Proposal “DCG-SUPPLEMENTAL-NOV22“ (Completed)Back
| Title: | Dash Core Group November Supplemental Funding Proposal |
| Owner: | quantumexplorer |
| One-time payment: | 744 DASH (21331 USD) |
| Completed payments: | 1 totaling in 744 DASH (0 month remaining) |
| Payment start/end: | 2022-11-11 / 2022-12-10 (added on 2022-11-15) |
| Votes: | 591 Yes / 83 No / 2 Abstain |
Proposal description
Dash Core Group November 26th Supplemental Funding Proposal
DCG already submitted 2 funding proposals for the budget cycle that pays out November 26th. This is a supplemental proposal that will fund Dash Core Group with an additional 744 Dash:
1) DCG Compensation: 2,296 Dash per month (currently in month 3/3)
2) DCG Infrastructure: 459 Dash (currently in month 1/2)
3) DCG Compensation Supplemental: 744 Dash (currently in month 1/1)
What does this specific proposal fund?
Assuming DCG’s current compensation proposal passes, with the price of Dash at $35, our funding for compensation will represent a very significant gap from our actual compensation expense. This proposal will look to reduce some of the gap between our compensation revenue and our compensation expense.
Did DCG reduce staff?
Five months ago we reduced our compensated team size by about 15%, lowering our break-even price from ~$120/Dash to ~$103/Dash. It has since lowered to ~$93/Dash due to additional departures and cost cutting measures. Our compensation reserve now sits at around 6 months.
Do you plan on more layoffs in the near future?
Dash Core Group is now mostly a technical organization with most of our business development and marketing staff having exited the project. The remaining staff is essential to us functioning at a high level. We have no plans to revisit further reducing our staffing until at least January 2022, regardless of what happens with the price of Dash.
Didn’t DCG previously communicate they wouldn’t request over 60% of the total proposal system budget?
Yes. In the past, Ryan Taylor, previously CEO of Dash Core Group, made a commitment to the Dash network that DCG’s monthly ask would never exceed 60% of the total budget. This was stated after there was significant backlash against DCG requesting funding for tax-related expenses in late 2018, which caused competing proposals to be pushed off the funding list. In this cycle, the same situation is not present; no other proposals would be negatively affected by this request for supplemental funds. It therefore seems to be in the best interest of the project to remove the self-imposed 60% limit, as not doing so would effectively hurt us by having to let go of people that are providing value to the project.
Samuel Westrich (Quantum Explorer) had reached out to the Dash Trust Protectors three months ago and asked whether they would support DCG making a proposal for the rest of the available treasury this month. All responses from the Trust Protectors had come back with support for the supplemental proposal. Given this indication of support, we decided to move forward and have masternode owners vote on these supplemental proposals every month for unused treasury funds.We will continue making such supplemental proposals in the case of unused treasury funds - waiting around one week before the end of each cycle to leave time for other submissions.
If you have any questions, please direct them to @quantumexplorer at dashcentral to ensure we are notified of your request.
Requested funding is as follows for the November 26th superblock:
DCG already submitted 2 funding proposals for the budget cycle that pays out November 26th. This is a supplemental proposal that will fund Dash Core Group with an additional 744 Dash:
1) DCG Compensation: 2,296 Dash per month (currently in month 3/3)
2) DCG Infrastructure: 459 Dash (currently in month 1/2)
3) DCG Compensation Supplemental: 744 Dash (currently in month 1/1)
What does this specific proposal fund?
Assuming DCG’s current compensation proposal passes, with the price of Dash at $35, our funding for compensation will represent a very significant gap from our actual compensation expense. This proposal will look to reduce some of the gap between our compensation revenue and our compensation expense.
Did DCG reduce staff?
Five months ago we reduced our compensated team size by about 15%, lowering our break-even price from ~$120/Dash to ~$103/Dash. It has since lowered to ~$93/Dash due to additional departures and cost cutting measures. Our compensation reserve now sits at around 6 months.
Do you plan on more layoffs in the near future?
Dash Core Group is now mostly a technical organization with most of our business development and marketing staff having exited the project. The remaining staff is essential to us functioning at a high level. We have no plans to revisit further reducing our staffing until at least January 2022, regardless of what happens with the price of Dash.
Didn’t DCG previously communicate they wouldn’t request over 60% of the total proposal system budget?
Yes. In the past, Ryan Taylor, previously CEO of Dash Core Group, made a commitment to the Dash network that DCG’s monthly ask would never exceed 60% of the total budget. This was stated after there was significant backlash against DCG requesting funding for tax-related expenses in late 2018, which caused competing proposals to be pushed off the funding list. In this cycle, the same situation is not present; no other proposals would be negatively affected by this request for supplemental funds. It therefore seems to be in the best interest of the project to remove the self-imposed 60% limit, as not doing so would effectively hurt us by having to let go of people that are providing value to the project.
