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

[toknormal]

[1714251193]

1714251193

[1714251193]

1714251193

[1714251193]

1714251193

[1714251193]

1714251193

[bigrcanada1]

I think that in order to get more efficiency from the budget system we need to do one or more of the following things:

a) Lessen the time factor--There is a real sense of urgency, in that we have only one month (at most) to plan and make proposals to the network before the funds or irretrievably "lost" for future development.

b) Given that any unallocated funds are lost forever (by simply not being created), we have a situation in which there is essentially zero cost for failure. If a proposal doesn't work out, then so what? The funds would have been lost anyway. The flip side is that almost any proposal with even the slightest chance of bringing value to the ecosystem is worthwhile, from a strict cost-benefit analysis. Take the latest proposal to integrate with a major exchange: that's just over 2,000 DASH or $30,000 USD. Not spending that money would effectively increase the value of all DASH in existence by half a cent, which is infinitesimal.

c) Communication must be improved. The creation of the new subforum is an excellent start.

My suggestion is to allow the network to "bank" any unspent funds so that they can be used at a later time by worthy projects. This has several advantages:

1) There's an incentive for saving. Today's unused funds will likely be worth quite a bit more in the future, due to price appreciation. This month's proposals, therefore, essentially have to compete against the possibility of even better proposals in the future. We don't want to fund marginal projects today, since that takes money away from potentially better projects in the future.

2) It eliminates the time factor, since there's no longer a hurry to spend funds before we lose them (i.e. before the month's superblocks are created). That gives more time to craft better proposals, more time for communication, and greater ability to hold contractors accountable (since there's no rush to approve expenditures).

3) It alters the cost-benefit analysis, because now the cost of disapproving a proposal is lower and the cost of approving a proposal is higher, since the funds if unused would be available for future projects.

P.S. It is vitally important that masternode owners realize there is risk in everything, and that it is up to them to assess the risk. There have been, and will continue to be, budget proposals that simply don't work out very well. That's simply how the world works--there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is assess the risk and make the best possible decision with the information we have. If something doesn't work out, we learn from it and use that knowledge later. Failure is to be expected; if we never fail, it's because we never aspired.

Couple of VERY important points you bring up on this that I've never understood and never agreed on...why can't the funds be "banked"  This urgency to spend the funds before they are "burned" is ridiculous.   This should be addressed...unless there is some compelling technical reason as to why we can't do this, this requirement should be removed.

And second back to my original point...and one you touch on here...we need a very clear way to assess the performance of the budget system.  Certainly we are all grown ups here(well most are here... lol ) and can assess risk using our own criteria.  The problem is that the information to make this kind judgement of system is incomplete and not readily available.  This is quite problematic.  

So to recap...2 things need to be addressed, we should be advocating the removal of the time limit on spending the funds in a limit time frame and 2 creating a portal to which not only masternode operators but the community at large can gauge the performance of our system.

[JGCMiner]

I think that in order to get more efficiency from the budget system we need to do one or more of the following things:

a) Lessen the time factor--There is a real sense of urgency, in that we have only one month (at most) to plan and make proposals to the network before the funds or irretrievably "lost" for future development.

b) Given that any unallocated funds are lost forever (by simply not being created), we have a situation in which there is essentially zero cost for failure. If a proposal doesn't work out, then so what? The funds would have been lost anyway. The flip side is that almost any proposal with even the slightest chance of bringing value to the ecosystem is worthwhile, from a strict cost-benefit analysis. Take the latest proposal to integrate with a major exchange: that's just over 2,000 DASH or $30,000 USD. Not spending that money would effectively increase the value of all DASH in existence by half a cent, which is infinitesimal.

c) Communication must be improved. The creation of the new subforum is an excellent start.

My suggestion is to allow the network to "bank" any unspent funds so that they can be used at a later time by worthy projects. This has several advantages:

1) There's an incentive for saving. Today's unused funds will likely be worth quite a bit more in the future, due to price appreciation. This month's proposals, therefore, essentially have to compete against the possibility of even better proposals in the future. We don't want to fund marginal projects today, since that takes money away from potentially better projects in the future.

2) It eliminates the time factor, since there's no longer a hurry to spend funds before we lose them (i.e. before the month's superblocks are created). That gives more time to craft better proposals, more time for communication, and greater ability to hold contractors accountable (since there's no rush to approve expenditures).

3) It alters the cost-benefit analysis, because now the cost of disapproving a proposal is lower and the cost of approving a proposal is higher, since the funds if unused would be available for future projects.

P.S. It is vitally important that masternode owners realize there is risk in everything, and that it is up to them to assess the risk. There have been, and will continue to be, budget proposals that simply don't work out very well. That's simply how the world works--there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is assess the risk and make the best possible decision with the information we have. If something doesn't work out, we learn from it and use that knowledge later. Failure is to be expected; if we never fail, it's because we never aspired.

