Proposal “Dash-Visual-Identity-201805“ (Closed)Back
Title: | Dash Visual Identity (Decision Proposal) |
Owner: | glennaustin |
One-time payment: | 5 DASH (155 USD) |
Completed payments: | 1 totaling in 5 DASH (0 month remaining) |
Payment start/end: | 2018-04-18 / 2018-05-18 (added on 2018-04-23) |
Votes: | 821 Yes / 94 No / 5 Abstain |
Proposal description
This proposal is cross-posted from https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-dash-visual-identity-decision-proposal.37125/
Proposal background
Last month the community voted on two competing proposals regarding Dash’s future visual identity. We set rules for the contest: the proposal that received the most net votes would be chosen for our visual identity, subject to the constraints that net votes must be positive and at least 20% of the masternodes must have voted. The visual identity presented by Tharp and Clark won according to those rules.
The altered rules were well-intentioned, as we were attempting to use the proposal system as a multi-option polling mechanism. We assumed most voters would vote “no” for one proposal and “yes” to the competing one. Additionally, we knew that masternode operators that preferred the existing Dash identity would vote “no” to both proposals. Under those competitive conditions, we anticipated more “no” votes would be cast than “yes”, and adhering to the 10% net votes threshold would constitute an unreasonable threshold. As expected, more “no” votes were cast than “yes” during the voting cycle.
However, a meaningful number of members of the Dash community and of Dash Core Group strongly feel that since the proposal presented by Tharp and Clark didn’t surpass the 10% net vote threshold, the proposal wasn’t actually passed by the network. Thus, we should not use the visual identity presented by Tharp and Clark until a proper vote is held specifically covering it - because it would violate the rules of our governance system.
The path forward
After countless hours of discussion over this topic, we realized that both interpretations of the rules have merit. Furthermore, it became clear that most people were entrenched and unwilling to change their established opinions on the matter. We don’t want to create a schism in the community over the issue, so we propose a vote on the Tharp and Clark design against only the existing logo. We are quite certain it will receive more than 10% of net positive votes, as most community members seem to favor the design over the current logo, even if they previously voted against it in favor of the Ogilvy option. For many community members that are calling for a vote, this is more about making the decision official and indisputable, and not stemming from a desire to overturn the result. This will put any questions regarding the legitimacy of the design to bed. However, if it doesn’t clear the 10% approval threshold, then we will keep the current logo. Once the vote is complete we will be able to move forward united regardless of the final result.
Why isn’t the proposal funding the Tharp and Clark work considered final?
While there is a proposal to fund the Tharp and Clark design, which appears likely to pass in the May cycle, proponents of a confirmation vote contend that support for funding their work is not the same as supporting the branding change. In short, a masternode operator that preferred to keep the current logo but felt that Tharp and Clark deserved to be paid would feel compelled to vote yes regardless of whether they preferred the new logo. Therefore, the only way to know with absolute certainty is to hold a separate decision proposal.
The visual identity proposed by Tharp and Clark
Below are updated image of the Tharp and Clark design and a short presentation:
This is a revised version of the logo they proposed in the last cycle to includes some of the feedback from the community:
1. Shape and slope of the face of the D to bring more in harmony with rest of the wordmark
2. Slightly longer, bigger dashmark that is also pushed a little closer inside the D that helps
with eye flow and unity
3. Interior of the “a” slightly larger and more open
4. Lower case spacing for balance
The presentation is the one included in the competitive phase of the process, so the logo is slightly different to the one presented above. They are working on a full style guide, but it is not finished and we wanted to put up this proposal in this cycle. The changes are small, so we believe that this gives a good enough idea of what
they are proposing.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pTq9WtRGXfvOvK5qcwlbx45a_yrmZqHL
Note: Tharp and Clark will be paid for their work regardless of the outcome of this proposal. Their first invoice has already been paid and the second one will be paid upon completion of a few pending tasks. Earlier this month we submitted a proposal to reimburse the Dash Core Marketing budget for the payment related to the first invoice (since that expense had not been previously funded by the treasury). Here is the link to that proposal: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Core-Team-Tharp-and-Clark-0518
If you have any questions, please direct them to @Fernando in the original Forum post.
Budget Request:
Requested funding is as follows for the May 3rd budget cycle:
- 5.00 Dash proposal reimbursement
Proposal background
Last month the community voted on two competing proposals regarding Dash’s future visual identity. We set rules for the contest: the proposal that received the most net votes would be chosen for our visual identity, subject to the constraints that net votes must be positive and at least 20% of the masternodes must have voted. The visual identity presented by Tharp and Clark won according to those rules.
The altered rules were well-intentioned, as we were attempting to use the proposal system as a multi-option polling mechanism. We assumed most voters would vote “no” for one proposal and “yes” to the competing one. Additionally, we knew that masternode operators that preferred the existing Dash identity would vote “no” to both proposals. Under those competitive conditions, we anticipated more “no” votes would be cast than “yes”, and adhering to the 10% net votes threshold would constitute an unreasonable threshold. As expected, more “no” votes were cast than “yes” during the voting cycle.
