Welcome!

In one of these arguments, grandmasterdash attacked Dash's Platform proposition by comparing it to SIAcoin and Storj, both ranked very lowly and closely at #166 and #168 respectively. Although I called his argument fud below in general, I wanted to respond to this more in depth in general for the benefit of the MNOs so that we can all come to a conclusion about platform and its potential to both have great ROI as well as cement Dash as the leading cryptocurrency. After all, if that doesn't happen, platform can be considered in some way to have failed.

So, what about SIAcoin and STORJ? How does our most closely related competition fare (I alluded to Google and Facebook being our competition, that's more wishful, long-term thinking)? Just like Dash surpassed BCH, monero, Decred and BTC in the payments realm, being the number one cryptocurrency for payments in several regions for years now (most heavily in Latin America), so too will Dash need to surpass our cryptocurrency competition in SIACoin and STORJ.

I had a look at the ecosystem of these two in response to this argument. Here is my summary investigative results. First, SIACoin.

Here is a comparison of the file storage coins in the cryptocurrency space:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/501433513677946880/1036812268018598008/unknown.png

FileCoin remains the biggest at 873 PBs of storage capacity with 24 PBs of actual storage used.

Siacoin is apparently near dead or in a zombie-state. There has been several major negative events with a slow and steady decline in official activity in that community. Something called 'Skynet' was apparently a large undertaking that failed, costing the leader of the community his position as well as a significant amount of enthusiasm and goodwill in the project towards the community (like if Platform somehow failed in Dash, that same kind of negative sentiment reigns).

There is still apparently some development by "the Foundation", but its slow going and more importantly SIACoin remains low in usage having the lowest capacity and 2nd lowest actual storage used of all 4 cryptocurrency file storage solutions.

STORJ, however, is another matter entirely. But first, second-runner up to fileCoin, scprime.

Here are some important characteristics about ScPrime (I read the white paper so you don't have to, but feel free: https://scpri.me/wp-content/uploads/SCP-WhitePaper-v1.0.pdf) a potential technological competitor to Platform. Sc has an (initial block) premine to incentivize various participants, a proof of work mineable cryptocurrency, infinite inflation, 20% developer fund, self-admitted low value of its high-velocity token (large supply at least 7.6 Billion units), collateral put up for service providers with financial penalty for 'cheating'.

So overall, dodgy tokenomics as we know from the payments realm. This lack of tokenomic value will come back to bite these coins when it comes time to compete with Dash, because Dash's limited and strong tokenomics incentivize holding and value growth over time. Which will give Dash an advantage in paying for and attracting investors that will host the storage on HVMNs. Open-source client. Open protocol, good for third-party developers.

This network also boasts content terms-of-service that provide clear regulations on hosting illegal content (nod to my discussion with Socrates about illegal content). However, it is a proof-of-work mineable coin, and it has slow blocks, with claims little value for faster than 10 minute blocks. Dash is again superior here in being a fast transactional coin that splits the data storage network from the payments blockchain so that each can be optimized separately from the other. Also, like Platform data contracts specify how long data lives and storage proofs guarantee providers store what they say they will, no more and no less, with valid proofs resulting in payment to the host and invalid ones resulting in the payment going to a burn address (different punishments and rewards than Dash).

It also boasts storage of data at cost. Very similar data capabilities to Platform. Data key-pairs. ScPrime has the second most capacity (66.2PBs) but lowest actual data stored amount of all 4 solutions (1.7 PB).

Now to Storj. Storj is doing actually quite well it would seem, though its slow growth rate leaves room for Dash to overtake it with a strong offering. Although SiaCoin has the look of crypto-death and stagnation, storj appears to be actively used in an MVP fashion. They have their product released to market and its being used. 3rd most storage capacity (36 PBs) but second-most actual data stored.

So Its a mixed bag. This post is a response to the argument that Platform won't necessarily be anything special or grow to anything because SiaCoin and Storj, as well as others ostensibly, are low value and in general low in adoption (despite their current usage rates). So why am I confident that Platform will succeed and not only overtake this cryptocurrency competition but also nip at the heels of the big tech companies like Google and Amazon?

Simply because I believe that these other coins are missing some fundamentals that Dash has. The first thing is, Dash isn't doing decentralized file storage. I'm sure something like that can and will be done, but that's not the goal. Platform's goal is decentralized DATA CONTRACTS. This means Platform will allow dapps that use these contracts and will attract attention, one of these apps could be storage but it won't be the only one. These other coins are, imo, too tightly coupled with the "storage" use case while platform is a more generally useful framework. So, it will start with decentralized usernames for payments and those usernames will become more and more useful as other apps are built on Platform.

For example, we already have plenty of customers for the most popular potential DAPP right out of the gate: usernames. The only thing wrong with cryptocurrencies is that they're hard to use for non-technical people. Adoption would be a lot easier if people could use their Dash just like their Venmo, paypal, email, etc. Login with a human-readable username and password, send money to another human-readable username. Bam. Decentralized Venmo.

Decentralized payments between human-readable usernames. That one little thing is what cryptocurrencies are missing that prevents mass adoption, and thus that one thing could spread easily. Its just like these other coins in providing decentralized data storage. But with a purpose and customer base pre-built, people who want to trade and use cryptocurrencies with usernames. Millions of people know about crypto, but most won't mess with it due to the difficulty. Imagine defi contracts being stored on platform. Decentralized trade.

In this sense, the competition that grandmasterdash mentioned are at a disadvantage relative to Dash because their coins don't have widespread adoption throughout the world as payment networks, and their architecture is pretty slow, as well as being more limited in scope and practical usefulness. I suspect its because they have many thousands of nodes which may place bandwidth and other limits on their networks. They also aren't very financially attractive. Running a siacoin node gets you like $3 a month or so. Storj is maybe 2 times better.

Platform is more general in its application than these services in my estimation because it is a second-layer network built on top of a successful payments chain, which means we have a ready user-base with a clear usecase that will give us an advantage over ourr payments competition as well as our storage competition: usernames in decentralized payments. These other storage solutions can't really offer that, so they can't go viral easily and thus seem fated to remain obscure. I don't believe that that fate will happen to Dash because payments is such a large usecase. By combining data storage and payments on two different chains, Dash is offering something unique.

Filecoin, sia and storj are solutions in search of a problem. decentralized filestorage is not very competitive yet. But decentralized usernames for payments? Yes, that's a hot usecase that can't be copied readily. So our competition, both the payments side as well as the data as a service side, are at a disadvantage compared to our network. That is my summary report on the state of the competition in the storage space and response to the criticism that Platform may not amount to much as seen in other decentralized data storage cryptocurrency platforms.