Couple of VERY important points you bring up on this that I've never understood and never agreed on...why can't the funds be "banked"  This urgency to spend the funds before they are "burned" is ridiculous.   This should be addressed...unless there is some compelling technical reason as to why we can't do this, this requirement should be removed.

And second back to my original point...and one you touch on here...we need a very clear way to assess the performance of the budget system.  Certainly we are all grown ups here(well most are here... lol ) and can assess risk using our own criteria.  The problem is that the information to make this kind judgement of system is incomplete and not readily available.  This is quite problematic.  

So to recap...2 things need to be addressed, we should be advocating the removal of the time limit on spending the funds in a limit time frame and 2 creating a portal to which not only masternode operators but the community at large can gauge the performance of our system.

The issue was a technical one if I remember correctly. People balked at members of Core being in control of the "bank" (for good reason) -- and it wasn't feasible for funds to be in a n of m multisig account as the the m (number of masternodes) is always changing. If fact, I don't think a proposal can even be paid out to any type of multisig account currently...

12.1 and Sentinel may allow such a functionality and it does make sense to explore this "bank" if it is technically feasible. A dev can probably offer more insight.

[ddink8]

I think that in order to get more efficiency from the budget system we need to do one or more of the following things:

a) Lessen the time factor--There is a real sense of urgency, in that we have only one month (at most) to plan and make proposals to the network before the funds or irretrievably "lost" for future development.

b) Given that any unallocated funds are lost forever (by simply not being created), we have a situation in which there is essentially zero cost for failure. If a proposal doesn't work out, then so what? The funds would have been lost anyway. The flip side is that almost any proposal with even the slightest chance of bringing value to the ecosystem is worthwhile, from a strict cost-benefit analysis. Take the latest proposal to integrate with a major exchange: that's just over 2,000 DASH or $30,000 USD. Not spending that money would effectively increase the value of all DASH in existence by half a cent, which is infinitesimal.

c) Communication must be improved. The creation of the new subforum is an excellent start.

My suggestion is to allow the network to "bank" any unspent funds so that they can be used at a later time by worthy projects. This has several advantages:

1) There's an incentive for saving. Today's unused funds will likely be worth quite a bit more in the future, due to price appreciation. This month's proposals, therefore, essentially have to compete against the possibility of even better proposals in the future. We don't want to fund marginal projects today, since that takes money away from potentially better projects in the future.

2) It eliminates the time factor, since there's no longer a hurry to spend funds before we lose them (i.e. before the month's superblocks are created). That gives more time to craft better proposals, more time for communication, and greater ability to hold contractors accountable (since there's no rush to approve expenditures).

3) It alters the cost-benefit analysis, because now the cost of disapproving a proposal is lower and the cost of approving a proposal is higher, since the funds if unused would be available for future projects.

P.S. It is vitally important that masternode owners realize there is risk in everything, and that it is up to them to assess the risk. There have been, and will continue to be, budget proposals that simply don't work out very well. That's simply how the world works--there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is assess the risk and make the best possible decision with the information we have. If something doesn't work out, we learn from it and use that knowledge later. Failure is to be expected; if we never fail, it's because we never aspired.

Couple of VERY important points you bring up on this that I've never understood and never agreed on...why can't the funds be "banked"  This urgency to spend the funds before they are "burned" is ridiculous.   This should be addressed...unless there is some compelling technical reason as to why we can't do this, this requirement should be removed.

And second back to my original point...and one you touch on here...we need a very clear way to assess the performance of the budget system.  Certainly we are all grown ups here(well most are here... lol ) and can assess risk using our own criteria.  The problem is that the information to make this kind judgement of system is incomplete and not readily available.  This is quite problematic.  

So to recap...2 things need to be addressed, we should be advocating the removal of the time limit on spending the funds in a limit time frame and 2 creating a portal to which not only masternode operators but the community at large can gauge the performance of our system.

The issue was a technical one if I remember correctly. People balked at members of Core being in control of the "bank" (for good reason) -- and it wasn't feasible for funds to be in a n of m multisig account as the the m (number of masternodes) is always changing. If fact, I don't think a proposal can even be paid out to any type of multisig account currently...

12.1 and Sentinel may allow such a functionality and it does make sense to explore this "bank" if it is technically feasible. A dev can probably offer more insight.

Just to clarify, by "banked" I mean "uncreated, but able to be created in a future superblock." Essentially, I'm suggesting that the network "remember" how many Dash have gone uncreated, and be able to create that many Dash in a future month.