However, a meaningful number of members of the Dash community and of Dash Core Group strongly feel that since the proposal presented by Tharp and Clark didn’t surpass the 10% net vote threshold, the proposal wasn’t actually passed by the network. Thus, we should not use the visual identity presented by Tharp and Clark until a proper vote is held specifically covering it - because it would violate the rules of our governance system.
The path forward
After countless hours of discussion over this topic, we realized that both interpretations of the rules have merit. Furthermore, it became clear that most people were entrenched and unwilling to change their established opinions on the matter. We don’t want to create a schism in the community over the issue, so we propose a vote on the Tharp and Clark design against only the existing logo. We are quite certain it will receive more than 10% of net positive votes, as most community members seem to favor the design over the current logo, even if they previously voted against it in favor of the Ogilvy option. For many community members that are calling for a vote, this is more about making the decision official and indisputable, and not stemming from a desire to overturn the result. This will put any questions regarding the legitimacy of the design to bed. However, if it doesn’t clear the 10% approval threshold, then we will keep the current logo. Once the vote is complete we will be able to move forward united regardless of the final result.
Why isn’t the proposal funding the Tharp and Clark work considered final?
While there is a proposal to fund the Tharp and Clark design, which appears likely to pass in the May cycle, proponents of a confirmation vote contend that support for funding their work is not the same as supporting the branding change. In short, a masternode operator that preferred to keep the current logo but felt that Tharp and Clark deserved to be paid would feel compelled to vote yes regardless of whether they preferred the new logo. Therefore, the only way to know with absolute certainty is to hold a separate decision proposal.
The visual identity proposed by Tharp and Clark
Below are updated image of the Tharp and Clark design and a short presentation:
This is a revised version of the logo they proposed in the last cycle to includes some of the feedback from the community:
1. Shape and slope of the face of the D to bring more in harmony with rest of the wordmark
2. Slightly longer, bigger dashmark that is also pushed a little closer inside the D that helps
with eye flow and unity
3. Interior of the “a” slightly larger and more open
4. Lower case spacing for balance
The presentation is the one included in the competitive phase of the process, so the logo is slightly different to the one presented above. They are working on a full style guide, but it is not finished and we wanted to put up this proposal in this cycle. The changes are small, so we believe that this gives a good enough idea of what
they are proposing.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pTq9WtRGXfvOvK5qcwlbx45a_yrmZqHL
Note: Tharp and Clark will be paid for their work regardless of the outcome of this proposal. Their first invoice has already been paid and the second one will be paid upon completion of a few pending tasks. Earlier this month we submitted a proposal to reimburse the Dash Core Marketing budget for the payment related to the first invoice (since that expense had not been previously funded by the treasury). Here is the link to that proposal: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Core-Team-Tharp-and-Clark-0518
If you have any questions, please direct them to @Fernando in the original Forum post.
Budget Request:
Requested funding is as follows for the May 3rd budget cycle:
- 5.00 Dash proposal reimbursement
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
No comments so far?
Be the first to start the discussion! |
Whoever created the old logo deserves the real prize for creating our current identity. It has served us well! Hats off to you, whoever you are!
"If you support changing the current logo to the T&C design pictured bellow vote yes on this proposal.
If you do not supports changing the current logo vote no on this proposal".
Then go on with all the background stuff we can do without reading.
So I'm voting in the affirmative, but please lets not make a regular habit of doing this.
While I'm at it, I'd like to make a plug for ᕭ as our Unicode symbol. Looks pretty close doesn't it? ᕭash
I dont want than all materials have to be reprint without any prouf than new logo is beter than old one.
I realy apreciat CORE way of doing thing for consolidate the trust (trustless) in the Dash network.
Let DAO decide.
PS : Kalon, you killing me "ᕭASH"
Heads up MNOs,..
JoL rhymes with Troll. He’s only here to disrupt.
Just look at how our new ad by DashAds handles it. https://youtu.be/7R8Z3Boo94Q
His statement that “it’s an easy no” is so far off base from the counted votes it is hard to understand what is going on in his head, plus his endless negativity and comments on some pretty damn good proposals makes me think he’s a disruptive troll.
The new ad looks good, but agree, it’s confusing that they revert back to the old logo for the last frame, while incorporating the new logo throughout the rest of the video. Hopefully they will render it again to finish on the new T&C Dash Digital Cash logo.
solarguy
If anyone is in doubt, watch T&C talk about how they arrived at their design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od_-m5wcBR0
I am also curious to see the process of it changing
Watch T&C video then reconsider your vote. The time to make any changes is right now, before we hit the mainstream.
Did you see the live ads rolling out from O&M, typo/misspelling in the video ad (“inmediate”), and deprecated buy now links to atlassian.
https://www8.dash.org/en/
You need to stop being dogmatic and back your best horses.
When it comes to brand development , T&C are clearly the leaders, and that’s why they came out on top by a country mile.
Why are we paying for something before we even know if we want it? That's still not how the treasury system works.
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/marketing-201710
The work they did was already part of this, we paid Ogilvy 91,500 € for their branding efforts.
This is generally how business works, companies won't do work for free...
That’s how contracts work.
We don’t need to micromanage core or prevent them from making business decisions.
They are a Sub-DAO of Dash. If the network doesn’t like what they are doing, then defund them.
Personally, I see a great result here. Very happy with the team!