Samuel Westrich (Quantum Explorer) had reached out to the Dash Trust Protectors three months ago and asked whether they would support DCG making a proposal for the rest of the available treasury this month. All responses from the Trust Protectors had come back with support for the supplemental proposal. Given this indication of support, we decided to move forward and have masternode owners vote on these supplemental proposals every month for unused treasury funds.We will continue making such supplemental proposals in the case of unused treasury funds - waiting around one week before the end of each cycle to leave time for other submissions.
If you have any questions, please direct them to @quantumexplorer at dashcentral to ensure we are notified of your request.
Requested funding is as follows for the November 26th superblock:
- 743 Dash ($26,005 USD @ $35 per Dash)
- 1 Dash Proposal fee reimbursement
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
|
No comments so far?
Be the first to start the discussion! |
Solarguy
Masternode owner
Trust Protector
Doctor
Spokesperson for the Trust Protectors
Chief cook and bottle washer
Facts:
- Platform is a PoS project
- The developers could start their own independent Platform chain with their own tokenomics to match their needs
- Or the developers could use another chain who's network more closely matches their needs e.g. Horizen which already has the two class network they seek.
But no, they want to leverage Dash's existing customer base with their high risk insecure project. They want to change the dash tokenomics to fit their needs AND they want to introduce content censorship which goes hand in hand with payment censorship. Because, after all, U.S. sanctions is a thing and you don't want the same terrorists and drug lords to be aligned with your content.
They will argue, they are paid by dash and so we should be proud to have their expertise and product. They will argue that starting their own chain or moving to a different network would be unethical.
DCG have placed many MNOs into a corner, knowing they sucked majority funding for years and, well, "we might as well stick with it, it is too late to reject it now". Now, you feel you have no other choice but to accept the Trojan Horse.
I disagree. You are standing at the altar and have one last chance to say no and call the wedding off. You should, she's a gold digger, going to take all your money to scale her empire. The new tokenomics will never be enough, they will need constant "tweaking", while sucking the life out of the payment side. The divorce will be expensive.
Gasp ... How nefarious we must be.
Just so everyone is aware Platform doesn't have its own independent token. It runs on Dash. The only way devs can make money off of it is if they own Dash and the price of Dash goes up. Or if they get paid work they do from DCG/Incubator via DAO like is currently happening.
Also... How would us devs have more control? Platform will be as independent of DCG as the current Payment chain.
What's sad is that I think you truly believe all these fear mongering lies you are spouting.
So, out of jealousy they pay people to fud and lie and manipulate the discussions by wholeheartedly supporting obvious untruths. Lest you think me a conspiracy theorist for this take, remember that this has already happened to us, several times, like with George Donnelly, Joel Valenzuela, Drako, etc.
Being the defender of attacks on dash, you of all people should recognize that a theft is being prepared, to rob rewards from the payment network (dash core) to fund the PoS shitcoin called Platform. A fact that is laid out in DCG's pre-proposal on how to launch Platform.
Not to mention the intrinsically connected forthcoming "discussion" about Platform censorship that Sam has announced. Sam has already stated that he will be resigning when his censorship plans fail. For, you can not censor content without also censoring payments, the two are indelibly entwined.
The price of dash goes up, just like you say, so why can't the MNOs afford to run Platform? Why isn't 1000 dash enough? I will help you.. .you need to change the tokenomics in favor of a even smaller class of nodes. This is the only solution you offer with two or three variations / parameter changes.
More so, this process you describe of making the price of dash go up has taken 7+ years and you will distance yourself from this argument by claiming you have only been in your current position for one year.
Are you now providing guarantees that the price of dash will continue to go up, or are you trying to defend yourself with speculation?
Def: Gentrify
- to change (a place, such as an old neighborhood) by improving it and making it more appealing to people who have money As the neighborhood became gentrified, the people who had lived there for many years could no longer afford it.
Platform has a token named "dash credits" which maintains a peg to dash. But this token is being managed on a PoS chain that is incompatible with PoW. It is by definition incompatible because you have explained multiple times how dash tokenomics has to change to start Platform "securely". Also while maintaining that no money will be stolen but also "catastrophic" consequences on an all node solution.
It gets a bit more complicated in real life. Technically, it is not DCGs decision to make. They work for us, not the other way around. On the other hand, if the Masternode community instructed DCG to go commit some terrible crime, they are legally, morally and ethically obligated to ignore that.