For example, under the present system (hypothetical) with a maximum budget of 7450 DASH per month:

Month 1 -- 5218 DASH paid to proposals, 2232 unpaid and never created
Month 2 -- 6938 DASH paid to proposals, 512 unpaid and never created
Month 3 -- 6277 DASH paid to proposals, 1173 unpaid and never created
Month 4 -- 9000 DASH in proposals have enough votes to be paid, but the limit is still 7450 DASH, meaning *at least* 1550 DASH worth of proposals end up being unpaid

Under a new system where unused funds are "banked" or "remembered" by the network:

Month 1 -- 5218 DASH paid to proposals, 2232 unpaid and never created, network remembers that it can create up to 2232 more DASH
Month 2 -- 6938 DASH paid to proposals, 512 unpaid and never created, network knows that it can create up to 2744 more DASH
Month 3 -- 6277 DASH paid to proposals, 1173 unpaid and never created, network knows that it can create up to 3917 more DASH
Month 4 -- 9000 DASH in proposals have enough votes to be paid, network pays all proposals, since there are plenty of funds to do so (7450 DASH for the month, plus 3917 previously "banked" or "remembered" DASH that could have been created, but weren't)

Now, you don't want this to go on forever; uncreated DASH eventually have to "expire." The original discussion of DGBB involved the possibility of "banking" uncreated DASH, but the worry was that superblocks might end up creating an insane amount of DASH one month due to all the uncreated DASH being expended all at once. There's also the risk of perverse incentive: if a massive amount of uncreated DASH was remembered by the network, a few masternode owners could collude and create a worthless proposal that would vote all the funds to themselves. It would hurt Dash, but they huge payout would make it worthwhile.

I think it would be beneficial for the network to have a three month "memory." Nothing crazy, but enough to be a little flexible.

[DARKHOLDER]

Proposal: Business Development - Major Exchange

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-business-development-major-exchange.12881/

I cannot wait when these good news comes out !!!:o

[Solarminer]

snip

I have been attacked by the Non-Coding Dash guys for a while now.  I have put up with it because I believed in Dash.

For any newbies, here is some history:

• First I was told you can't build an instantx soda machine and you will just take the money.

i voted for it and never said that, who said you can't build it and will just take the money? we have plenty of disinfo trolls that say dumb stuff like that all the time just to cause trouble.

• Then it was you are a scammer because you built the soda machine (with camo and moo of course) but are not giving profits(never expected to be used after the show anyway) back to the community.

i never said (scammer) that but i don't deny someone may have. it was a legit question to ask where the profits and machine that the community paid for would go. i thought camo was holding it hostage for a while right? he is a total hothead but a smart guy. unfortunately he does not play well with others, at all.

• Then accused of trying to take over Dash by submitting a proposal to get technology into vendors called vendor-experience.  Instantx anyone?

lol, i never saw anyone accuse you of trying to take over dash, but maybe they did idk. not me. i think the vender ex was too soon and just not needed at the time, was a bit expensive too if i remember correctly. we have funded a few similar vendor related things and they have pretty much gone unused. it's just too soon chicken before the egg thing. i think camo and maybe you think if we would have just do that and other stuff he wanted we would be btc market cap or 2nd place right now, i disagree. user experience first (evo) then we will be ready for the vendor ex in 2018.

• I was harassed several times in private messages flaming me with inappropriate language (from a core member still on the team).

that is not cool if it went down the way you say. sorry.

• Called a troll almost non-stop for any critical thinking.

not sure about non-stop but it happens. if it was after the old slack meltdown that would make sense. there was some very nasty stuff said about evan by itw and buster was being well...buster.

• Called a scammer for supporting Dash and community with a slack and then stopping it when the proposal was defunded.

imo that's when everything started to go downhill for you. you were attacked somewhat unfairly imo but some of it was your fault too. you should have dumped itw and maybe buster and you probably not have got defunded.remaining silent on itw vicious and relentless everyday all day personal attacks is what got slack defunded.

• Now I am labeled a concern troll and one of the 5 guys, even though I have done more with InstantX than anyone else in Dash, just look at my signature.

you have brought up some good points but you have started moving into concern troll territory recently imo.


There is definitely something wrong with this community.   Maybe I should file a grievance with that new HR person that is coming soon.
i think after the slack was defunded you really started to become very bitter and that is unfortunate. dash is far from perfect but i trust the team and was pleased with the long overdue project reports from minotaur. the lack of communication issues caused a lot of unnecessary problems that really got out of hand on the old slack. there is a lot of blame to go around and still communication issues that need attention but i think everything is moving in the right direction.

i just pointed out a mistake you made on slack because you are just trying to find fault with dash. you admitted the mistake but i think you will make more if you don't just step away for a while and take a break.
replying to this post here will probably just make things worse. if you are still invested/holding dash you may want to reply here, if not it would be best to pm me or respond on slack if you feel you must. i probably will not respond here on btctalk though as we are getting off topic and into personal stuff. if you are not holding dash anymore my advice would be to just let it go and move on to something you feel positive about, negativity is not good for you health.

Solar, I voted for you as well and in debt to your work you did for the dash vending machine.

I also think you need to have perspective that in this sort of scene there are people who will say anything and everything to get a reaction out of you. But ultimately I agree with mastermind in that you were treated that way because you hung out with the wrong crowd. If you believe in dash, ignore the crap that goes on and stay focused on making changes for the better. Unfortunately the people you hung out with were more interested in a witch hunt attacking people and causing unnecessary drama. Negativity breeds negativity.