I won't downvote you because you did at least look into what they are doing.

I cited Sia and STORJ as they are just two examples of what happens when you try to compete on price alone. When you compete on price, the big boys come in and they undercut everyone for years until the competition just fails or walks away. As you point out, Dash Platform has a unique offering and not really comparable, though Sam has said he wants to allow binary blobs, which makes no sense to me at all.

When you have a unique offering, which Platform has, you no longer compete on price alone. What is the correct price for using Platform? - NOBODY KNOWS because it is unique. How long for Platform to find a killer app? Again, for the same reason, nobody knows. Price could be too high and no one finds value. Price could be too low and the network sells itself short, less money coming in, squeezing MNO / HPMNO profits.

I say all this because it was Sam that made the assumption that Platform must be cheap. All I'm saying is, at this point, people should not get so hung up on price. First, Dash Platform must find it's niche. You say usernames and DPNS are the killer apps, I disagree. You can't just produce usernames and a DNS alternative and assume success, it takes a lot more than that.

From a user perspective, dash usernames are quite interesting compared to others, though there are issues surrounding name squatting. I'm sure it will add value to dash but how much value? Will exchanges support it? - it's hard enough getting them to accept InstantSend or Chainlocks. Will Dashpay also include a bitcoin wallet and leverage dash usernames for bitcoin transactions? - I doubt it, because DCGs focus doesn't seem to be on payments. But hey DCG, very happy if you do it.

In 1999 Shazam launched the first application to fingerprint and identify music. Initially, it was available to everyone via a phone call and then later an app. It took 17 YEARS for them to turn a profit and the real money was not made from their initial target audience but through royalty collections. Dash Platform is in this same position, a unique product that has yet to find it's niche.

There is also the extra burden of censorship, which Sam wants to postpone to a later date, after HPMNs. This too comes at a cost, either financially to maintain censorship or the cost of implementing it and fine tuning. Censorship is a highly charged and complex topic. Don't even get me started on binary blobs. Without some level of censorship, Sam said he would resign. I think the subject of censorship should of been brought up way before HPMNs came about.

>I cited Sia and STORJ as they are just two examples of what happens when you try to compete on price alone.

I don't think that's accuarte. Siacoin and storj aren't low because they 'compete on price alone'. They are low because their usecase never went viral. They don't have a strong reason for people to use them over the competition. Apparently file storage isn't as in need of disruption as tradFI, at least not yet. Because of this, I believe your example in using them is flawed.

>How long for Platform to find a killer app?

As you know, I believe that Platform will START with a killer app and that DCG is correct in focusing on developing platform for payments. This is the killer app and why I believe that SIA and storj are not relevant here. They can't do this even though they do file storage (just okay, not really superior to a centralized service except on esoteric technical merits like decentralized etc.)

Dashpay on platform will be notably superior than our competition and will allow us to utilize our payments chain as a killer app which will incentivize users to utilize their username for whatever they can. I.e. viral apps should spring from the killer app of usernames with the payment chain.

>Price could be too high and no one finds value.

This possibility being the reason that I concur with DCG and Sam about being against anything but a 4K or 10K HVMN solution.

>Price could be too low and the network sells itself short, less money coming in, squeezing MNO / HPMNO profits.

This possibility is not a realistic reason to do anything. You are just like the monero community. The monero community naturally has NO CONFIDENCE in their coin or their project. So they don't believe that the fee market (i.e. user adoption) will be able to sustain their coin. So, using this lack of confidence as an excuse, they FORCE monero on the market instead by giving it infinite inflation.

So the market won't be able to say, 'We don't like that coin, it should die.' This is the genesis of the monero community's attack against the fee market. They are insecure and lack confidence, just like you here. Your justification for this position is that you don't believe that Platform will succeed so you want to charge as much as possible to recoup ROI.

But grandmasterdash, if you don't believe that Platform is a game-changing and special offering then why are you here? There's plenty of communities with various beliefs on how to scale (none of them accurate or viable, but they exist).

>I say all this because it was Sam that made the assumption that Platform must be cheap.

I don't think this is accurate. I think every architect of Platform wants it to be low fee so it reaches the greatest volume of users. Your offering must be fast, easy to use and CHEAP. Then people will flock to it. This is not a difficult assertion to prove or even think of so I don't understand why you're against it so vehemently. Its NATURAL to want to lower costs as much as possible to attract attention. You make it up on the mass volume (which you apparently don't believe is coming).

>people should not get so hung up on price.

Who's hung up? I think you're the only one who's hung up on it. Everyone else sees the obvious logic in keeping fees as low as possible as a general goal, so aren't you the only one who is 'hung up on price'?

>You say usernames and DPNS are the killer apps, I disagree. You can't just produce usernames and a DNS alternative and assume success, it takes a lot more than that.

I don't think you've thought it through. You do realize this isn't some random tech show, right? We already know we have customers. Dash is the most performant and used blockchain for actual payments. Dash is the blockchain with the largest adoption among retailers in a global atmosphere. We had over 150,000 ACTIVE android wallets in just Venezuela ALONE two years ago.

If you give those people the same speed, security and adoption that Dash already presents, plus the ease of use of transacting with usernames then I think you're wrong here. That IS THE KILLER APP. As we've seen with 'Defi' and other 'crypto web 3.0 solutions', payments really is the biggest use case. Even if its just speculative payments. All the other things that people justify blockchains for really aren't worth it. But usernames for payments is. If you don't believe that this is a killer app then again, why are you here?

> though there are issues surrounding name squatting.

These issues are an edge case and should affect google, facebook and other name services which are offered for free. Dash usernames have a small fixed cost which should limit username related issues, including squatting.

>Will exchanges support it?

Irrelevant. Exchanges haven't been relevant to Dash's story since 2018 when we exploded in Venezuela before really getting on exchanges down there. Exchanges are not a leading indicator for Dash. And the market is deliberately ignoring our superior technology in all but a few cases. Still, we perservere and are the most adopted and largest payment coin, even more than BTC which is a huge accomplishment.

>it's hard enough getting them to accept InstantSend or Chainlocks.

Is it? I rely on instantSend for my daily purchases. I use Dash at least 5 times a week and its always instant and I never have to think about blockchain issues like with other chains. Which shows that even if exchanges don't support it, the network is what matters, exchanges will follow when we're popular regardless of their ideological position. And anyway, this is no good reason to NOT release so the concern is really neither here nor there.

>Dash Platform is in this same position, a unique product that has yet to find it's niche.

Again I disagree and think you're wrong. Dash Platform IS LATE! We already have a use case and tens of thousands of people chomping at the bit to use it. Payments with usernames is a killer app, because payments is a killer app. You see all this *points to billions "invested" in cryptocurrency economy*? Yeah, that's from payments, at this level of ease of use. So if we introduce usernames to this payments equation, then we will be the best by a long shot.

