Proposal “coreteammerge0918“ (Closed)Back
| Title: | Inactive Proposal For This Budget Cycle (was passed last month) |
| Owner: | glennaustin |
| One-time payment: | 1 DASH (36 USD) |
| Completed payments: | no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining) |
| Payment start/end: | 2018-08-18 / 2018-09-16 (added on 2018-08-22) |
| Votes: | 719 Yes / 71 No / 5 Abstain |
Proposal description
This proposal is cross-posted from here
Proposal
This is a decision proposal to allow Dash Core Group to be more flexible with our budget by 1) merging certain Dash Core Group balance sheet accounts and 2) reallocating funds from one budget to certain (network approved) partners in the Dash ecosystem.
With the current contraction of the Dash DAO’s budget, we believe our own operations and the Dash network as a whole would benefit from increased flexibility in deploying Dash Core Group funds. An example illustrates the potential benefits of this action. We have outstanding liabilities for a conference, which we would typically fund this from our “conferences and travel” account. However, due to the price drops from the time we submitted the proposal to the time we received the funds and exchanged for fiat, our conferences and travel account can no longer cover the planned expense. To cover the costs, we would normally need to submit a second funding proposal to the Dash network for the expense. However, there is an alternative. We do have unassigned funds in our “marketing and communications” budget that could be deployed to pay for the booths. Since the “conferences and travel” and the “marketing and communications” budgets typically cover very similar types of expenses and is managed by the same department within DCG, we believe it makes sense to merge the two accounts. This would provide the added benefit of reducing the total amount of buffer we have to hold in each account, which would lead to DCG being more flexible and efficient in how we allocate funds.
In addition to cases like the hypothetical example above, we want to help pay for conference expenses of certain partners who gain network approval with the unused funds in the marketing budget. However, according to the terms under which we requested those funds, those expenses can only be paid from our conferences and travel budget. By merging accounts we would have the capability to use the funds in a more flexible way.
We don’t want to merge accounts without the network’s explicit permission. Again, we are only asking permission to merge accounts that are very similar in nature. The reason we are putting forth a decision proposal is to receive explicit approval from the network for this change.
Further Background
We currently have 12 different budgets that have been assigned for spend related to specific purposes. These budgets can (and do) hold Dash and/or USD. The 12 budgets exclude separately created escrow accounts that may hold additional Dash for projects that decided to escrow their funds with DCG. The following is a list of all Dash Core Group accounts:
1) We will be able to keep smaller buffers. We have been holding buffers in each account separately to weather normal market volatility - but we have no ability to share these buffers between accounts. This results in us having to hold extra reserves in each account in case there is spend that is required for that specific category.
2) The budgets we are looking to merge are very similar in nature and fulfill similar objectives. As a result, and because of the initial approval provided by the community, we hope the community will support the same.
3) Increased efficiency as it will take less time and be less complex for finance to process transactions, plan and forecast expenses and calculate estimated taxes. Additionally, it would allow us to reduce our future tax liability as we would be able to hold a lower aggregate buffer going forward.
So what specific accounts are we requesting approval to combine?
Both core team salaries and research have historically been dedicated to advancing the development of the Dash network. The research budget was funded in December 2017 to provide funding for the blockchain laboratory at ASU, student scholarships, open source research projects and the creation of a blockchain course. Due to the increase in the price of Dash during December 2017, after funding the research initiatives as well as funding the Blockchain lab for the 2018-2019 fiscal year, ~$45,000 is still left over in the research account. We don’t have any additional research commitments for the near or medium term future so DCG believes combining this account with core team salaries (which is sorely in need of additional buffer) is the appropriate course of action.
Finally infrastructure applications and infrastructure datacenter relate to the our hardware and software needs and it only makes sense to combine these two accounts as well. The run-rates in each account is approximately $3,000/month and we have enough funds in each account to carry us through at least another 4 months without needing to request the network for additional funding.
We are keeping business development, evolution outsourcing, HR outsourcing, legal, property lease, and public relations as separate accounts.
To minimize the risk that this decision proposal (if passed) defunds another proposal in the budget cycle, we are requesting the reimbursement of the minimum amount of Dash (1 Dash). The treasury system does not allow us to set the reimbursement number to 0 Dash.
If you have any questions, please direct them to @glennaustin in the Dash Forum post to ensure we are notified of your request.