I appreciate the comments and am not offended by non paid community members asking questions or posting assumptions.  This is a natural process to be skeptical when you don't know someone.

Judging a user because they hung out with the wrong crowd?   Yeah, that is ridiculous.  The non coding core team is so against critical thinking that they intentionally call any negative comments trolling.  Kot, Daniel, and mainly Coingun were in the dashchat slack intentionally redirecting anything critical.  The discussions seemed like a witch hunt mainly because there were hardly ever any direct answers. 

Critical thinking leads to improvements and innovation.   Blind faith leads to waste, corruption, and laziness.

[Solarminer]

For any newbies, here is some history:
Then accused of trying to take over Dash by submitting a proposal to get technology into vendors called vendor-experience.  Instantx anyone?

You submitted a proposal for 729 Dash for a 99 month duration. Numerous voters told you they would change their votes if you decreased the duration. We told you that the price of Dash was going to rise a great deal over those 99 months, and that we didn't want to effectively vote you an unlimited budget (72,171 DASH over the course of 99 months). At today's valuation, that would be $1.1 million. You have done some great things for the project, but most people were not willing to allocate that much money to your project.

• Called a scammer for supporting Dash and community with a slack and then stopping it when the proposal was defunded.

Let's not try to change the facts...the proposal got defunded AFTER you said that it would no longer be a Dash Slack. You had already received two payments from the Network, which you refused to refund. You then tried to sell the Slack (that the Network paid for) back to the Core Team. "Scammer" is such a loaded word--if you have another word for somebody who took possession of something that somebody else paid for, then feel free to use it instead.

I want to be clear: you've done some great things for Dash. For a long time, I considered you a member of the "loyal opposition." When you decided to steal the Network's property, that's when I began considering you a scammer and a troll. Others may see things differently, and that's fine. Most of the time I have you on ignore, but I will from time to time pop up and remind any new community members of your past actions, just so that they have all the information available and can make up their own minds about you.

Cheers!

First point.  The budget is a renewable monthly voted in budget.  It doesn't matter if the proposal says 99 months or 2 months, it can be voted out at any time.  I am not upset that the budget was declined.  (Maybe a little frustrated that GrandMasterDash posted on every 3rd post that the time length was too long and moderators did nothing.  Every 3rd post.  Really?  LOL.)  The concern is that core members called it a plan to overtake Dash.  Severe language in private messages, rants on slack calling me out, upset posts on the forum from Kot, Andy, etc.   Not at all a normal reaction to a simple budget proposal.

At the time, this would have created new displays for shows, new products to help merchants use Dash, and we would have got to a terminal device that merchants could use.   At least Kodaxx, snogcell, and chaeplin have started something with POS.   It isn't enough, the core should be focused on retail and POS adoption instead of ignoring it and hoping the community will try something.

2nd point.  Slack was owned privately and had 100s of members before it took any Dash funds.  Funds were used for promotion and moderators time.  All expenses and funds were posted on dashtalk with updates.  This is the typical response for any community member trying to do something.  They get critiqued to death and called scammers.  A core member proposal can go a year without anything useful to show for it, end up with a failed project, and hardly get slapped on the wrist.  At the same time anyone pointing out how bad the project is after it becomes obvious gets called a concern troll without any critical discussion about the project.

Since this was now brought up by Tungfa, Stealth, and yourself I'll post an analogy.
Care rental place owns car.   (private owners owned slack)
You pay for rental, pick up car.  You pay for gas.  (slack got some rewards from the budget for promotions, it wasn't SOLD to the network)
You stop paying for rental.  (slack proposal stopped getting rewards)
Do you expect to own the car because you paid a little bit of the cost of ownership?  (so the slack now is owned by the community?)
No, you return the car.
Do you call the car rental place a scammer for not giving you the car?
No, you return the car and end the transaction.

And I did offer the slack to the core guys as an open bid.  They declined to respond.  A few days after my request 2 new slacks opened up.  Not rocket science what happened.

[Solarminer]

Wow trolling is very active lately. Monero team worried Dash is poised for a nice bull run I think.

But seriously why compare Dash to Madoff? You might as well compare Dash to the number of cows in Switzerland for all the relevance that has. The growth of Dash looks nothing like that. At all. Btw.
 

Because, you can't base an investment solely on the fact that it has performed well in the past.  You need to base it on something tangible that you expect to happen in the future that will help your investment grow.

Well thats true I guess. As for myself I'm basing it on whats Dash has done in the past, (incentivised nodes, two tier network, instant send, private send...) and what its doing now (growing the network, financing multiple projects via the budget system, maintaining and growing value, market cap etc), and the potential I see and the vision of Dash Evolution, bringing a user experience to the masses. And so on.

