can't return a certain income, right now it seem to be about 10%, then the MN count will drop if the income isn't counteracted with fees.  If the plan is to keep the fees so small that nobody pays anything (not sure that's really the case) then the MN count will drop 7% per year.  Anyway, my point is that the fees do have to be enough to at least maintain the MN count. As the count is at the sweet spot currently, that would mean we can plan on needing 7% increase of fees per year of current rewards.  This means there will need to be both some sort of fee structure (I think everyone should pay a tiny insignificant, amount minimum) and growth in use.  Also, If possible, the fees should be a % of what is being sent because you have to get realistic.  If when Dash becomes successful, and there is a good chance it will, then 0.001 Dash may soon be worth a dollar.  If that's the case, people will be sending 0.025 a lot, and if they had to pay 0.001 in fees each time, that'll kill Dash.  So it's kind of time to stop charging set fees, and start charging %, again IMO.

[tungfa]

From what I can gather if I were to setup my own masternode it would earn roughly 10-11 DASH per month right now? How often does that change and by how much? Just looking for ballpark figures here.

This is another area that I think will have to be re-evaluated.  If Masternodes can't return a certain income, right now it seem to be about 10%, then the MN count will drop if the income isn't counteracted with fees.  If the plan is to keep the fees so small that nobody pays anything (not sure that's really the case) then the MN count will drop 7% per year.  Anyway, my point is that the fees do have to be enough to at least maintain the MN count (as it's at the sweet spot currently) which you can plan on it eventually needing to be 7% more per year of current rewards.

it is 14.02 % annual !
http://dash-news.de/dashtv/?value=1000
 

[eduffield]

I understand you are a very passionate person and have a certain outlook on things, I respect that, but this is not a political thing. We do votes every month so we can't let the process become emotional.  Transform has done a really good job for us, anyone on the team that has worked with them can confirm.   My interest is only that our network tries to keep all of its commitments as that is important. That includes paying the reimbursement of the soda machine and also complying with its third party service contracts. We will do both so no worries. We will continue to deal with monthly payments for many years to come so we should not make it more complicated than it really is.

Minotaur,

I understand you are trying to work with a 'contract' with Transform PR.  The network can't give priority to proposals under a contract vs not in a contract.  The network doesn't have any commitment to a future contract, it only pays budgets that have enough votes each pay cycle.

For future contracts, the actual business should be submitting a proposal and accept the Dash volatility and be subject to yes/no votes.  This isn't really a contract though, and they should be clear that funding is pulled if they don't gain and maintain voter interest.  Otherwise, an amount should be saved in advance from a trusted proposal owner and Dash/fiat exchanged for the services under a firm contract.

While that is true presently, I don't see any reason can't we introduce contracts into the next version of the budget system.

Personally, I can't believe we made a contract with a PR firm in Dash not in fiat.  Unless a Dash representative had to pay in advance, and deserves to be paid back in the number of Dash they could have bought otherwise.  That particular contract pays out to you, Evan, so I assumed it was to pay you back.  If i knew it went directly to a PR firm, I'd have evaluated the proposal differently myself.  It makes a difference to me.  People should only be paid the value of their work, and we shouldn't be speculating with the value of Dash either way - unless they want to speculate, but then it has to be clear that they are taking the responsibility.  I hope I make sense.

Core Development budget :  I think we all are looking forward to that gaining in value to the point where you guys are all making a decent income and can work full time with Dash (even so some of you already are working full time, you're certainly not being paid for it)  And if our core team levels out at 20 people, lets say, then when the alocated Dash is worth a decent salary for everyone, it should be modified not to over-pay (though pay well, is fine)  

Marketing Budget : I figured that taking a % of the budget to pay for marketing, with the increase in value enabling us to do more, was a great idea.  In this case I saw it as our needs growing with the value.

The Dash Domain Name:  Here, we know you guys put up the cash/dash to pay for his.  These are funds you either cashed out from your Dash or could have bought Dash with at the time.  This should be paid back Dash for Dash (or potential Dash)  Again, all is clear.

Lamassu and Transform, I was assuming, myself that you guys, again, put up your own money.  They both pay to Evan.  If you, Evan, did not put up these funds up front, all these funds, that are being requested, then this is not right.  If you, on behalf of Dash, have made a deal with an outside party, to be paid over time, then it should be in fiat, and the Dash amounts should be adjusted over time.  If THEY would have claimed the proposal, then I would have understood that they were hoping to earn exponentially more over time.  I would have voted accordingly for that.

I guess I'm holding my votes, as insignificant as they are, until I get the whole picture in the future.  I always thought this system made Dash a flaky entity to do business with, but I thought if we never went over budget, it would probably be ok, but that's obviously not going to happen.

