Welcome!

Crowdnode just jacked their fees, https://crowdnode.io/terms/


https://discord.com/channels/435921444833329152/505116948359675924/1287685306514145332

Incubator Weekly interview covering this proposal:

“Should Dash pay CrowdNode for MiCA compliance? | Incubator WEEKLY”

https://www.youtube.com/live/vF8v1yzR4vw?si=ETRc4OCQ2HmeDXAM

The delusion or dishonesty (choose whatever you like) of this proposal is the fact,
that CN won't be able to operate without KYC from within the EU,
which will either outright kill or severely (95%) cripple their business.

They made it clear since years, that they want to track each single penny, and won't allow any anonymity,
because they need to know the holdings of each and every citizen, in order being able to rip them off.

I don't believe that Dash will fare well if CrowdNode disappears, as a large number of nodes (especially EvoNodes) are run by it, and because it provides a very valuable service to attract new users. The one feature that new users came explicitly looking for after previous ad campaigns was the one-click staking provided by CrowdNode. I believe we would lose users and damage the price, so if this proposal is purely to save CrowdNode, I view it as a costly but necessary move.

If we can leverage engaging with a lawyer to write a letter of legal opinion on Dash, that would personally save me the money of having to ask for this in the future, making this more than just a nasty expense, but an actual positive development.

Personally, moving forward, I would love to see protocol-level changes to Dash itself so as to make the staking element completely noncustodial and as efficient as possible. This is the part I would love to see open-sourced, not the "build your own CrowdNode" template.

Regarding profit, I have publicly advocated for a sustainable business model for years, including raising fees, supporting other chains, and more. As always I'm happy to help brainstorm how to make this possible, but I think it's time to start planning on how to make this happen without hoping that the Dash price will significantly recover over a short period of time.

"I don't believe that Dash will fare well if CrowdNode disappears, as a large number of nodes (especially EvoNodes) are run by it..." This definitely is not a good thing. Why would we, as a DAO, want to subsidize a single legal entity that is becoming "too big to fail"?

It's not a good situation, but it's where we are right now. If we lose Bitrefill, Spritz, and Swapin, our ability to spend Dash takes a massive hit. If we lose DashCentral, we lose the ability to effectively run the DAO (mind-blowing, really). If we lose Quantum, Evo takes a massive hit. If I go away, our bizdev and marketing goes to almost zero overnight. It is what it is.

This is why points 2 and 3 exist: we need to make it easier to stake trustlessly at the protocol-level. What's the status on this? Who's working on it? I have no idea. But we need to. We also would want CrowdNode to be profitable so that it isn't subsidized anymore. But with the price the way it is, that just isn't a possibility today. But we should encourage them to move that way.

Long story short, we need to grow so we as a network are in a better position. I believe keeping CrowdNode now will make this a lot easier.

At checkout, dash is last in the list of cryptos, don't be too surprised if they drop dash.

Most of us here knew MICA was coming a long time ago. For Crowdnode to leave this to the 11th hour is their own stupid doing and I don't see why anyone else should be paying for their mistakes.

Look how far we've gone for you, above all people, to be justifying bailouts because, in your opinion, there is no other option. Your opinion here is the same as the bankers you claim to despise.

It's only your opinion.

Right now perhaps a third of the existing supply is locked as MN collateral.
What do you believe will happen once maybe 80-90% of the existing supply engages in staking?
It needs no genius to figure this one out: MN yields will dramatically drop !

If the trend continues, CN someday will control half of all the MN in existence.
A truly terrifying outlook.

It's worse. A minority of people are voting and for those that do, there is no feedback loop to incentivize good voting decisions.

First, I will ask again, do you have a masternode?

Secondly, There is no problem with low voter participation. MNs are only designed to provide sybil resistant voting to poll the network when necessary. Its not supposed to be a full time job or anything where 100% of the nodes are always participating.

As long as enough people participate to make and take a vote, then its working fine. We've been doing this for 9 years now, and fluctuation in voter participation has never negatively impacted the basic function of the DAO.

I agree about sybil resistance but what if that low participation was mostly one entity? Doesn't have to be one person, only one organization with the sole purpose to extract maximum value with the least effort.