The thing is the trolls here know all this, and fear it, or they wouldnt be here. Do you really think  they are here because they want to help us avoid a scam?

Don't take my comment out of context.  It was related to the comment above it, which was:

^ Yep. As an investor they have made me good money to this point so there is no reason to stop trusting them now.  Cool

My comment was only related to the blind faith attitude is dangerous.

Hi Solar... I do agree to some of the concerns   It's important that those of us that wish to question things and ask for accountability should remain doing so.

 For example,  I've been advocating for a budget performance matrix for all funded projects.  I've been willing to donate handsomely for this kind of thing where everyone is being held accountable via a standalone website.

 There are literally 10s of thousands of dollars being dished out... And no accountability.  I purposed before the holidays that  we set up an independent site that that strictly evaluates funding proposals performance as well as a complete detailed information on all aspects of the individual budgets,  who they are,  how much was the proposal worth in a couple of currencies what were the deliverables etc etc.  Then finally a rating of how well the budget proposal did at fullfilling it's duties... This could even be voted on.  

  This is how we can help everyone in community to remain confident that funds parties are being given, are held accountable by the whole community.

Thanks.   You you have the right idea.  The simplest solution is to downvote every proposal that doesn't give acceptable updates.  That could even be forced by a vote reset every month.

[bigrcanada1]

Wow trolling is very active lately. Monero team worried Dash is poised for a nice bull run I think.

But seriously why compare Dash to Madoff? You might as well compare Dash to the number of cows in Switzerland for all the relevance that has. The growth of Dash looks nothing like that. At all. Btw.
 

Because, you can't base an investment solely on the fact that it has performed well in the past.  You need to base it on something tangible that you expect to happen in the future that will help your investment grow.

Well thats true I guess. As for myself I'm basing it on whats Dash has done in the past, (incentivised nodes, two tier network, instant send, private send...) and what its doing now (growing the network, financing multiple projects via the budget system, maintaining and growing value, market cap etc), and the potential I see and the vision of Dash Evolution, bringing a user experience to the masses. And so on.

The thing is the trolls here know all this, and fear it, or they wouldnt be here. Do you really think  they are here because they want to help us avoid a scam?

Don't take my comment out of context.  It was related to the comment above it, which was:

^ Yep. As an investor they have made me good money to this point so there is no reason to stop trusting them now.  Cool

My comment was only related to the blind faith attitude is dangerous.

Hi Solar... I do agree to some of the concerns   It's important that those of us that wish to question things and ask for accountability should remain doing so.

 For example,  I've been advocating for a budget performance matrix for all funded projects.  I've been willing to donate handsomely for this kind of thing where everyone is being held accountable via a standalone website.

 There are literally 10s of thousands of dollars being dished out... And no accountability.  I purposed before the holidays that  we set up an independent site that that strictly evaluates funding proposals performance as well as a complete detailed information on all aspects of the individual budgets,  who they are,  how much was the proposal worth in a couple of currencies what were the deliverables etc etc.  Then finally a rating of how well the budget proposal did at fullfilling it's duties... This could even be voted on.  

  This is how we can help everyone in community to remain confident that funds parties are being given, are held accountable by the whole community.

Thanks.   You you have the right idea.  The simplest solution is to downvote every proposal that doesn't give acceptable updates.  That could even be forced by a vote reset every month.

Maybe we post a budget proposal to fund a separate independent site that does what we are talking about.  At least at that point...the community as a whole can evaluate for themselves what is and isn't being done for example...and how much DASH is being given out.  With the amount of money now being generated by the budget system...there now needs to be oversight.   The problem as I've stated on the slack channel today is there is just way to many moving parts and certainly there isn't enough oversight over all the pieces.  I would propose to create a committee that sole goal is to evaluate, collect and report on information regarding all budget proposals and the people and company involved. The purpose...transparency.  This committee can be made of anyone that is concerned DASH community member.  It should be independent of core dev team and master node operators if possible.   

In fact I'm sure we could have community members donate DASH to maintain the site and any out of pocket costs and should NOT be funded from the superblock to be impartial.

I would volunteer to create a Wallet address for donated funds to the project and report on a monthly statement by my accounting firm the status of said funds.  I offered to start with 50 DASH in the slack channel...but I couldn't get TAO to connect with me...I would still certainly do this still...and I'd be willing to donate more.

Thoughts?

[spatula]

Hi Solar... I do agree to some of the concerns   It's important that those of us that wish to question things and ask for accountability should remain doing so.

 For example,  I've been advocating for a budget performance matrix for all funded projects.  I've been willing to donate handsomely for this kind of thing where everyone is being held accountable via a standalone website.

 There are literally 10s of thousands of dollars being dished out... And no accountability.  I purposed before the holidays that  we set up an independent site that that strictly evaluates funding proposals performance as well as a complete detailed information on all aspects of the individual budgets,  who they are,  how much was the proposal worth in a couple of currencies what were the deliverables etc etc.  Then finally a rating of how well the budget proposal did at fullfilling it's duties... This could even be voted on.  