Now we're ready to have a much more interesting and productive conversation. What's legal? What's not legal? Where is the big fat grey area? Who gets to decide that? How much is it enforced? I would love to have a couple million dollars to hire 4 or 5 of the best crypto lobbyists on the planet for several years and do serious educating with regulators and lawmakers. Dash has done nothing wrong.
solarguy
Sam made some pretty detailed comments about censorship, which you should take into consideration.
Right now would be a terrible time to defund DCG. If DCG doesn't have Evolution Platform up and running by March/April/May (a whole other useful discussion) then I could conceivably be leading the bandwagon to defund DCG. It's make or break time.
I will be voting yes, and with enthusiasm.
Finest regards,
solarguy
Should the sponsored be accountable to the sponsor? I always assumed that sponsorship is a just give away....
We are asking funding to continue software development for the project. And we show our updates every two weeks on the development update review as well as many releases on our core wallets.
I think at this point DCG is so pressured to release Dash Platform end of this year, that they have cut corners on a vital element of Dash Platform, which is having developed some kind of guard dog on Platform masternodes that PoSe scores Platform masternodes and ban them if they are misbehaving. That guard layer / Platform Sentinel should be a mix of some kind of proof of service for Platform masternodes and measurements that mitigate other safety issues, inherent to Dash PoS Sidechain on which Platform runs. If that was developed alongside Dash Platform, there would not be any safety issues with starting Dash Platform on all masternodes.
All of the above just shows me that DCG has its priorities wrong for awhile now and is not acting in the best interest of the Dash network, rather DCG is just acting in the best interest of itself by pushing Dash Platform out incomplete, due to pressure to release and due to its failure to plan, prioritize and develop the guard dog / Platform sentinel / Platform Pose scoring part over the years.
Due to the above i no longer feel a need to support DCG supplemental budget proposals.
Second, if you are against us asking the network on how to proceed, then I am not sure what you want. You obviously don't want us to make the decision ourselves. Do you want us to just magically go in the direction that you personally want?
Third, can you explain how DCG could be acting in our self interest? DCG does better when the price of Dash does better. DCG does better when the network is happy. DCG and the masternode networks incentives are completely aligned.
You have not done anything about developing a PoSe system for Platform that could have mitigated some of the safety issues with regards to the Platform on all nodes solution and far more importantly you have done nothing about the other safety issues that can not be fixed / mitigated with a PoSe system and requires something else.
Which means we now have a severly handicapped Platform on all nodes solution that have all kinds of unaddressed safety issues, which you plan MNO's to vote on.
What is even worse is that these safety issues were never discussed in any of the Platform Development updates, was never communicated to the Dash community, was not mentioned in the DCG HPM Presentation and came in the spotlight only by a comment of you on dash.org/forum first mentioning one safety issue and much later mentioning several other safety issues.
You leave it up to other Dash community members to come up with alternative solutions that actually address those safety issues, that can not be fixed with a PoSe system and you only provide either that severly handicapped Platform on all nodes or two Platform start solutions that involve higher collateral (4K / 10K) and which leads to network centralization of Dash Platform.
This is not me against asking the network on how to proceed, this is me against you and perhaps previous CTO's of DCG, not having addressed or prioritzed the safety issues related to the start option of Platform on all nodes, which leaves the Platform on all nodes option severly handicapped !!
Nodes could propose blocks, but not respond to queries : Pose helps a lot
Platform having a bug that could take down the Dash network : PoSe does not help, needs a different solution.
Not enough nodes with strong enough hardware to start Platform : PoSe helps a little, will most likely need a different solution as well
Sharding : PoSe required
Sharding security : PoSe does not help that much, will most likely need a different solution as well
So some of those safety issues require PoSe, some of those safety issues require something else. And i suspect it is currently the safety options that require something else, that currently handicap the Platform on all nodes option the most.
The Masternode network ran for _years_ without proof of service and worked fine. Now that we have added proof of service to the Masternode network, it's even better. It's the same plan, get it launched and working, and make it better and better. Same thing with sharding, almost certainly a useful tool on the Dash roadmap someday. Today is not that day. You have to walk before you can run. And certainly, you have to walk before you can launch a satellite into low Earth orbit. One thing at a time.
By the way, did I mention how wonderful it is to be back in the saddle and working for the Dash community again? I'm loving it. Let's get on with fixing money for the world and launch Web3 right.
Solarguy
* Platform having a bug that could take down the Dash network
* Not enough nodes with strong enough hardware to start Platform
Those two safety issues can not be fixed with Proof of Service for Platform and need a solution outside Proof of Service for Platform. I want Sam to focus on those two safety issues and handle the rest of the safety issues after the launch of Dash platform.