Requested funding is as follows for the September 1st budget cycle:
· 1.00 Minimum Dash proposal reimbursement
Total: 1.00 Dash
Proposal
This is a decision proposal to allow Dash Core Group to be more flexible with our budget by 1) merging certain Dash Core Group balance sheet accounts and 2) reallocating funds from one budget to certain (network approved) partners in the Dash ecosystem.
With the current contraction of the Dash DAO’s budget, we believe our own operations and the Dash network as a whole would benefit from increased flexibility in deploying Dash Core Group funds. An example illustrates the potential benefits of this action. We have outstanding liabilities for a conference, which we would typically fund this from our “conferences and travel” account. However, due to the price drops from the time we submitted the proposal to the time we received the funds and exchanged for fiat, our conferences and travel account can no longer cover the planned expense. To cover the costs, we would normally need to submit a second funding proposal to the Dash network for the expense. However, there is an alternative. We do have unassigned funds in our “marketing and communications” budget that could be deployed to pay for the booths. Since the “conferences and travel” and the “marketing and communications” budgets typically cover very similar types of expenses and is managed by the same department within DCG, we believe it makes sense to merge the two accounts. This would provide the added benefit of reducing the total amount of buffer we have to hold in each account, which would lead to DCG being more flexible and efficient in how we allocate funds.
In addition to cases like the hypothetical example above, we want to help pay for conference expenses of certain partners who gain network approval with the unused funds in the marketing budget. However, according to the terms under which we requested those funds, those expenses can only be paid from our conferences and travel budget. By merging accounts we would have the capability to use the funds in a more flexible way.
We don’t want to merge accounts without the network’s explicit permission. Again, we are only asking permission to merge accounts that are very similar in nature. The reason we are putting forth a decision proposal is to receive explicit approval from the network for this change.
Further Background
We currently have 12 different budgets that have been assigned for spend related to specific purposes. These budgets can (and do) hold Dash and/or USD. The 12 budgets exclude separately created escrow accounts that may hold additional Dash for projects that decided to escrow their funds with DCG. The following is a list of all Dash Core Group accounts:
- Marketing & Communication
- Conferences & Travel
- Core Team Salaries
- Research
- Infrastructure Applications
- Infrastructure Datacenter
- Business Development - General
- Evolution - External Contracts
- HR Outsourcing
- Legal
- Property Lease
- Public Relations
1) We will be able to keep smaller buffers. We have been holding buffers in each account separately to weather normal market volatility - but we have no ability to share these buffers between accounts. This results in us having to hold extra reserves in each account in case there is spend that is required for that specific category.
2) The budgets we are looking to merge are very similar in nature and fulfill similar objectives. As a result, and because of the initial approval provided by the community, we hope the community will support the same.
3) Increased efficiency as it will take less time and be less complex for finance to process transactions, plan and forecast expenses and calculate estimated taxes. Additionally, it would allow us to reduce our future tax liability as we would be able to hold a lower aggregate buffer going forward.
So what specific accounts are we requesting approval to combine?
- Marketing/communications with conferences/travel
- Core team salaries with research
- Infrastructure applications with infrastructure datacenter
Both core team salaries and research have historically been dedicated to advancing the development of the Dash network. The research budget was funded in December 2017 to provide funding for the blockchain laboratory at ASU, student scholarships, open source research projects and the creation of a blockchain course. Due to the increase in the price of Dash during December 2017, after funding the research initiatives as well as funding the Blockchain lab for the 2018-2019 fiscal year, ~$45,000 is still left over in the research account. We don’t have any additional research commitments for the near or medium term future so DCG believes combining this account with core team salaries (which is sorely in need of additional buffer) is the appropriate course of action.
Finally infrastructure applications and infrastructure datacenter relate to the our hardware and software needs and it only makes sense to combine these two accounts as well. The run-rates in each account is approximately $3,000/month and we have enough funds in each account to carry us through at least another 4 months without needing to request the network for additional funding.
We are keeping business development, evolution outsourcing, HR outsourcing, legal, property lease, and public relations as separate accounts.
To minimize the risk that this decision proposal (if passed) defunds another proposal in the budget cycle, we are requesting the reimbursement of the minimum amount of Dash (1 Dash). The treasury system does not allow us to set the reimbursement number to 0 Dash.
If you have any questions, please direct them to @glennaustin in the Dash Forum post to ensure we are notified of your request.
Requested funding is as follows for the September 1st budget cycle:
· 1.00 Minimum Dash proposal reimbursement
Total: 1.00 Dash
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
|
No comments so far?