  This is how we can help everyone in community to remain confident that funds parties are being given, are held accountable by the whole community.

Thanks.   You you have the right idea.  The simplest solution is to downvote every proposal that doesn't give acceptable updates.  That could even be forced by a vote reset every month.

Maybe we post a budget proposal to fund a separate independent site that does what we are talking about.  At least at that point...the community as a whole can evaluate for themselves what is and isn't being done for example...and how much DASH is being given out.  With the amount of money now being generated by the budget system...there now needs to be oversight.   The problem as I've stated on the slack channel today is there is just way to many moving parts and certainly there isn't enough oversight over all the pieces.  I would propose to create a committee that sole goal is to evaluate, collect and report on information regarding all budget proposals and the people and company involved. The purpose...transparency.  This committee can be made of anyone that is concerned DASH community member.  It should be independent of core dev team and master node operators if possible.   

In fact I'm sure we could have community members donate DASH to maintain the site and any out of pocket costs and should NOT be funded from the superblock to be impartial.

I would volunteer to create a Wallet address for donated funds to the project and report on a monthly statement by my accounting firm the status of said funds.  I offered to start with 50 DASH in the slack channel...but I couldn't get TAO to connect with me...I would still certainly do this still...and I'd be willing to donate more.

Thoughts?

I think this is an excellent idea. Do you have an example or idea of what this would look like?

[UdjinM6]

I think that in order to get more efficiency from the budget system we need to do one or more of the following things:

a) Lessen the time factor--There is a real sense of urgency, in that we have only one month (at most) to plan and make proposals to the network before the funds or irretrievably "lost" for future development.

b) Given that any unallocated funds are lost forever (by simply not being created), we have a situation in which there is essentially zero cost for failure. If a proposal doesn't work out, then so what? The funds would have been lost anyway. The flip side is that almost any proposal with even the slightest chance of bringing value to the ecosystem is worthwhile, from a strict cost-benefit analysis. Take the latest proposal to integrate with a major exchange: that's just over 2,000 DASH or $30,000 USD. Not spending that money would effectively increase the value of all DASH in existence by half a cent, which is infinitesimal.

c) Communication must be improved. The creation of the new subforum is an excellent start.

My suggestion is to allow the network to "bank" any unspent funds so that they can be used at a later time by worthy projects. This has several advantages:

1) There's an incentive for saving. Today's unused funds will likely be worth quite a bit more in the future, due to price appreciation. This month's proposals, therefore, essentially have to compete against the possibility of even better proposals in the future. We don't want to fund marginal projects today, since that takes money away from potentially better projects in the future.

2) It eliminates the time factor, since there's no longer a hurry to spend funds before we lose them (i.e. before the month's superblocks are created). That gives more time to craft better proposals, more time for communication, and greater ability to hold contractors accountable (since there's no rush to approve expenditures).

3) It alters the cost-benefit analysis, because now the cost of disapproving a proposal is lower and the cost of approving a proposal is higher, since the funds if unused would be available for future projects.

P.S. It is vitally important that masternode owners realize there is risk in everything, and that it is up to them to assess the risk. There have been, and will continue to be, budget proposals that simply don't work out very well. That's simply how the world works--there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is assess the risk and make the best possible decision with the information we have. If something doesn't work out, we learn from it and use that knowledge later. Failure is to be expected; if we never fail, it's because we never aspired.

Couple of VERY important points you bring up on this that I've never understood and never agreed on...why can't the funds be "banked"  This urgency to spend the funds before they are "burned" is ridiculous.   This should be addressed...unless there is some compelling technical reason as to why we can't do this, this requirement should be removed.

And second back to my original point...and one you touch on here...we need a very clear way to assess the performance of the budget system.  Certainly we are all grown ups here(well most are here... lol ) and can assess risk using our own criteria.  The problem is that the information to make this kind judgement of system is incomplete and not readily available.  This is quite problematic.  

So to recap...2 things need to be addressed, we should be advocating the removal of the time limit on spending the funds in a limit time frame and 2 creating a portal to which not only masternode operators but the community at large can gauge the performance of our system.

The issue was a technical one if I remember correctly. People balked at members of Core being in control of the "bank" (for good reason) -- and it wasn't feasible for funds to be in a n of m multisig account as the the m (number of masternodes) is always changing. If fact, I don't think a proposal can even be paid out to any type of multisig account currently...

12.1 and Sentinel may allow such a functionality and it does make sense to explore this "bank" if it is technically feasible. A dev can probably offer more insight.

Just to clarify, by "banked" I mean "uncreated, but able to be created in a future superblock." Essentially, I'm suggesting that the network "remember" how many Dash have gone uncreated, and be able to create that many Dash in a future month.