So, I think we need to rethink how this works.  There needs to be more planing to the system so it doesn't leave contractors out in the cold, but at the same time, there can be more thought put into where money should be spent.  Just my opinion, but I think we're seeing the warning signs ahead.  If we keep going on this trajectory, we'll be booked up, having spent all the funds available for the next 100 years.  Which by the way, the paying ahead of time for stuff, I think that's gotta stop.  Instead of having to pay back people ever more expensive Dash, we should have a fund building up that the Foundation can use for emergency/opportunistic purchases of things or services.

Again JMO

Just to be clear, I didn't pay for Lamassu or Transform upfront.  Our system can't effectively denominate in USD yet and how would that work anyway? Let's look at Transform-PR for a minute and you'll soon understand what the problem is. Transform-PR was a $6000/mo contract, locked in at the first payment of $3.38. This means we owe transform-pr 1775 DASH per month, for the next three months. Now, since we're at $4.17, it seems like we're over paying for a service?

How about the opposite? If we made an agreement for $6000 and Dash went to $2.28, that would eat up 2631 DASH of the budget (8022 total). You see, if the other side doesn't take market risk, the network does.

So do we want to take the market risk for these projects? If the answer is yes, we need to protect ourselves from market volatility somehow and I can only think of a couple ways.

[bertlebbert]

Paying a PR firm with Dash rather than fiat should be a good idea...
the better they do their job, the more Dash appreciates, then the more they will earn.

[BusterNutBag]

I've looked all over and cannot find a thing...

I'm looking for a type of Darkcoin/DASH chart that was published here many many months ago
It has 4 different charts on the same screen
Black background - and very similar to dashwisdom style.....

ANY - help locating a link - of even the source code/script - would be great :-D

thx in advance to any kind soul that can locate said chart...


[very important]


:-D

I recall there were at least couple of variations of that.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg10502421;topicseen#msg10502421

and

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg10900376;topicseen#msg10900376

 

I do thx you - perfect :-D

[BusterNutBag]

I've looked all over and cannot find a thing...

I'm looking for a type of Darkcoin/DASH chart that was published here many many months ago
It has 4 different charts on the same screen
Black background - and very similar to dashwisdom style.....

ANY - help locating a link - of even the source code/script - would be great :-D

thx in advance to any kind soul that can locate said chart...


[very important]


:-D

I recall there were at least couple of variations of that.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg10502421;topicseen#msg10502421

and

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg10900376;topicseen#msg10900376

 

Buster are you searching this :
https://cryptowat.ch/poloniex/dashbtc/30m

I have that one actually - thx
raze hit it :-D

[TanteStefana2]

I understand you are a very passionate person and have a certain outlook on things, I respect that, but this is not a political thing. We do votes every month so we can't let the process become emotional.  Transform has done a really good job for us, anyone on the team that has worked with them can confirm.   My interest is only that our network tries to keep all of its commitments as that is important. That includes paying the reimbursement of the soda machine and also complying with its third party service contracts. We will do both so no worries. We will continue to deal with monthly payments for many years to come so we should not make it more complicated than it really is.

Minotaur,

I understand you are trying to work with a 'contract' with Transform PR.  The network can't give priority to proposals under a contract vs not in a contract.  The network doesn't have any commitment to a future contract, it only pays budgets that have enough votes each pay cycle.

For future contracts, the actual business should be submitting a proposal and accept the Dash volatility and be subject to yes/no votes.  This isn't really a contract though, and they should be clear that funding is pulled if they don't gain and maintain voter interest.  Otherwise, an amount should be saved in advance from a trusted proposal owner and Dash/fiat exchanged for the services under a firm contract.

While that is true presently, I don't see any reason can't we introduce contracts into the next version of the budget system.

Personally, I can't believe we made a contract with a PR firm in Dash not in fiat.  Unless a Dash representative had to pay in advance, and deserves to be paid back in the number of Dash they could have bought otherwise.  That particular contract pays out to you, Evan, so I assumed it was to pay you back.  If i knew it went directly to a PR firm, I'd have evaluated the proposal differently myself.  It makes a difference to me.  People should only be paid the value of their work, and we shouldn't be speculating with the value of Dash either way - unless they want to speculate, but then it has to be clear that they are taking the responsibility.  I hope I make sense.

Core Development budget :  I think we all are looking forward to that gaining in value to the point where you guys are all making a decent income and can work full time with Dash (even so some of you already are working full time, you're certainly not being paid for it)  And if our core team levels out at 20 people, lets say, then when the alocated Dash is worth a decent salary for everyone, it should be modified not to over-pay (though pay well, is fine) 

Marketing Budget : I figured that taking a % of the budget to pay for marketing, with the increase in value enabling us to do more, was a great idea.  In this case I saw it as our needs growing with the value.