I think a dao needs more than sybil resistance. Dash contractors should also have incentives to be profitable that it could one day exit treasury payouts, thus making room for new contractors to incubate.

You can see the alternatives voting outcomes below, which could be applied in case the Dash community were not immesively stupid and stuck to the failed 10% net votes voting method:

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/votethenumbers3/calc3.php?proposals%5B%5D=CrowdNode-MiCA-License-Getting-Started

I've talked about it before and I am wondering if you've fully investigated the option to decentralize by taking your existing model and then splitting it to be ran by bonded validators; perhaps even HPMNs. Note; this is very different than your trustless shares system.

Effectively the same approach proven by Maya Protocol / THORChain use through TSS but instead of validators churning every 5 days the validators would be locked in for longer periods allowing for masternodes / hpmns to run long enough to earn rewards.

With this approach you would then become just a masternode host, deeply linked into this system and be paid accordingly.

I would want to see the tech and processes of crowdnode open sourced before the DAO provides such funding, such that others could relatively easily deploy their own "crowdnode".

I would hate to see all the work and innovations ya'll have worked on simply disappear if this proposal does not pass. At least the legacy could potentially continue under new management if properly open sourced.. Please consider

Game on; let’s entertain the open-source approach for a bit.
Maybe the 'CrowdNode' code can get some help to evolve and have new features built faster. Granted—not a bad idea! :-)

From a company perspective, though, it’s a terrible idea to give away your IP (intellectual property), which is essentially what open-sourcing would mean.
The IP is at least half the value of the company. From a DIF investment perspective, that’s a lost investment.

The other half of the company's value comes from the people in it. With seven years in the community, and with high transparency, comes high trust.
What happens if someone or a team takes over or spawns a new copycat and runs a custodial service on the CrowdNode codebase?
The operators will most likely hide behind pseudonyms to avoid any accountability—maybe they’re known in the community, maybe they’re not.
And what if they have no conscience and run away with the funds on the copycat platform?

'Not your keys, not your crypto' is a saying. The only way I trust my crypto with a service is because the service is either compliant or I know where to find them in person.
Basically, I’m suggesting that I don’t think a pseudonymous service will attract many users—do you?

There are more risks and downsides to consider with the open-sourcing idea, but this is just an opening for discussion.

– ndrezza

I understand the concern, I guess the DIF investment kinda changes things. That's what is weird about this, in some ways ya'll are a non-profit, yet in some ways you're still worried about guarding your IP.

While I understand that desire, I think you have to choose one lane, imo either a project should be a non-profit DFO and open source as much as possible, or a private company that can strategically choose what to open source and not.

An alternative hoster could get or be just as trusted as ya'll are now. It is also possible that someone else could host the service and blacklist all EU IPs (but have a convenient onion address available too).

I just think that projects that the DAO provides funding it should be open source when at all possible. I've seen too many projects the DAO has funded disappear and be unrecoverable because it was never opened up.

Ahh okay – I didn’t realize there was any doubt about the end goal.
CrowdNode is a company, and companies are, by nature, for-profit.

Let me take the gloves off for a moment – I don’t mean to cast shame on anyone, but rather to add some perspective :-)

At some point, we want CrowdNode to be profitable, and of course, we want DIF and, ultimately, Dash holders to benefit, as a result. With our IP, we can vertically expand into other coins, creating opportunities for this. We can build integrations that attract new users to Dash, possibly helping push the price in the right direction.

The current status is that we are a cash-flow negative business. We have significant liabilities (us founders putting our own money into CrowdNode to keep it afloat – DIF/DAO obviously helped a few years back with a band-aid, for which we gave equity, 12%, but the bleeding did not stop). We've also spent thousands of hours for which we haven’t been compensated.

Looking at other DFOs, I doubt anyone is having golden days, but some of you are able to pay yourselves at least some meaningful salary from the Dash funds you receive from the DAO – that would be a dream come true for us. We’re paying from our private budgets to keep CrowdNode alive because there’s a chance it might eventually pay off.
But it’s also possible that Dash may never recover from this low price, in which case, it’s a sunk cost.