For example, under the present system (hypothetical) with a maximum budget of 7450 DASH per month:

Month 1 -- 5218 DASH paid to proposals, 2232 unpaid and never created
Month 2 -- 6938 DASH paid to proposals, 512 unpaid and never created
Month 3 -- 6277 DASH paid to proposals, 1173 unpaid and never created
Month 4 -- 9000 DASH in proposals have enough votes to be paid, but the limit is still 7450 DASH, meaning *at least* 1550 DASH worth of proposals end up being unpaid

Under a new system where unused funds are "banked" or "remembered" by the network:

Month 1 -- 5218 DASH paid to proposals, 2232 unpaid and never created, network remembers that it can create up to 2232 more DASH
Month 2 -- 6938 DASH paid to proposals, 512 unpaid and never created, network knows that it can create up to 2744 more DASH
Month 3 -- 6277 DASH paid to proposals, 1173 unpaid and never created, network knows that it can create up to 3917 more DASH
Month 4 -- 9000 DASH in proposals have enough votes to be paid, network pays all proposals, since there are plenty of funds to do so (7450 DASH for the month, plus 3917 previously "banked" or "remembered" DASH that could have been created, but weren't)

Now, you don't want this to go on forever; uncreated DASH eventually have to "expire." The original discussion of DGBB involved the possibility of "banking" uncreated DASH, but the worry was that superblocks might end up creating an insane amount of DASH one month due to all the uncreated DASH being expended all at once. There's also the risk of perverse incentive: if a massive amount of uncreated DASH was remembered by the network, a few masternode owners could collude and create a worthless proposal that would vote all the funds to themselves. It would hurt Dash, but they huge payout would make it worthwhile.

I think it would be beneficial for the network to have a three month "memory." Nothing crazy, but enough to be a little flexible.

Sounds like a good idea to explore in 12.2+. Should also be easier/less resource hungry to scan past blocks because superblocks are not going to be paid in N blocks (N is number of approved proposals, 1..100, flexible) but in 1 single superblock.

[UdjinM6]

Yep, that's an awesome news, don't forget to retweet 
https://twitter.com/BitcoinTrezor/status/824957809146130432

[bigrcanada1]

Hi Solar... I do agree to some of the concerns   It's important that those of us that wish to question things and ask for accountability should remain doing so.

 For example,  I've been advocating for a budget performance matrix for all funded projects.  I've been willing to donate handsomely for this kind of thing where everyone is being held accountable via a standalone website.

 There are literally 10s of thousands of dollars being dished out... And no accountability.  I purposed before the holidays that  we set up an independent site that that strictly evaluates funding proposals performance as well as a complete detailed information on all aspects of the individual budgets,  who they are,  how much was the proposal worth in a couple of currencies what were the deliverables etc etc.  Then finally a rating of how well the budget proposal did at fullfilling it's duties... This could even be voted on.  

  This is how we can help everyone in community to remain confident that funds parties are being given, are held accountable by the whole community.

Thanks.   You you have the right idea.  The simplest solution is to downvote every proposal that doesn't give acceptable updates.  That could even be forced by a vote reset every month.

Maybe we post a budget proposal to fund a separate independent site that does what we are talking about.  At least at that point...the community as a whole can evaluate for themselves what is and isn't being done for example...and how much DASH is being given out.  With the amount of money now being generated by the budget system...there now needs to be oversight.   The problem as I've stated on the slack channel today is there is just way to many moving parts and certainly there isn't enough oversight over all the pieces.  I would propose to create a committee that sole goal is to evaluate, collect and report on information regarding all budget proposals and the people and company involved. The purpose...transparency.  This committee can be made of anyone that is concerned DASH community member.  It should be independent of core dev team and master node operators if possible.   

In fact I'm sure we could have community members donate DASH to maintain the site and any out of pocket costs and should NOT be funded from the superblock to be impartial.

I would volunteer to create a Wallet address for donated funds to the project and report on a monthly statement by my accounting firm the status of said funds.  I offered to start with 50 DASH in the slack channel...but I couldn't get TAO to connect with me...I would still certainly do this still...and I'd be willing to donate more.

Thoughts?

I think this is an excellent idea. Do you have an example or idea of what this would look like?

This is where I'm stumped...I'm going to have some time this evening and I'll put together a list of items that should be on the "State of the DASH Budget" type site.  Any ideas that people have just add them to this thread.

[iCEBREAKER]

It's important that those of us that wish to question things and ask for accountability should remain doing so.

 For example,  I've been advocating for a budget performance matrix for all funded projects.  I've been willing to donate handsomely for this kind of thing where everyone is being held accountable via a standalone website.

 There are literally 10s of thousands of dollars being dished out... And no accountability.  I purposed before the holidays that  we set up an independent site that that strictly evaluates funding proposals performance as well as a complete detailed information on all aspects of the individual budgets,  who they are,  how much was the proposal worth in a couple of currencies what were the deliverables etc etc.  Then finally a rating of how well the budget proposal did at fullfilling it's duties... This could even be voted on.  