I do think that Proof of Service for Platform has pretty much been an afterthought so far, that was put on the internal dev roadmap way too late .. but not much what can be done about that now.
If the whole network were to run Platform there is no way to section off Platform so the Core chain is immune, it just isn't possible. We already section ressources with Dashmate. However many I know will not use Dashmate to set up their node. And since we can't enforce people to run a node exactly how we would like it, there is no possible way to solve this if every node is running Platform and Core.
At the same time the Core payment chain would still continue on, just without chain locks and instant send locks... until it auto-repairs itself. This would be very bad as many exchanges require chain locks for deposits, but it would self heal over a relatively small time period (I'm guessing a week or so).
Running Platform on a section of the network is the only solution to this problem. However if you were to do so and maintain the 1000 Dash Collateral then there would be intense centralization issues where 1 or 2 entities could control way too much of the network.
The HPMN solutions with higher (4k or 10k) solve all these problems, and neither me nor others have found another solution that does.
Something went very wrong during development, if that is the case.
What remains of Dash Platform vision, if we only have centralized HPMN solutions available to us to start Dash Platform safely ?
Wil we still have Decentralized API ?
Will we still have Decentralized Queryable information ?
Will we still have State Information distributed on all nodes ?
Will we still have the option for anyone to query through any node at any time ?
Will we still have Decentralized Queryable information ? YES
Will we still have State Information distributed on all nodes ? On all nodes running Platform.
Will we still have the option for anyone to query through any node at any time ? Any node running Platform.
Does this leave Dash also vulnerable to 51% attacks ? Untill it auto-repairs itself ?
If that is the case, then please be honest about it.
There are many factual errors in what you have written Qwizzie.
First we spent months discussing PoSe. So we did do something about PoSe. Second we do have a system inside of Platform where we only reward MNs that propose blocks, and this is a PoSe system, just not the one we would need to support every masternode running Platform.
I know what you are referring to, it is the fact that I said we don't have the initial robust PoSe that we had conceptualized. The only reason you know it can even exist is because I have said it is possible on the forum. To be clear, this is a feature that to the best of my knowledge has never been built before in any other crypto project.
As you said I've been CTO for a year (slightly more now). When I became CTO, I analyzed what still needed to be accomplished, what was essential, and what wasn't. For the robust game theory PoSe I realized that it would take our team *at least* 6 months just for that feature.
Me and the team see this feature as non essential for release. While we might have retained your support Qwizzie to develop it and delay another 6 months to a year, I believe we would have lost quite a lot of other MNOs.
These are difficult tradeoffs that I needed to make when prioritizing what was essential for our first release. I know some people will disagree with me, if you want you can propose next month a different approach for platform activation where we MUST include this feature. I do not think it would get much support, because the vast majority of MNOs don't want us to release the perfect system on day 1, but want us to release a very good system that we can iterate into that perfect system.
''So some of those safety issues require PoSe, some of those safety issues require something else. And i suspect it is currently the safety issues that require something else, that currently handicap the Platform on all nodes option the most.''
So what are the most critical safety issues that require something else then PoSe :
Platform having a bug that could take down the Dash network : PoSe does not help, needs a different solution.
Not enough nodes with strong enough hardware to start Platform : PoSe helps a little, will most likely need a different solution as well
And yes, i do think a Platform PoSe system should have been put on the Platform devs internal roadmap way earlier then Jan-2022 and should have been in development by now.
* Platform having a bug that could take down the Dash network
* Not enough nodes with strong enough hardware to start Platform
Mitigate / fix those two safety issues. Right now it looks like you and your team (and maybe the previous CTO of DCG as well) avoid dealing with those two safety issues for some time now and started a discussion about it way too late.
If MNO's turn out to be voting for the Platform on all nodes option or downvote all available start options, due to these safety issues and worries about Platform centralization, you will be forced to deal with those two safety issues anyways.
And move the base essential work till after the PoSe work?
DCG must pivot and get back to work on Dash the payment network. ALL work on Platform must be stopped, you can work on Platform in your own time.
I am tired of your double speak, driven by your single goal to gentrification the dash network. Let's compare what you said above to what you said on the dash forum...
"I would like to say for those reading that safety issues are issues that could stop Platform, not issues where funds could be stolen. Those I call security issues, and right now we are only talking about Platform potentially going down and Core chain locks stopping, not funds being stolen."
...compared to what you said on 9 Oct 2022...