Why are we doing what seems like financial madness to most people?
This has been explained on many occasions. We believe Dash aligns with our idealistic beliefs – helping those who can’t get a bank account (on top of the mantra “be your own bank,” which, in my opinion, mainly appeals to people who already have money and don’t want it in a bank). Obviously to be able to spend Dash, pay in stores, for service, and do so privately. And now, with Platform, we believe there’s groundbreaking potential to bring Dash back to its heydays, especially with what can be built in the web3 and crypto combo space.

Please don’t think this is about getting a payday – in the short term, it’s about surviving. We don’t have the personal funds to cover these MiCA process external expenses, so this is, indeed, a cry for help to keep CrowdNode alive.

Also, please don’t turn this into a debate about political standpoints and government overreach – you’ll find we agree on many points, but our approach is to tackle the problem head-on. Revolutions, easy now :-D, are won by voicing opinions, presenting valid arguments, taking the fight to "them" on their terms, with the masses speaking up instead of staying silent in what eventually becomes echo chambers.

Right now, you (the DAO) has a wonder team of four Danish guys who are willing to spend the time to take that fight, and we feel there’s a chance, but we can’t cover the external costs. There’s no guarantee of success, but we have to give it a try, right?

And if we fail, then let’s explore the options for the future of the CrowdNode codebase.

/ndrezza

If crowdnode can't survive without doxxing its users, then it shouldn't exist. Identification should be voluntary. And Dash's MNs shouldn't be centralized to a controllable attack surface. If the choice is lose crowdnode or bend the knee, then we should lose crowdnode.

Becoming "too big to fail" doesn't benefit the network you are tasked with serving and trying to seek funding from. I think you should focus on decentralizing and open-sourcing your model in such a way that you're not required to comply with draconian legislation.

Churn in masternode ownership isn't a bad thing, au contrare, it is a blessing as it increases the velocity of Dash. Losing crowdnode but gaining a new class of MNOs would be an overall blessing.

> Looking at other DFOs, I doubt anyone is having
> golden days, but some of you are able to pay
> yourselves at least some meaningful salary from
> the Dash funds you receive from the DAO – that
> would be a dream come true for us.

Don't envy them, it shouldn't be easy money for you or any other
contractor.

> We’re paying from our private budgets to keep
> CrowdNode alive because there’s a chance it
> might eventually pay off. But it’s also possible that
> Dash may never recover from this low price, in
> which case, it’s a sunk cost.

It's a sunken cost to you but it's also a lost opportunity cost to dash. The dash dao has an embarrassingly long list of failed projects, the most apt compared to yours is DashDirect. Look at the extensive compliance efforts Marshall Greenwald, went through, a brave man indeed, only to walk away and remove access to 160K+ retailers from dash users.

In fact, I could literally count on one hand the dash dao contractors that are still standing and self-sufficient. Anyone wanting to contest this must list the projects no longer dependent on handouts.

It's not your fault per-se, though you do to some extent perpetuate the idea that the dash dao is here for those whom can't make money any other way. The fault lays at the door of DCG whom claim ownership of the dash "protocol" yet abandoned any improvements to the dao years ago in favor of their obsession with Dash Platform. That too was opportunity cost, millions spent and DCG remain unprofitable, so much so that they keep coming back for supplementals.

Before anything else, dash must stop the handouts and produce a dao based on results.

I agree 100% with Pasta here.

Copying my comment from the pre-proposal discussion on Discord last month:
(https://discord.com/channels/484546513507188745/484591862368305161/1279174012806762713)

> I'd rather [CrowdNode] put in a proposal to open source the whole operation in exchange for some treasury DASH. Then nobody will have to pay government extortion fees, and it's best for the network.

CrowdNode has been a valuable service. I'd like to see the team compensated for their work. This proposal does not do that. The best model (IMO) is public treasury funding for public / open source code. It's best for the overall Dash project, because it yields security through decentralization, which everyone should value.

We shouldn't dictate how CrowdNode runs their business, but I don't feel it's prudent for the network to pay for a private company's regulatory compliance, especially when considering that CrowdNode may very well end up as a KYC service, even after paying these (and likely more) costs.