Our UX will be so far superior to other coins that we will LEAVE THE REALM OF CRYPTOCURRENCY and enter the realm of TRUE PAYMENTS like Venmo, Paypal and banks. Most cryptocurrencies are still limited by their architectures (block size, block time, no usernames/ease of use). Dash has solved the first two and now seeks to solve the final barrier to entry, which once solved will open the flood gates.

Anybody can get a little following by taking a strong stand against the banks. You're not going to find much pushback there among the general populace. But can you do so WHILE PROVIDING A DRAMATICALLY SUPERIOR user experience than them and your competition? 24/7/365 decentralized and permissionless availability all over the world with usernames for ease of use is ABSOLUTELY A GAME-CHANGER and I believe you're underselling it massively for some reason.

>There is also the extra burden of censorship, which Sam wants to postpone to a later date, after HPMNs

As I understand it, there won't be any censorship. Giving HVMN the ability to respond to a DCMA request is NOT CENSORSHIP. Nobody considers youtube as 'censorship' for taking down pirated movies, because its not your free speech to upload a pirated movie. It seems you want the network to take a childish and naive position w.r.t. our legal requirements as a hosting service. Providing the ability to remove illegal content is wise and just, I don't understand how you can see it any other way.

>Without some level of censorship, Sam said he would resign.

You're calling it censorship. Sam said he would resign without a way to remove ILLEGAL CONTENT. That is NOT THE SAME THING AS CENSORSHIP. Words have meaning and you're being dishonest and disingenuous by twisting their definition in this way.

> I think the subject of censorship should of been brought up way before HPMNs came about.

Your dishonest usage of the word censorship aside, these are things that couldn'tve been decided on before the network topology became clear. This is a common problem in software design where you can't predict the future topology of a design and have to wait until you're closer to release to define some constraint or other. This is normal in software development.

I can't possibly explain to you here what is a very big subject, whether you call is "illegal content" or censorship.

There is no single authority for "illegal content" because that would depend where you live. Different jurisdictions have different laws, motives and priorities.

Nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between something being illegal and content subject to AI filters, imposing their code-is-law. YT goes way beyond US laws for pirated movies. Any content creator will tell you all the things they can or can't play, say or show. It's just not about law at all. In the same way exchanges over compensate with ridiculous rules because regulators are intentionally fuzzy or silent.

Self-regulation leads to over compensation. It is a slippery slope which goes from "if you can do X, then you can do Y".

As for the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You know my position so we'll just wait and see.

>I can't possibly explain to you here what is a very big subject, whether you call is "illegal content" or censorship.

Its not big and doesn't require much explanation. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with stolen material, other peoples' property, files or data. So being able to remove that content (illegal, stolen material) upon legal request isn't censorship. Nobody calls youtube censorship for taking down stolen content (like movies). Respond to this argument or stop making yours!

>There is no single authority for "illegal content" because that would depend where you live.

Which is perfectly fine. The mechanism won't be reliant on jurisdiction. The HVMN will have the option to remove content when presented with a legal request, regardless of where it comes from (however, they will probably only respond to requests from countries that are actually hosting them, so even less of a hassle than you're making it out to be).

>Different jurisdictions have different laws, motives and priorities.

Irrelevant. The HVMNO will only have to deal with the jurisdiction they are in. One jurisdiction, one set of laws, motives, priorities. A HVMN outside of that jurisdiction won't have to comply with their regulations, which will force a global institution to represent the request, which also is fine.

>Nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between something being illegal and content subject to AI filters, imposing their code-is-law.

Nor do you seem to appreciate the difference between centralized offerings like youtube and decentralized ones like Platform. Again you show that you lack confidence in DCG and platform as a solution superior to current options. Because if you believed it, your 'criticisms' here wouldn't be enough to sway your opinion on the network or platform. You don't seem to realize it, but you have a lot of 'tells' that are giving away your motivations and incentives/hidden ties.

>Any content creator will tell you all the things they can or can't play, say or show.

And Youtube is not Platform. Platform will have the freedom to only comply as much as legally necessary, no further. Since there is no centralized institution telling HVMNOs what to do with their node, leaving it in their hands gives them the ultimate control. Something that other networks don't have. So again you ignore our superiority in order to push FUD.

>It's just not about law at all.

Its ALL ABOUT the law. It makes sense to provide a socially acceptable way to remove stolen content. You have not said anything that negates or even approaches a rebuttal to this point, your deflection by calling it 'censorship' (when you know its not) notwithstanding.

>In the same way exchanges over compensate...

Again this won't likely happen with platform because platform is decentralized and exchanges are not. You again show you are not appreciating the landscape for what it truly is, instead created FEAR UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT from an unrealistic proposition. Platform is DECENTRALIZED, the CoD will be at least 100, which is 100 TIMES more or less more decentralized than current offerings. Have a little faith.

>Self-regulation leads to over compensation. It is a slippery slope which goes from "if you can do X, then you can do Y".

Okay everyone, pack it up! Grandmasterdash said that platform can't work so we have to just go on ahead and quit now!

>As for the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You know my position so we'll just wait and see.

Your position is nonsensical and FUD.

There is no such thing as "illegal content" because we have no global laws.

Something that is legal in a place, it is illegal in another.

So you must say, "legal content in US", or "illegal content in North Corea" etc.

Just saying "illegal content" is nonscense.

>There is no such thing as "illegal content" because we have no global laws.

Preposterous. There are indeed global governing bodies that have a certain level of regulatory authority. And besides, being prepared in case those authorities are strengthened by world govts is wise.

>Something that is legal in a place, it is illegal in another.

Which contradicts your statement above. It would be 'illegal content' in that jurisdiction. If your HVMN is running in that jursdiction, you would be subject to a takedown request. Having the option to comply is therefore prudent.

>So you must say, "legal content in US", or "illegal content in North Corea" etc.

Not when you're speaking in general. Otherwise every English sentence would be overloaded with antecedents and other specifiers. Speaking in general allows us to say 'illegal content in the US' by just referring to 'illegal content'. So you're wrong and speaking a nonscense.

>If your HVMN is running in that jursdiction, you would be subject to a takedown request. Having the option to comply is therefore prudent.

A HPMN should not compy to censorship laws, it should just migrate to places where no legal censorship occurs.

>A HPMN should not compy to censorship laws,

Its not censorship. Censorship is limiting freespeech, not removing stolen content.

>A HPMN should not compy to censorship laws, it should just migrate to places where no legal censorship occurs.

Irrelevant.