"Let's imagine just for a second that Platform were to go down taking down all nodes with it. Chainlocks would fail, IS would fail, Coinbase would no longer process deposits... This could be catastrophic. Most blockchains have glitches when they are released. So if I just release and see and then something bad happens, pitchforks will be out. I am proposing a high value extremely low cost option that allows us to release with the utmost safety."
Such a contrast that in the above instance you can limit / play down the extent of damage, but on the dash forum you can paint a picture of catastrophic failure. Yes, "catastrophic" is the word YOU chose to use.
Given the lack of communication on these critical issues for the past 7+ years AND in your term for the past year, I can only determine that Platform is unfit for use and unable to scale without more centralization in the future.
PLATFORM IS A FAILURE and you should stop pushing your altcoin project onto the dash payment network when it is clearly incapable of providing the resources you seek and not inline with Dash's mission to be the best payment network.
The WHOLE point of having paid masternodes is that they can afford to cover costs and deliver a superior experience to the end users. Your altcoin project is so intensive / poor design that there is insufficient capability in the dash network to pay for the workload... unless you change the tokenonomics and make it a liability to Dash Core, the payments side.
* Locking collateral for certain time period to give DCG time to come up with something more future proof (most difficult solution to accept for MNO's)
* Finding a way to monitor and restart Platform quorums faster so there is less chance of Platform network breaking down
* Running something like Sentinel / Javascript on masternodes to detect the hardware that masternodes are running on and perhaps extend our current PoSe system to start punishing masternodes from a certain point in time that have too low Platform hardware requirements. You can then start Dash Platform when you have confirmation that most masternodes run on Platform required hardware.
Thats just top of my head. I am sure there are other solutions out there as well. Just to launch Dash Platform safely and protect Dash Platform during upgrades.
The rest of the safety issues can be addressed after launch of Dash Platform through your planned PoSe system for Platform.
Can you explain how locking collateral would solve an issue?
"* Finding a way to monitor and restart Platform quorums faster so there is less chance of Platform network breaking down"
This is the game theory PoSe that we need. We have already mechanism that do as much as we can without it.
"* Running something like Sentinel / Javascript on masternodes to detect the hardware that masternodes are running on and perhaps extend our current PoSe system to start punishing masternodes from a certain point in time that have too low Platform hardware requirements. You can then start Dash Platform when you have confirmation that most masternodes run on Platform required hardware."
This is unprovable on the network, someone can just fork the software and remove this check. Might still be an okay idea, but it's not an actual solution.
''The point is, with timelocks, it's very unlikely that you'll ape in with all your nodes at the same time. If that's the case, then there's much less of a risk to the platform that huge amounts of nodes by one entity will suddenly drop off, or be upgraded at the same time. That's the main risk as I understand it, so, problem significantly mitigated.''
Not sure if this would work on the Platform on all nodes option though, maybe if the timelocks got randomized it would work ?
The goal : having less of a risk to the platform that huge amounts of nodes by one entity will suddenly drop off, or be upgraded at the same time. Maybe timelocks can help here somehow, in some way ?
"Let's imagine just for a second that Platform were to go down taking down all nodes with it. Chainlocks would fail, IS would fail, Coinbase would no longer process deposits... This could be catastrophic. Most blockchains have glitches when they are released. So if I just release and see and then something bad happens, pitchforks will be out. I am proposing a high value extremely low cost option that allows us to release with the utmost safety."
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-3#post-232232
>Third, can you explain how DCG could be acting in our self interest? DCG does better when the price of Dash does better. DCG does better when the network is happy. DCG and the masternode networks incentives are completely aligned.
The Dash price irrelevant to DCG, you just ask for more coin when prices are low, still not enough? You will propose to increase the DAO from 10% to 20% or higher. If indeed DCG's fate was more tightly coupled with the coins's like ours is, then I dare say different decisions would have been made to date.
In the end I strongly believe that if we start to lay off vital and well performing devs we are as good as dead. We are not there yet, and wont be for many more months. This proposal has been made so we never have to get to that.
From my side at least, also as a MNO, I don't see why DCG would not want the price to go up.
I am NOT compromising this fact on the basis of your current proposal for starting Platform. Until someone can present a viable solution, it is going to be No from me all the way.
The second deal breaker, I will not accept the gentrification of the dash network. 1000 dash is already a high bar and I accept there are plenty of other projects with much higher requirements. People need to know we are opening up and in a process of de-collateralization. The tide is turning and we have too many dash humpbacks. We can't beat them by bluffing and raising the stakes. The reduction of the proposal fee was a good start, let's continue that path without all the scaremongering.
To all business developers (Ernesto & Co), there is more than 744 dash sitting on the table here. Give us the bizdev team we deserve and build our presence that the price of dash goes up and thus we can give Sam the extra talent he deserves.