The CrowdNode team is in a difficult position here. I wish them the best.

It is a pickle indeed :-) I will comment on the open source part on Pasta's comment.
/ndrezza

https://www.blenheim.nl/en/blog/guide-to-the-crypto-service-licence-under-the-mica-regulation/

Crypto activities outside the EU will be touched by the MiCa legislation

Crypto-assets cannot be issued and services relating to them cannot be rendered from outside the EU. If they want to market their products or services to EU residents, they must create a new legal person in one of the 27 Member States. MiCa erects a very high market barrier for issuers and service providers from other parts of the world. The regulation does not allow for recognizing the regulatory and supervisory frameworks of any third country as equivalent to those of the EU . The only way EU citizens can access third-county crypto-assets and services is by searching on their own initiative for foreign offers (so-called ‘reverse solicitation‘).

Solicitation of crypto providers outside the EU is not allowed
ESMA has emphasized that the non-solicitation rules are construed in the widest possible way. Any banner advertisements, sponsorship deals, solicitation by any kind of affiliates such as influencers and other celebrities. The person soliciting includes the third-country firm or any entity or person on its behalf. The ESMA draft guidelines provide guidance on how to assess whether the third country firm markets a new type of crypto-asset or crypto-asset service or activity. Only if the client at its own initiative has contacted a company and requested the service, the third-country company may provide it. Clients shall not be excluded from using third-country firms if they choose to do so without having been solicited by such firms.

Clients shall not be excluded from using third-country firms if they choose to do so without having been solicited by such firms.

Clients shall not be excluded from using third-country firms if they choose to do so without having been solicited by such firms.

Clients shall not be excluded from using third-country firms if they choose to do so without having been solicited by such firms.

Clients shall not be excluded from using third-country firms if they choose to do so without having been solicited by such firms.

So if you have an offshore and you do not comply to MiCA, you cannot advertise your company.

But EU citizents can still approach you.

Not if that 'you' stopped its operations.

''CrowdNode needs a MiCA license to be able to operate going forward (after end of 2024).''

This is Crowdnode's own conclusion, and this is what is on the line. Regardless of what you or anyone else post.

Does the DIF own shares in crowdnode?

Yes, 12%.

I’m so sad. I can’t believe how so many MNOs vote against the future of Dash... :(

Why dont you move the crowdnode company and hosting to another place on earth, where MiCA license is not required?

i think demo raised a very valid question here
there is no point in choosing the worst place on earth for running such an operation
just my two cents

MiCA has extraterritorial application of law. Meaning that it applies regardless if we want to service a citizen or company within EU.
Even though we move to a country far far away :-)

So the result of that will be to not do anything in EU, thus blanking out one of the worlds largest markets.

Ignoring such tyranny is the way to go.
Do you seriously believe the EU will declare war against an offshore company for not complying and serving EU citizens?
One day they may try to DNS block the domain from within the EU, but a domain can easily be changed.
And if customers use a proprietary DNS server for resolving names, they will be unaffected anyway.

They don't have to fight a war against an offshore company, if they go after the owners instead, right - I'm right here in EU.

imho, I believe we can get this license, I believe that we can operate without KYC - would that not be a major win and example for others to follow?

/ndrezza

You are lucky if the EU isn´t going to demand you take a DNA sample from every single customer.
And you are completely deluded thinking that the EU will allow CN to operate without KYC.
KYC will be mandatory even if a customer invests only a single penny or €0.01 - this is their policy !!!!

Indeed, you only have to look at the new EES to see how everyone is a suspect.

You’re entitled to that opinion, but look, the current AML/KYC laws have been in place since 2020.
We’re in open dialogue with the FSA, and we’re still operational.

MiCA is much more focused on business and consumer protection—and compliance, which is a different kind of beast. What a beast, but one that can be tamed with effort.

In other words, I think it’s necessary to work through the problem instead of running away from it, as many seem to suggest.
Tackle it head-on, and yeah, maybe we don’t get a license, maybe we do have to reintroduce KYC. Let’s look at the options based on that, but I don’t think the Dash MNOs typically back down from a good fight :-D

Let me emphasize part of the previous sentence—‘reintroduce KYC’—some of you might remember that CrowdNode launched with KYC.
Our communication with the Danish FSA was slow back then, so we decided to build and launch with it.
When they eventually wrote back to us, after understanding our operating model, they confirmed that KYC wasn’t needed.
Suddenly, we had to hurry and delete all data related to KYC because if it’s not needed, we’re not allowed to store it either.