The Dash Domain Name:  Here, we know you guys put up the cash/dash to pay for his.  These are funds you either cashed out from your Dash or could have bought Dash with at the time.  This should be paid back Dash for Dash (or potential Dash)  Again, all is clear.

Lamassu and Transform, I was assuming, myself that you guys, again, put up your own money.  They both pay to Evan.  If you, Evan, did not put up these funds up front, all these funds, that are being requested, then this is not right.  If you, on behalf of Dash, have made a deal with an outside party, to be paid over time, then it should be in fiat, and the Dash amounts should be adjusted over time.  If THEY would have claimed the proposal, then I would have understood that they were hoping to earn exponentially more over time.  I would have voted accordingly for that.

I guess I'm holding my votes, as insignificant as they are, until I get the whole picture in the future.  I always thought this system made Dash a flaky entity to do business with, but I thought if we never went over budget, it would probably be ok, but that's obviously not going to happen.

So, I think we need to rethink how this works.  There needs to be more planing to the system so it doesn't leave contractors out in the cold, but at the same time, there can be more thought put into where money should be spent.  Just my opinion, but I think we're seeing the warning signs ahead.  If we keep going on this trajectory, we'll be booked up, having spent all the funds available for the next 100 years.  Which by the way, the paying ahead of time for stuff, I think that's gotta stop.  Instead of having to pay back people ever more expensive Dash, we should have a fund building up that the Foundation can use for emergency/opportunistic purchases of things or services.

Again JMO

Just to be clear, I didn't pay for Lamassu or Transform upfront.  Our system can't effectively denominate in USD yet and how would that work anyway? Let's look at Transform-PR for a minute and you'll soon understand what the problem is. Transform-PR was a $6000/mo contract, locked in at the first payment of $3.38. This means we owe transform-pr 1775 DASH per month, for the next three months. Now, since we're at $4.17, it seems like we're over paying for a service?

How about the opposite? If we made an agreement for $6000 and Dash went to $2.28, that would eat up 2631 DASH of the budget (8022 total). You see, if the other side doesn't take market risk, the network does.

Shall we support both denominations? How do we decide which to use for which services?

If we're contracting with them, then we should PAY them, what the contract says, and not have it be flaky where people can vote to stop the contract - unless there is reason to do so.  At the same time, we should ONLY pay what we owe them.  The risk should be on DASH.  I know you wanted to make the system work so that there would be no humans involved, but you're already involved.  The Dash is going to you.  And like I said, when voting on this, I thought we were paying you back for Dash you had to sell (or cash you could have bought Dash with instead).  Either way, this practice also can't continue, it puts us - the budget system - in unpaybackable debt.

Anyway, either you have to find a way to program Dash to pay out only what it's equal to in fiat, or we have to have human interference in that the Foundation has to represent us as a contract enforceable party (ugh, that's not how you say it, but hopefully you understand me)

[TanteStefana2]

It was a really cool idea, that this program running on machines all over the world could make payments, etc.... and maybe someday we can actually do that, but not at this extremely deflationary moment in Dash's lifetime.  Like I said, it puts us in irreconcilable debt.  And ultimately without any funds to function.

[semajjames]

From what I can gather if I were to setup my own masternode it would earn roughly 10-11 DASH per month right now? How often does that change and by how much? Just looking for ballpark figures here.

Take a look here

http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Darkcoin/masternodes.html

[eduffield]

and maybe someday we can actually do that, but not at this extremely deflationary moment in Dash's lifetime.

How do you figure? By my math we experienced 16% inflation for 2016 and will have about 12.6% inflation in 2017, then 10.55%. I've actually never thought of any of these cryptographic currencies as deflationary, they are constantly creating coins until they stop at some point; the only deflation comes from coins being destroyed or lost.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RpLd87PTs65sz8USrrXwGRoVGVbzaC-nunErEtGSJoE/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

[Minotaur26]

It was a really cool idea, that this program running on machines all over the world could make payments, etc.... and maybe someday we can actually do that, but not at this extremely deflationary moment in Dash's lifetime.  Like I said, it puts us in irreconcilable debt.  And ultimately without any funds to function.

The problem is you are assuming the price only goes up and that is not reality. We recently touched 6 USD and a contract signed at that price would be under water.

 Also some people may want to take the speculative risk and that is the only thing that motivates them to work with us. We cant have our cake and eat it too. Who is to say that the price is not going up precisely because we are making all of these investments and partnerships. In fact I firmly believe that is why we will be successful. People making money with us is a really good thing. The price going up is good for everyone it motivates our service providers to do a good job. We can't just cut people out of the upside when they contribute to our project doing well. That is just not good business. That is like not being happy that a sales representative is making a lot of commision money, if he is making money the company is making money.