  This is how we can help everyone in community to remain confident that funds parties are being given, are held accountable by the whole community.

Thanks.   You you have the right idea.  The simplest solution is to downvote every proposal that doesn't give acceptable updates.  That could even be forced by a vote reset every month.

Maybe we post a budget proposal to fund a separate independent site that does what we are talking about.  At least at that point...the community as a whole can evaluate for themselves what is and isn't being done for example...and how much DASH is being given out.  With the amount of money now being generated by the budget system...there now needs to be oversight.   The problem as I've stated on the slack channel today is there is just way to many moving parts and certainly there isn't enough oversight over all the pieces.  I would propose to create a committee that sole goal is to evaluate, collect and report on information regarding all budget proposals and the people and company involved. The purpose...transparency.  This committee can be made of anyone that is concerned DASH community member.  It should be independent of core dev team and master node operators if possible.   

In fact I'm sure we could have community members donate DASH to maintain the site and any out of pocket costs and should NOT be funded from the superblock to be impartial.

I would volunteer to create a Wallet address for donated funds to the project and report on a monthly statement by my accounting firm the status of said funds.  I offered to start with 50 DASH in the slack channel...but I couldn't get TAO to connect with me...I would still certainly do this still...and I'd be willing to donate more.

Thoughts?

This the wrong approach to solving the problems with no accountability stemming from the intrinsic nature of the way DASH creates money from nothing and gives it away without any enforcement mechanisms.

You aren't addressing the root causes by throwing 50 DASH at the problem and creating yet another layer of Band-Aid on top of the necrotic, festering Superblock organ.

The entire system of free Superblock money being doled out by those who do not have 'skin in the game' (or worse, have self-dealing conflicts of interest) must be removed and replaced with a more reliable and well thought out project funding and management mechanism.

You can't fix the underlying issues by just heaping on more layers that only function as after-the-fact rearguard reactions.

Is it really asking too much that those who are in favor of projects pony up the money to fund them?

Isn't the widely acknowledged best practice to use escrow and have funding tied to development milestones, including actual deliverables?

I know you don't want to hear this, but try to get over your hurt little feelings and recognize that Monero's Forum Funding System (FFS) has been a great success, while avoiding all the problems DASH is now vainly struggling to overcome.

While you guys tear each other up trying to do trivial basic stuff like run a Slack and set up a soda machine, Monero's FFS successfully implemented RingCT, a brilliant new way to ensure fungibility, as well as a very nice GUI and other useful under the hood futureproofing stuff like 0MQ.

Instead of trying to reinvent the governance wheel (which has been amply demonstrated to not be Dash's core competency) why not just go with what's already been proven to work?

Fluffy might even sell you the code to https://forum.getmonero.org/9/work-in-progress for the last Superblock grant if you ask nicely....   

[Otoh]

though I see monero heading for a nice ice bath

[iCEBREAKER]

[low value price speculation]

Dear Otoh,

Please only post low-value altcoin price speculation chatter in the appropriate "Speculation (Altcoins)" subforum in an appropriate thread, such as this one.

[DASH] Dash Price and Trade Discussion Thread [UNMODERATED]
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1736249.0

Thank you for helping keep [ANN] threads reserved for substantive discussion and uncluttered by worthless ephemeral trollbox noise.

[Bobo81]

Dash is really a solid coin!

[qwizzie]

Dash is really a solid coin!

Yep, solid coin, solid developments, solid community.
If only we had a bit more challenging trolls ..... no offence Icey.

[iCEBREAKER]

Yep, solid coin, solid developments, solid community.
If only we had a bit more challenging trolls ..... no offence Icey.

You guys call anyone who fails to clap loudly enough for Dash a troll, no matter how qualified an expert in crypto they are.

Greg Maxwell?  Troll!
Peter Todd?  Troll!
Charlie Lee?  Troll!
Fluffypony?  Troll!
Solarminer?  Troll!
vertoe?  Troll!

The term has lost all meaning other than as a convenient label to identify who you want attacked by the Dash cult enforcers.

If only Dash had a more solid way to fund projects and make sure they actually happen by holding someone accountable.

No offense Lamassu ATM vaporware guy; no offense Mycelium vaporware guys; no offense Legal Research vaporware guy.

No offense Masternode blinding vaporware guy; no offense PR/marketing fiasco guys...   

And especially no offense 2MB block vaporware guy!   

[qwizzie]

Yep, solid coin, solid developments, solid community.
If only we had a bit more challenging trolls ..... no offence Icey.

You guys call anyone who fails to clap loudly enough for Dash a troll, no matter how qualified an expert in crypto they are.

Greg Maxwell?  Troll!
Peter Todd?  Troll!
Charlie Lee?  Troll!
Fluffypony?  Troll!
Solarminer?  Troll!
vertoe?  Troll!
iCEBREAKER ? troll!

Corrected it for you.
At least you are an usefull troll by constantly bumping our Dash ANN thread.