/ndrezza

>They don't have to fight a war against an offshore company, if they go after the owners instead, right - I'm right here in EU.

So, in case you dont want to comply to the MiCa license and you want to confront and fight against the tyranny of EU, a solution could be for you to stop being the owner of crowdnode and sell the shares of your company to an offshore company (to the DIF for example)

If you decide to sell crowdnode to the DIF, you could cast a "vote the numbers" proposal, asking the masternodes how much they would like DIF to buy your crowndode buisness.

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/

I will happily help you in case you decide to cast a "vote the numbers" proposal about it.

It is very simple : either we adapt to a changing world and help get Crowdnode this license, or watch Crowdnode stop operations due to regulatory pressure (caused by not having this license).

They do not need to stop operations, they can simply move to another place where MiCA license is not required.

MiCa license is required throughout the EU.

The more CrowdNode nodes = The smaller rewards for all other MNO (i.e. slower payment frequency)

Hard No

Fair - if the hypothesis is that Dash will have the same amount of users with/without CrowdNode, given that we can agree that more users keep the price of Dash higher. Let me know your thought?

it doesn't even matter

CrowdNode is a profitable, successful company and is deducting fees to all its customers.
Therefore CrowdNode should pay up for the continuation of their business.

If CrowdNode was a non-profit organization, i guess it would be fine to ask for funding from the DAO.
But they are clearly not.

CrowdNode IS a de facto non-profit business/community service for DASH.
Do the math!
(Or watch the linked interview with Joel, where it is done for you)

Then perhaps you should stop being a non-profit that can't afford to lick the ass of regulators.

Stop non-profit: It seems to resonate with many that we should do something about the fees.

Lick the ass: You mean actually trying to write policies, procedures and processes that will ensure that Dash and CrowdNode has a future on the EU market, whilst having the regulators boot on the neck?

Be fair, please.

Why are you even in crypto? EU has plenty of banks and MSBs for you to use with _permission_. I have no idea why the dash treasury would pay for someone else's rules that turn on a dime.

Just one example. Standard operating practice these days for many exchanges is to hold customer funds hostage until you snitch on the other side of a transaction, demanding info such as name, physical address, email etc. And in many cases there is no minimum threshold. Why are you defending faceless unaccountable organizations like this?

You woke up in the morning and had choices. You have the skills to build p2p services that serve to defund governments but you choose to do what instead?

Mr Nakamoto must be turning in his grave.

I'm involved in crypto for ideological reasons—many of which I haven't seen fulfilled, but some of which can be realized and is realized with Dash.

I'm invested in Dash because it's a solid project that I believe deserves mainstream mass adoption. In my opinion, this can be achieved not by operating in the shadows of the dark web, but by functioning in the open. Unfortunately, this requires playing by some external rules, but it’s also where investors see growth potential and users recognize unparalleled blockchain and platform capabilities.

Mainstream adoption means that builders with innovative ideas (and VC backing) will start to use the platform, more businesses will begin accepting Dash as payment, and the overall ecosystem will see growth. However, we cannot attract them if we don’t show a strong commitment to compliance. I basically wish to see Dash grow huge and influential, possibly even to a size where the DAO will have funds granted to lobbying to get legislators to move in favorable directions.

In my opinion, Dash is far from being an ideal project to 'go dark' and anonymous —we are too visible, and there are better projects for those who want to pursue that path. You can reach out to Amir T., for example, if that’s the route preferred. But I do value the privacy capabilities we have.

I understand that we disagree, and I value that. I appreciate a good argument, and I respect that Dash, as a DAO, allows all subjective opinions to be valid, with the ability to vote on the project's direction. However, there’s no reason to make things personal :-)

Satoshi Nakamoto likely started turning in his grave years ago—perhaps even before Bitcoin core developers removed the block size scaling defaults he had prepared :-D

/ndrezza

For years, under RT, dash tried the compliance route and it got us where exactly? Do you not know that repeating the same mistakes, over and over, is a sure sign of madness!