Plus prices go up and down and will continue to go up and down. Very soon we will have contracts that start at a price and the price goes down and the vendor needs to take the difference that is just how it works. Judging just on the current price situation is short sighted and ignoring that our ATH is 15 USD.

Anyway, the potential upside is what motivates everyone. Also, networks are living organisms they are much more than just code. We are building a reputation in business and the Dash network should build a reputation that we keep our agreements when is in our favor and when is in favor of our service providers.

And funding wont run out because contracts have terms and those terms expire and then space opens up again. Having limits protects us from spending too much too quickly anyway it will force us to pace our investments and will ultimately give better results.

[TanteStefana2]

and maybe someday we can actually do that, but not at this extremely deflationary moment in Dash's lifetime.

How do you figure? By my math we experienced 16% inflation for 2016 and will have about 12.6% inflation in 2017, then 10.55%. I've actually never thought of any of these cryptographic currencies as deflationary, they are constantly creating coins until they stop at some point; the only deflation comes from coins being destroyed or lost.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RpLd87PTs65sz8USrrXwGRoVGVbzaC-nunErEtGSJoE/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

Evan, if this project is successful, Dash could see 1000% inflation (in price), or more  This means that if Dash owes someone money in the future, because we signed a contract in Dash, we have to pay it, at the cost of what those funds could have otherwise done for us.  We can't see the future.  It would be better to have proposals given to the MN network, discussions on pros and cons, and a budget that sits in a pot, waiting to be allocated by people until either the volatility subsides and/or better functionality can be designed.

Edit, Oh I see your question better.  Sure, coins are being created, but user base, increases exponentially, IF the project is successful.  And remember, these long term contracts are eating into the funds we need for other things. And if they don't go down, we tie up a lot of potential value.  

I assume, and I think there is a good 80% likelihood of success, that we'll be successful, that means crazy prices ahead for Dash.  Good or bad, it is just a matter of demand.  The increase in demand that Dash will likely experience, just like in other startups of history, Apple, Google, Bitcoin, etc.... creates, as in the case of Bitcoin, a deflationary currency, or in the case of others, a share that becomes harder and harder to buy.  With increase in cost of the unit, there is deflation.

This is why I can't imagine why people think that loaning Bitcoin will ever happen.  I'd never loan it out. Not until the inflation of the cost of Bitcoin settled down (true it is volatile, but it's still up, at it's lowest point in 2014 year, 1000% on the year.  2015 it lost, this year it's gaining again.  On the whole, it's been gaining very well, but it's suffering road blocks.  Dash is perfect, except for this budgeting system, LOL

[TanteStefana2]

It was a really cool idea, that this program running on machines all over the world could make payments, etc.... and maybe someday we can actually do that, but not at this extremely deflationary moment in Dash's lifetime.  Like I said, it puts us in irreconcilable debt.  And ultimately without any funds to function.

The problem is you are assuming the price only goes up and that is not reality. We recently touched 6 USD and a contract signed at that price would be under water.

 Also some people may want to take the speculative risk and that is the only thing that motivates them to work with us. We cant have our cake and eat it too. Who is to say that the price is not going up precisely because we are making all of these investments and partnerships. In fact I firmly believe that is why we will be successful. People making money with us is a really good thing. The price going up is good for everyone it motivates our service providers to do a good job. We can't just cut people out of the upside when they contribute to our project doing well. That is just not good business. That is like not being happy that a sales representative is making a lot of commision money, if he is making money the company is making money.

Plus prices go up and down and will continue to go up and down. Very soon we will have contracts that start at a price and the price goes down and the vendor needs to take the difference that is just how it works. Judging just on the current price situation is short sighted and ignoring that our ATH is 15 USD.

Anyway, the potential upside is what motivates everyone. Also, networks are living organisms they are much more than just code. We are building a reputation in business and the Dash network should build a reputation that we keep our agreements when is in our favor and when is in favor of our service providers.

And funding wont run out because contracts have terms and those terms expire and then space opens up again. Having limits protects us from spending too much too quickly anyway it will force us to pace our investments and will ultimately give better results.

True, so creating contracts this way is pretty nuts, especially since we're in the extreme growing phase of this project.  In the end Dash will increase in value exponentially, unless it fails, and I don't think it will fail.  Still, contractors need to quote prices in set amounts.  And if they're betting on a Dash windfall, we ought to be able to bet on the opposite side.  "no, we think the price will increase, and thus, for this 10 month long contract, we want a reduction in the amount of Dash we owe you to be 3% per month, if there is a bigger rise, you win, if it drops, you lose, but if you don't want to take that risk, name your denomination in fiat and that's what we'll pay you.

Because personally, I don't like the risk, as I think Dash is already worth far more than it's trading.  I'd rather we dealt in fiat values for our contracts, with the option of being paid in Dash if they want; but at fiat prices.