>Censorship is limiting freespeech, not removing stolen content.

Some people are calling it theft, some others are calling it redistribution of wealth.

I am calling it neither theft nor redistribution of wealth, I am just calling it censorship.

And I am pragmatic, the only way to remove stolen content is to apply a global law. And a global law is not applicable yet.

>Some people are calling it theft, some others are calling it redistribution of wealth.

Why is that relevant?

>I am calling it neither theft nor redistribution of wealth, I am just calling it censorship.

Okay well you don't have the right to just 'call things what you want'. Words have definitions for a reason. Censorship is when you attack free speech. Someone stealing your bank credentials and having that removed by legal request is NOT CENSORSHIP.

>And I am pragmatic, the only way to remove stolen content is to apply a global law.

That's clearly not true. Youtube and other internet services remove stolen content all the time. They are globally available services that respond to local jurisdictions without 'global laws' being necessary so that makes your argument even weaker.

Well , my argument is that HPMN should not respond to local jurisdictions.

They should just migrate to other places.

>Well , my argument is that HPMN should not respond to local jurisdictions.

That argument is tone-deaf and braindead. Having the option to do so is wise, leaving it up to the HVMN themself. If you don't want to comply then don't. Giving options for personal choice is better than forcing one side or the other.

>They should just migrate to other places.

That's just your opinion. You have no right to force that on the rest of us.

>You have no right to force that on the rest of us.

And you have no right to enforce censorship (or whatever you call it).

Nakamoto did exactly that. All full node operators, whether it's bitcoin or dash core MUST store the entire chain, which I'm sure you know contains plenty of unsavory content / binary blobs. None of them get the choice to remove parts of the chain, though they are free to not mine it or broadcast it.

Unfortunately, it is not enough to block the mining or broadcast of certain blocks. From a technical perspective, most full node operators have broken laws by simple possession. Which is exactly why all data should be encrypted by default, then node operators can not be held liable.

There are laws that exempt certain carriers but this is very nuanced and usually licensed. Dash has not established such entitlement.

If you want to know how ineffective it is to censor blocks, look no further than Marathon Digital whom tried, failed and returned to no censorship:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/marathon-to-stop-censoring-bitcoin-blocks

If you want content to be censorable, just link to IPFS and let others deal with it.

In any event, one of the selling points of Platform is that result sets have proof that it is complete, no missing data.

>And you have no right to enforce censorship (or whatever you call it).

Strawman. I'm not the one trying to enforce illegal content removal (which is different from censorship, failing to recognize this indicates you are being dishonest). Since governments DO have the right to request takedowns, having an option to comply with them is wise. You have not responded to this argument.

In western criminal law you generally need two basic things to establish theft; a suspect and an object. If the prosecution is unable to establish either then, generally speaking, there was no theft. There are definitely exceptions to this which are usually based on technical merit. As such, data is not stolen unless the original simultaneously disappears.

CPUs are the ultimate copy machines. The core assembly instructions literally say, "copy from register A to register B". Thus, any legal-speak of "data theft" is a bastardization of the term and usually infers something else, such as hacking.

You can argue the technical details as much as you like, but ultimately, I don't think you're going to convince the network to take a stand against legal takedown requests. End of the day, bottom line, that's not likely going to happen.

I don't like the wording here of "must".

Why should platform be subsidized over DASH transactions on the DASH blockchain!?!??!?!

That said it is better to NOT overcomplicate things with splitting up the chain so for now I will vote yes to this solution x16.

Not sure what you mean by "splitting up the chain" because this is what all these HPMN proposals do. They built a PoS project and when it was nearly ready they suddenly realized there was no safe way to integrate it with dash's PoW. So they came up with this kludge and claim there are no other viable solutions.

From now on, there will be no easy way to propose changes to MNs without also first treading on the toes of HPMNOs. That there is a complication.

Consider supporting my proposal here and telling people about it: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/GOVERNANCE-EQUAL-OPERATIONS-PROPOSAL

This proposal is the only one that DOESN'T use HPMNs which is why I support it over the others.

You are spreading fud at a critical time during the Dash network upgrade process, while also using emotionally charged language to indicate that you "plan on selling" (like your posts on the dash forum). This is not the behavior of someone who either wants to see Dash succeed or truly believes Dash is failing.

If you truly believed what you said, you would sell and not look back. Instead you're busy trying to basically convince OTHER PEOPLE TO SELL and lose confidence in the project by misrepresenting the situation as negatively as you possibly can. This is the behavior of an infiltrator and a troll.

I think you agree that dash is so great, it will never fail regardless of what people say. Or maybe you are accusing others because you feel insecure?

>I think you agree that dash is so great, it will never fail regardless of what people say.

These two things are unrelated. Dash can be great while infiltrators and destructive elements like you and 3d1409ae seek to manipulate the discussion and spread fud and lies.

>Or maybe you are accusing others because you feel insecure?

Everyone has to deal with their own insecurities. This is not that. I accuse others because you are demonstrably spreading FUD, attacking the position and research of our Core team (whom we pay to research and deliver on these items) and doing so with no logical or good reason. I have warned that lowlife scum from other network like monero and BCH have bought up masternodes just to ensure that we don't win a race they're not equipped to even run.

Thank you for providing evidence that I was correct.

Oh and btw, when you're defeated in an argument, you're supposed to shut up after that. The fact that you would address me without acknowledging and accepting the fact that you have been defeated (again) by me indicates that you are not an honest person and don't have good motivations w.r.t. the network.

You don't see me going around harassing itsdemo like I foolishly did in the past. He corrected me and slapped me in the face by exposing my ignorance. So I shut the hell up in regards to him as I rightfully should've. That is your duty and requirement whenever you lose an argument, and the fact that you deliberately shirk that responsibility indicates you are a very bad and dishonest person who has no right to want to be taken seriously or even be here at all.

One of the points that infamous infiltrator and bad-idea-suggestor GrandMasterDash responded with below is the idea that BTC has "(13?) 17,000 nodes with any treasury reward or masternode reward" thus the implication is that BTC is better than Dash. Aside from that not being a strong criticism (BTC is the first and oldest cryptocurrency, so its first-mover advantage alone should position it as superior to Dash. This is not a failing or mark against Dash), its actually not factually correct. Neither from GrandMasterDash's own analysis, nor from relevant factual analysis which I will present shortly below.

But first, GMD's comparison is flawed, because BTC has 13,000, 17,000, or whatever figure you want to use, nodes and Dash only has 3800 masternodes, but Dash's masternodes have a collateral requirement while BTC's nodes don't. They're free to create (though they still have costs to operate). Which means you can't compare the two. If BTC's nodes had a collateralization requirement like Dash's nodes do, then and only THEN could you compare the two. But in fact, BTC's nodes don't DO ANYTHING. In POW 1.0 coins, if your node isn't a mining node IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE NETWORK AT ALL!