These regulators constantly boil the pot with the same rhetoric, and I guess it works because you are in an endless line of people willing to try one-more-time.

Politicians start with "reasonable" and tepid measures to get their foot in the door. They quickly realize the duality of their power, which leads them to hold hostage A to get B. To allow C but not D. And finally, to justify why they alone should be the masters of A, B, C and D. The rules of exception belong to them, whether it's covid or AI algos, it's all the same, rules for thee but not for me.

I would highly recommend you read The Master Switch by Tim Wu.

It's such a shame that you make this your priority of time when there are other opportunities, such as integrating into the dash wallet of Bison Wallet. Or making a bisq-like app leveraging Platform.

Have you seen the podcast? :-)

Stupid to sink all this money goodbye for a meaningless, worthless 'license',
when the EU has already declared that they are going to ban and outlaw ALL privacy-enhanced
coins, because it contradicts their wet dreams of total surveillance for tax slavery purposes.
What a load of misinformed crap.

Where and when did EU declare that "...ban and outlaw..."?

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/31/eu-parliament-votes-on-privacy-busting-crypto-rules-industry-rails-against-proposals/

https://decrypt.co/76432/eu-wants-ban-anonymous-crypto-wallets-2024

https://www.coindesk.com/eu-authorities-crack-down-on-bitcoin-transaction-mixer

Click-bait-headlines-aside:

I truly believe that Dash is playing on the intelligent team here.
Dash is not more private than what can be achieved with Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin, and these coins are not going anywhere (so it would seem).
Dash is privacy enhanced in it core, which is good (and maybe we should make it even better), but not a compliance problem compared to the before a mentioned coins, all other things equal.

The travel-rule is a mess, no doubt about it. Ridiculous overreach. And it is a headache for member countries.

It is even more a mess, that it is being tested if you can go to jail for building software (tried in court these years, right).
It should be going to jail for the actual crime of using whatever software for illegal activities - a silly comparison/analogy would be to arrest Bill Gates if I use a Windows machine whilst black-hat-hacking ... I don't think it will fly in the long run.

/ndrezza

Well said Ryan Taylor.

Yes, of course. CN contributes an important service to the Dash ecosystem.
IMHO 3 times 255 Dash is nothing compared its value.

So MiCa will become fully active end of 2024. I thought i was suppose to be ratified first by all its EU members and is expected to become fully enforced in 2027?

Does this mean that centralized exchanges operating in the EU will be forced end of 2024 to do chain-analyse on incoming Dash deposits for any CoinJoin activity and suspend accounts that has CoinJoin activity ? (as described in the MiCa text) Or is there a transgression period between MiCa activation (end of 2024) and MiCa enforcement (somewhere 2027) ?

Denmark is pretty quick about its local ratification and application of it.

The latter part of your question is difficult for me to answer. For the MiCA part, it surely depends on which country the company is registered in (because some countries are slower in their local implementation), and which level of compliance the exchanges already have in place.
If I have to guess, then mixed private send deposits to exchanges will be rejected in the future, but as long as the exchange do KYC and deposits are from one, possible more, identifiable addresses, then I do not see a need for them to do any more about it.
What's you guess?

Sound reasonable to me. Also TheDesertLynx clarified some things to me. So maybe it is not as bad as i first thought.

Yes from me, by the way.

The 26mnos whale ayver
https://mnowatch.org/ayver/

He/she voted this proposal, but this proposal has NO description!

https://mnowatch.org/the_results_dashd_2024-09-07-23-25-23.uniqueHashVotes.187.html?10=ayver

It has a description now :-)
And I guess Ayver watched the Dash Podcast - Episode 216.

Whatever he watched, voting a proposal with no description remains completely stupidity.

Thank you for posting the description, but this does not reduce the stupidity of Ayver.

Ayver votes for proposals without a description, also apparently does not vote for mnowatch....

Hahaha, apparently ...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m96NeIg4czM

There is no hope for Dash community, unless we discover a way to get rid of the idiots.