If you're just running a node to connect to the network, or connect your personal wallet, sorry but you're not doing anything for the network. You are only serving yourself (which in itself is fine, blockchains were created to serve this data). But Dash's nodes are completely different. Not only do they have a collateralization requirement, proving that investors WANT to run these nodes, instead of hobbyists and volunteers, but they also PROVIDE services that are impossible to provide otherwise. NO OTHER COIN has decentralized coinjoin on a bespoke network with redundancy of 3800 servers. BCH is STRUGGLING to get more than a single Cashfusion server (indeed they warn AGAINST multiple servers as it has costs that they don't want to/are unable to pay, which shows the fully paid node route is superior).

No other coin has monthly governance, instant transaction locking, decentralized but fully paid core and dev team, separate fully paid incubator teams etc. Why not? Because THEY CAN'T TRUST THEIR NODES TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS! Because its trivial to spin up thousands of nodes, that 17,000 node figure for BTC is nothing but a PAPER TIGER.

Secondly and what's more, the real data that BTC's node count is inferior to Dash's and thus GMD's argument is PURE BULLSHIT, POPPYCOCK AND UNADULTERATED RUBBISH is some information that was recently released. It turns out that YOU CAN almost directly compare Dash nodes with BTC holders.

https://crypto.news/bitcoin-whales-going-extinct-addresses-with-at-least-1000-btc-at-3-year-low/

This article provides a chart with the historical and current number of addresses holding '1000 or more BTC". In other words, you can compare directly between the people who believe in BTC so much that they're willing to hold 1000 of them vs the number of people willing to do that for Dash, and guess what? The number of holders of 1000 Dash is GREATER than the number of holders of 1000 BTC! And it always has been (since masternodes were a thing). We used to have almost 5,000 masternodes, but over the path to platform we've whittled that number down to ~3800. How many people are holding 1000 BTC? **ONLY 2063!!** So, despite BTC's massive price advantage and first mover advantage, Dash holders are STILL MORE CONFIDENT (or incentivized) to hold MORE Dash than BTC, the largest cryptocurrency, holders are.

Which means that not only is GMD's fake argument based on bullshit numbers and bad comparisons, BUT THAT HE'S ACTUALLY COMPLETELY WRONG AND ADVOCATED THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH. I've warned the network to watch out for people who argue the complete opposite of the truth several times before. Why? Because the complete opposite of the truth is THE STRONGEST ATTACK YOU CAN MAKE BY LYING. Which means that GMD's posts are not likely to be 'simple misunderstandings' or, 'simple mistaken but fervently-held beliefs'. They are likely to be deliberately constructed as an ATTACK WEAPON against our network to do the maximum damage possible by LYING. Which means that GMD is most likely an enemy, infiltrator and bad actor and nothing he says should be taken seriously at all.

In this comment I will not go over all these other distractions being made, but let's just quickly dispel these comparisons.

The source being pointed to is talking about ADDRESSES and not wallets / holders. Nor does it say the actual amounts above 1000 bitcoin in said addresses (only that it is 1000 or more). So, in the following you will see and verify the largest single address has approx. 250597 bitcoin. That alone is worth approx. 4.3 BILLION USD. Do tell us, how many masternodes would that buy? - wait, I'll use the calculator... 91871 masternodes.

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVPFHoCNxv4Twseo

To be fair, the largest addresses are probably cold custodian wallets which were probably excluded by Glassnode. So let's just look at some of the others. Go to page 21 and look at the 2074th richest ADDRESS which holds exactly 1000 bitcoin valued at 17.3M USD. How many masternodes would that buy? - 366 masternodes. In fact, these stats just go on and on, take a look for yourself.

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses-21.html

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3Jfy1UwUegtq1vXV9BphfhJuLw1NnpMJNy

So yes, you are being asked to believe...

"Dash holders are STILL MORE CONFIDENT (or incentivized) to hold MORE Dash than BTC, the largest cryptocurrency, holders are."

Disingenuous or outright fake news?

My question is, what tiny percentage of this wealth has bought dash masternodes, being they're incentivized and all that?

Side note. Some of these richest addresses also have unclaimed money from bitcoin forks such BCH and BSV.

>In this comment I will not go over all these other distractions being made

A common troll refrain used as a deflection when explaining why they won't answer the charges against them. Doing so is an implicit admission of retreat however so I welcome your cowardice here.

>The source being pointed to is talking about ADDRESSES and not wallets / holders

Straw man. Holding 1000 Dash takes place in an address and is not about "wallets and holders".


>. Nor does it say the actual amounts above 1000 bitcoin in said addresses (only that it is 1000 or more

It doesn't need to. The point is to give a baseline comparison. And besides what you say about BTC is true about Dash too. It's not like you're limited to only 1 1000 Dash address per holder or something so this too is a non response.

>So, in the following you will see and verify the largest single address has approx. 250597 bitcoin. That alone is worth approx. 4.3 BILLION

Again this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are not limited in the amount of Dash you can hold. But this figure does show that the number of different addresses with 1000 Dash is higher than the number of addresses with 1000 BTC which indicates investor confidence in Dash over BTC. None of your response is a rebuttal to this fact.

>Do tell us, how many masternodes would that buy? - wait, I'll use the calculator... 91871 masternodes

No it wouldn't Einstein. Have you forgotten that Dash has a fixed supply?? With a floating supply of 12 million there can be AT MOST 12000 masternodes, and the price of Dash (and thus the value you're using in your dumb rebuttal) will skyrocket on the attempt as you're literally cornering the market.

That you couldn't see this in your hastily written reply indicates that you definitely are a troll. That my comparison triggered you so also indicates you have emotional ties to another community than Dash and should be kicked out of here.

> In fact, these stats just go on and on, take a look for yourself

None of what you're saying is a rebuttal to the point that there are more addresses with 1000 Dash than those with 1000 BTC and there has never been as many 1000 BTC holding addresses as Dash's ATH. Which means you lose.

>Disingenuous or outright fake news?

Your question you mean? I'd guess both knowing you.

>My question is, what tiny percentage of this wealth has bought dash masternodes, being they're incentivized and all that?

I don't know what this question is supposed to be asking.

The point is you are wrong and your fake node count for BTC is a garbage argument. You behave like a troll and an infiltrator and your hasty and inaccurate reply here indicates that my factual analysis triggered you, which shouldn't happen if you're on the side of the Dash community.

The whole analysis for this proposal is based on the individualities that have been discovered in https://mnowatch.org/Types/index.html?1=

Do you trust mnowatch reasearch? If you do trust it, then the simpliest solution will be to allow every discovered individuality of mnowatch to maintain only ONE DashPlatform database.

That way the databases' replication is reduced, and the transaction fee is also reduced. This will result for Dash platform to have approximately 133 DashPlatform databases, a similar number to the 100 databases that the "High performance masternode solution" is planning to have.

But the 100 databases of the "High performance masternode solution" are not similarly decentralized as the 133 databases of the mnowatch individualities . Because if we allow each individuality of mnowatch to maintain one platform node, the decentralization is achieved due the separate individuals that are holding these databases. Decentralization based on proved individuals is a real decentralization, in contrast to the fake decentralization based on collateral masternode addresses.

ALL THE CURRENT EVO PROPOSALS ASSUME THAT THE BIGGEST WHALE IS A 270 WHALE DISCOVERED BY MNOWATCH. AND WHAT IF THERE IS A BIGGER WHALE THAT WE (THE MNOWATCH ADMINS) DIDNT YET SUCCEED TO DISCOVER? We have not yet discover the BIG whale that may or may not exist. But we did discovered the small individualities. So we have better be based on what we have already discovered, rather on what he have not discovered yet.

It's true, you've been saying this for a long time.

DCG should of been working on alternatives to InstantSend, CoinJoin and voting in order to de-collateralize the entire network. Solutions for these already exist. Now, according to Sam, dash is in a pathetic position of pushing for higher collateral in the name of "security" and "decentralization". Truly pathetic and I will not be taking part in it.

I will not apply upgrades that enable this shit and I will no longer refer to dash in "we" terms because in the entire 7+ years I have been with dash, this is the shittiest outcome I could think of. If our users wanted Solana, they would of bought Solana.

If anyone wants to fork dash with a view to de-collateralization then I am listening. DCG should be the one's forking, creating their own brand and starting from scratch building a customer base. But no, they lied by omission (or complete incompetence) and spread fear of security and centralization. They will steal the dash brand and all it's users, and they will make "digital cash" a secondary thought.

Disappointed does not fully express how I feel about this.

When I say "High performance masternode solution" above, I mean the 10k solution.

I decided to vote yes on this decision proposal despite the mentioned safety issues and without much hope of this decision proposal actually passing (too much incentive for large masternode whales to vote for 4K HPM or 10K HPM). If this decision proposal does pass, i expect DCG to find a way to make this solution work. If that requires more time before launch, so be it.

I also decided to vote yes on rion decision proposal (1K Dash Collateral High Performance Masternode
Voluntary Solution), as i regards both decision proposals as providing the highest level of Platform network decentralisation (node count) and the least affected by censorship, in comparion with the other Platform start solutions (4K HPm & 10K HPM).

Why is there such a large difference between the estimated yield that your research team provided you with 13th of october 2022 with regards to Platform on all nodes and the current estimated yield for Platform on all nodes in this decision proposal ?

13th of October 2022

Platform on all nodes

At network start (no fees generated) AND Assuming the rewards even out with the market we get the following values..
All nodes run platform: 6.11%

At network start (no fees generated) AND Assuming platform nodes get slightly more rewards (educated guesses on how the system will stabilise).
All nodes run platform: 6.11%

At network start (no fees generated) AND Assuming platform nodes get slightly more rewards AND platform nodes run stronger hardware to better server the network and ensure their profits(educated guesses on how the system will stabilize and hardware used).
All nodes run platform: 6.11%

Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-7#post-232371

Current estimated yield for Platform on all nodes in this decision proposal text :

Every Masternode must run Platform (this solution) : 4.70%

The reason is context.

Originally when discussing on the forum we had put that the recommended hardware be at 50$/month for platform running nodes in this solution (which gave a ROI of 6.11%) while all the other HPMN solutions solutions had hardware costs 100$/month. Some people rightfully pointed out to me that this was not a good comparison and that the comparison should have equal hardware requirements because in the end we don't want the system to be sluggish and slow just because we are going with this solution. I agreed.

With equal hardware requirements between all solutions the ROI of every Masternode must run platform falls to 4.7%

Check out row 14 and 19 here for proof: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i0NDJYkDDpwjCjOW7gyr8CL2zSJwSmcic0NzIw8X-74/edit#gid=395944304

Why is masternode hosting cost even in the annual yield calculations for Platform ? I don't remember masternode hosting fee being a factor in the annual yield calculation for current masternodes.

Instead factors like Dash Circulating Supply, Dash Blockreward, Dash Combined MN Collateral (Total Dash Staked) and the Stake rate (how much of Dash Circulating Supply is MN Collateral)
form the annual yield percentage.

See : https://medium.com/@staked/dash-staking-guide-e8d671d0ce03 (old article, but showing what exactly determine Dash annual yield)

Looks like Dash annual yield for masternodes is nothing more then the percentage difference between 1000 dash (mn collateral) and 1073.2 (mn collateral + yearly masternode earnings ).
Masternode hosting cost does not come into play.

See : https://dash-news.de/dashtv/#curr=USD&value=1000

Collateral : 1000 dash
Masternode Earnings : 6,10 dash per month x 12 months = 73.2 dash

I just saw rion's video presentation and it clarified a lot for me with regards to annual yield for masternodes. He uses gross annual yield (without masternode host cost) and net annual yield for masternodes.

I suspect most sites that show masternodes annual yield, only show the gross annual yield of masternodes.

For those that need clarification for each solution on the network with regards to annual yield estimate, overall chance of failure in a Platform quorum, masternodes / Platform network count, reaching equilibrium, how profitable each solution could potentially be for the early joiners before equilibrium is reached : https://youtu.be/wqFdR5C15ns

I find it also surprising how drastically the masternode hosting cost, seem to influence your annual yield calculation.

This is literally the worst idea! You mean everyone has to run Platform and upgrade their VPS to a much higher tier and eat the cost? Not thanks !

Will this version of dash platform be censorship resistant?

For those wondering : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-nor-any-of-its-subcomponents-can-allow-censorship-of-any-kind.53410/#post-232866

This certainly comes across as a form of censorship for Dash Platform, which can be easily applied by a handfull of whales (5 / 7) in a 10K HPM or 4K HPM solution.

The 4k and the 10k HPMN are FREE to run or to not run the platfrom, simply because we do not know who the 4k or the 10k masternodes are. But in your third poll option for the 1k solution you said: 1k masternodes MUST run the platform.

You set free the 4k and 10k HPMN to run or to not run the platform, while at the same time for the 1K masternodes you are asking to be forced to run the platform. Why????

What about adding also a fourth alternative poll option:
1K MASTERNODES SHOULD BE FREE TO RUN OR TO NOT RUN THE PLATFORM (1k OPT-IN solution)

See rion alternative solution for 1K OPT-IN : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/EVO-DECISION-1K-HPMN

There is an extensive FAQ that explains why optional 1K solutions all have issues. Since they all had major issues DCG could not propose them.

**Why are collaterals higher than 1K necessary?**

Increasing the collateral for Platform nodes is necessary so that an equilibrium between Platform and Core node yields can be achieved while also creating market incentives for a lower number of Platform nodes without setting a hard cap. It also makes it more difficult for individual entities to gain control of enough nodes to cause harm to the network or significantly centralize block validation.

As Masternodes seeking to run Platform must also provide Core services it makes the most sense to keep rewarding them for doing so. See next questions for more information on why 1k collaterals are not DCG-proposed solutions.

**Would it be possible to reward Platform nodes for Core services and keep collateral at 1K Dash while maintaining ROI parity between Core Masternodes and Platform+Core Masternodes?**

No, it’s not possible to do this while also maintaining parity. Let’s imagine 50% of rewards are sent to Platform in this scenario. In this case, a node running Platform+Core would receive on average twice that of what a node just running Core would.

**Would it be possible to reward Platform nodes for Core services and keep collateral at 1K Dash without maintaining ROI parity between Core Masternodes and Platform+Core Masternodes?**

There have been solutions proposed that give only 20% of rewards to Platform, however this solution is plagued by the same issue where a Masternode running Core would just receive 20% less than a Masternode running Platform + Core. In such a scenario we would be left with an insecure system in the case if few masternodes chose to run Platform. The market equilibrium in this solution happens when close to all nodes run Platform, as they would always receive more revenue by doing so. If we assume this to be the case this solution would require really high user fees to offset high network hardware costs, coupled with a reduction of ROI for Masternode Owners.

**Would it be possible to not reward Platform nodes for Core services and keep collateral at 1K Dash for running Platform?**

Yes, this is possible. However, there are a few major downsides. First, to reach the same level of security on Platform as the 4K HPMN solution against participants shutting down the service, there would need to be approximately 2100 Platform nodes with 1K collateral. Second, there would be significantly fewer nodes participating in Core-servicing quorums. InstantSend performance is optimal when the node count is over 1920; in this scenario, we would only have around 1700.

**Would it be possible to reward Platform nodes for Core services but not directly through Core Masternode payments and keep collateral at 1K Dash for running Platform?**

Yes, this is possible and is most likely the best solution that can keep a 1K collateral. DCG however does not recommend it as there are still major downsides and it would introduce a delay for release of Platform.

The first is that work being done on the Core payment chain would not be rewarded on that Chain. DCG would need to develop a more complicated mechanism in order to prove on the Platform chain that Masternodes are properly servicing the Core chain. Then we would need to implement a different proposer selection mechanism that ignores specific nodes not servicing the Core chain. A quick estimate would be that this extra effort would take 1-2 months.

The second downside is that this system only becomes secure with about 2100 Platform nodes. This would significantly lower the ROI for the network (including for normal MNs). At the same time user fees would be significantly higher than the HPMN solutions.

**Why not just put a ‘hard’ maximum on the number of nodes and leave the collateral at 1k?**

Setting a hard cap on the number of Masternodes running Platform would disallow some MNOs to run a Platform node even if they wanted to. Furthermore such a solution would likely threaten the stability of Platform by introducing a point of unsafe centralization.

Currently, the biggest whale is estimated to own about 270 masternodes. Say we set the hard cap to 1000 total Platform nodes. There would be a 6.35% chance that this owner alone could shut down a validator set each time a new set is chosen by taking their participating nodes offline, therefore halting the chain. There would be a 79.29% chance of them having the opportunity to do so each day with 24 quorums a day.

We would need to set the hard cap to at least 2100 in order to achieve a similar level of security in this regard as the 4k HPMN solution.

"""***Would it be possible to reward Platform nodes for Core services but not directly through Core Masternode payments and keep collateral at 1K Dash for running Platform?***"""
"""Yes, this is possible and is most likely the best solution that can keep a 1K collateral. DCG however does not recommend it as there are still major downsides and it would introduce a delay for release of Platform."""
"""The first is that work being done on the Core payment chain would not be rewarded on that Chain. DCG would need to develop a more complicated mechanism in order to prove on the Platform chain that Masternodes are properly servicing the Core chain. Then we would need to implement a different proposer selection mechanism that ignores specific nodes not servicing the Core chain. A quick estimate would be that this extra effort would take 1-2 months."""

MY ANSWER:-->The platform delayed 7 years. So 1-2 months more delay is not a big deal!!!!!

"""The second downside is that this system only becomes secure with about 2100 Platform nodes. This would significantly lower the ROI for the network (including for normal MNs). At the same time user fees would be significantly higher than the HPMN solutions."""

MY ANSWER:-->If platform is something worthy , 2100 nodes or even more will be found. If it is something useless, nobody will care installing a node. You dont seem to like the free market competion, and you want to rely on already established structures, dont you? Your core idea is similar to the idea of organizations that cannot stand by themselves in the free market but they require to be feeded by a state.

My point is that the masternodes network should hold shares from a (tottaly separated) platform network, and get share benefits in case the platform network becomes profitable. But the core masternode network should not be exposed to any danger that is inherited by the platform, either this danger being a network stability danger or a censorship danger.
Platform should launch alone, in a free market enviroment, while the masternodes should hold some shares from every platform node.

Public pre-discussion of this polling proposal mostly took place here :

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/#post-232053

Not even voting on this, I don't know why DCG decided to post the least workable 1K solution for Platform nodes as a voting option.

You don't have a masternode. As such, pretending that you do is dishonest and really is grounds for dismissal. Without a MN or a proposal, you are commenting here against the spirit of the network and in, dare I say, a propaganda-spreading capacity.

I think it was included because some people love the idea that everybody helps to run Platform. Easier, simpler, cleaner, fairer, etc etc etc. But the math heavily does not favor this solution. That's not the fault of the math, that's just the math if collateral is the tool we use to achieve the optimum number of Evolution-Platform Nodes.

Also (Socrates) this has nothing to do with manufacturing consent. Some people really want this option. DCG would have gotten a shit storm of protest if they had _not_ included this option.

just solarguy

manufactured consent

The things that bother me the most with this group of Platform developers / CTO of DCG :

* Considerable U-turn on DCG's own Dash Platform Vision, which was communicated to the Dash Community as recently as Feb 2022 (see : https://imgur.com/2QfvXAN)
(at this point i wonder if most Platform developers actually read DCG's own Dash Platform Vision)
* Disregard by most Platform developers for keeping Dash Platform decentralized
* Abandonment of the 10% treshold / 10% supermajority in Dash Governance and the constant denying of the CTO of DCG that the 10% treshold was ever applied in Governance proposals, even after getting confronted with proof on dash.org/forum that decision proposals in the past did adhere to the 10% treshold.

See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/should-platform-run-on-all-nodes-or-should-platform-run-only-on-high-performance-nodes.53374/page-22#post-232922

* Disregard for keeping the Platform network free from censorship. The posts from Sam on dash.org/forum on how they plan to deal with Platform content storage in the future, were really revealing with regards to censorship
* Complete dismissal for a independent third party security audit of Dash Platform, because CTO of DCG basically don't want to waste time and money (its about 120K USD, which DCG could have been requested in a multi-month budget proposal ages ago)

Sorry, but I do not read hardly any of the comments here or on the forum because it's all TLDR and I don't like to read.

Please come join the "Afterparty" discussion (every Friday afternoon) to talk about the HPMN proposals and more. Talking is a lot more efficient than writing and reading.

Please note, the Proposal Owner is declaring these three proposals a "poll". As such, none of these carry weight and they do not in any way represent consent to make substantial changes to the network topology, consensus and tokenomics without first acquiring super majority. You are, therefore, directed to vote No on all three proposals until the Proposal Owner submits a valid proposal.

As written in the FAQ:

The network has clear rules written into code both for funding decisions and protocol upgrades. This is a protocol upgrade hence it follows the rules for protocol upgrades. The +10% supermajority that you might think is the required threshold is only required for funding decisions.

For protocol upgrades at the beginning of Dash we used BIP9 consensus mechanisms, now Dash uses the https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0023.md mechanism giving more power to Masternode owners. This is the consensus mechanism we currently use on the network.

DCG will write software that has the best chance of being activated by the network as directed by this poll. We must do this because we need to make a decision. Not making a decision means that we stall the project.

To MNO's : previous major decission proposal from DCG was about extending Dash budget from 10% to 20% (Nov 2020) and was constructed in two phases :

Phase 1 : polling phase of the two polling proposals (MNO-Plan and DCG-Plan) to see which one got the most yes votes
Phase 2 : decision phase of the proposal with most yes votes, with explicit condition that it needed to pass the 10% treshold.

Both decision proposals were put on the network by the Dash Trust Protectors, who submitted these two decision proposals on behalf of DCG (DCG plan) and a group of masternode owners (MNO plan), DTP acted as a neutral third party here.

Phase 1 :

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-vote-improve-proposal-system-dc
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-vote-improve-proposal-system-mn

Phase 2 :

www.dashninja.pl/proposaldetails.html?proposalhash=d41000486d6da24dd1e339e8340b24d52131ea6212f09de81e97f00c4d582318

''In Phase 1 (this phase, this month) you are asked to vote for which option you prefer. Regardless of degree, the option with the most net (yes minus no) votes will proceed to the next phase (next month). DCG will implement the Phase 2 upgrade option if it exceeds the normal 10% net vote criterion in Phase 2. In the unlikely event the higher ranked proposal exceeds the 10% net yes votes during Phase 1, Phase 2 would not be necessary.''

So there is a history of DCG abiding by the 10% supermajority, in order to achieve broad consensus on important topics for MNO's to vote on.

It is strange to see DCG now suddenly abandoning the 10% supermajority, due to this CTO of DCG having a different opinion on how Dash Governance should or should not work.

I think with DCG abandoning the 10% supermajority, it is a signal that these three decision proposals are in fact very poor solutions on how to start Dash Platform. And the fact we only get these three decision proposals from DCG, tells me that Platform developers did not think through on how to start Dash Platform at all. Instead they ignored to deal with the start solutions, to the very last moment.

It is a sad day when MNO's can only vote on DCG decision proposals that either severly centralize and most likely censorship the Dash Platform network or vote on a decision proposal where Platform developers never addressed its safety issues, never disclosed those safety issues to the Dash community, never mentioned them in any previous presentation.

Why should MNO's even care about safety issues, when Platform developers ignored those safety issues for so long ?

The unfortunate truth is, Dash has never had a 10% governance voting mechanism for protocol upgrades. Any such rhetoric that you might have heard whether from DCG leadership or the community, is and always has been false. The only reason the 10% net voting on "governance" proposals had any weight in the past is because that is how the community collectively wanted to treat it, not because of any fundamental implementation in the code for an upgrade mechanism. The only real purpose of a governance proposal is a way to gather information which third parties like DCG or the trust protectors can use as a basis for their decisions.

In which case, I would like to declare that my proposal for Adaptive Proposal Fees was, in fact, successful (458 Yes / 393 No). I'm not sure why it wasn't implemented since 2017.

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Adaptive-Proposal-Fees

That previous proposal was made by a different leadership. None of the current leadership of DCG was a part of it.

The code has rules for protocol upgrades. They went with a different threshold than the rules the code requires. That was their prerogative. I am going to guess that this was because they were less technical than the current leadership or maybe they just wanted a higher bar.

This proposal is going with the rules written in the code. This is not a reinterpretation as you say.

So each time DCG has different leadership, MNO's can expect a different view from DCG on how Dash Governance works ? Well, that is just great.

I mean...yes? What did you expect? We hollowed out DCG entirely and now new people are in charge, you thought they were going to run things the same way as the people we ousted?

I did not oust anyone, i fully supported Ryan Taylor (Previous CEO) and Bob Carroll (previous CTO). At least with those two, decentralisation was never in danger, like it is now and the Dash Platform vision was clear to everyone.

I also supported wholly the original DCG team leadership. We don't even have a full-time CEO for DCG anymore.

Neither was delivering unfortunately. With them two gone at least now we have a more productive dev team. 'Wokeness' aspect of it seems endemic to these type of people though, which is why we need to back fill the manger roles with strong candidates.

Lying bullshit. I'm sick and tired of you gaslighting assholes attacking our network with your false garbage. YOU IDIOTS are just spreading FUD and smearing good, hardworking teams while supporting bullshit proposals. You are an enemy to the Dash network and you need to SHUT UP!

False. You have submitted a proposal seeking 1 dash funding. To receive funding and commence with the work you propose, you MUST acquire super majority. All successfully funded proposals have met this standard, you do not get special treatment.

There is no Dash gained. If this proposal were to pass, the 1 Dash would just offset the cost of making the proposal.

This proposal clearly states you are requesting one dash. What you choose to do with it is up to you. Proposals are not free. There is no code or entitlement to receive a refund.

If you win by super majority, the DAO will automatically issue the funding you seek for the work you propose.