Be the first to start the discussion! |
Dammit DCG. Please take the next opportunity to get a substantial monetary buffer.
Reasons:
1. Not enough transparency and essential questions have not been answered in the DCG proposal.
2. DCG could use this as a reason to get funding for one activity and then use the money for another activity and we would have no control or say on this. If there had been more transparency with the DCG but there is not.
I might add that if lack of transparency continues I will be stepping up the campaign to get the answers MNOs and Dash community need.
Due to DCG lack of responses to valid questions I am now also considering raising several proposal votes here at DASH central to ensure greater transparency by the DCG I will also be raising other votes for mandates on other aspects of the DCG. I wanted to discuss these as a pre proposals with the MNOs on the Dash Forum however for the past 2 days I am not able to make posts with my DeepBlue account on the Dash Forum. I have tried using a VPN with different IPs and the problems still remain. I set up a dummy account with a different username and email to test, and the dummy account works without any problems. The issue is just with my DeepBlue account. I am using the same computer and the same internet connection. Therefore I am not currently able to raise a pre-proposals with my DeepBlue account on the Dash Forum.
I would be grateful if any MNO may know the person who operates the DASH forum to look into restoring my DeepBlue account to normal functionality. If my DeepBlue account is not fully functional in the next few days I will record a video showing the issues I'm having and will post in DashCentral because I need to raise these pre proposals and want feedback from other MNOs before I raise these voting proposals. Thank you. / DB
Therefore I would like to suggest that DASH Watch be present on our call so that they can produce a DASH Watch report based on the interview and also ensure other community’s outstanding questions are answered. DashWatch can then produce DW funding reports which then become a valuable document for external investors and for the DASH community to refer to.
The DashWatch reports take the DASH watch team a great deal of time and energy to produce and provide very detailed information and therefore transparency on the DASH funded Projects. They also save the proposal owners time from having to continuously answer questions which can be covered in the DASH watch report. The DASH Watch team even produce the report for you - saving you time!
I would also like this opportunity to highlight the importance of the DASH watch reports in helping to attract investors. As far as I am aware no PR has been done to raise awareness of the DashWatch reports. This is a huge opportunity for DASH to attract investors. No other crypto currency is doing these types of detailed reports. Why are we not broadcasting these efforts to mainstream media with PR highlighting the DASH watch reports and the DASH watch website? This is an absolute *goldmine* of information that investors would find valuable. The values of these reports is truly incalculable for an intelligent investor that will be making decisions based on information that can be found in these reports.
I will be speaking with DASH Watch later today to see if they are interested in producing a DashWatch report on the core proposals. Could you confirmation if you would be willing for DASH Watch to produce a DashWatch report from our call? The way I see it is that DCG is requesting funds from the network in the same way any other funding proposal and should not object to such a request since the network has appointed DashWatch to do reports on all big funded projects - which includes DCG. In addition the DashWatch report will save DCG a lot of time answering questions and is a valuable document for investors. I would be grateful if you could confirm that you are willing for DashWatch to produce a funding report and be present on our call?
Ever since I was moderated a few days ago, I'm also experiencing issues with my dash.org forum account.
The website is quick and responsive, but once I log in, it is very, very slow, including today.
There is definitely some sort of throttling going on at the dash forums. It seems once you've made a critical statement you're on a 'naughty' list and accordingly punished. It is quite concerning.
There is a need for an MNO forum that is outside of the control of DCG and whatever other 'insiders' there may be.
Maybe try clearing your browser cache before you invoke conspiracies...just sayin'...
You may not recognize the importance of keeping them as honest as any other proposal owner. The pressure we provide will hopefully keep DCG efficient. Honestly, you behave as a troll to the MNOs who wish to keep a critical eye on DCG. You come across as a boot-licker. Try to recognize that. You seem simplistic in failing to see the importance of keeping DCG under pressure to answer our questions. I'll thank you to not bother to interject unhelpful responses when we are trying to understand and resolve issues.
Of course I tried all the basic things to gain access with my DeepBlue account e.g. clearing cache, using 3 different browsers (opera, firefox and chrome), I also tried using VPN with different IP addresses however I could not post a message with my DeepBlue account. The forum pages were timing out. However at the very same time set up a test account to see if the problem with my DeepBlue account or if it was due to some other factor such as the internet, or browser however when I used the test account the forum loaded as normal. I repeated this test 3 times, logging in with DeepBlue - nothing worked, logging in with test account - everything worked each time the same result. I also tested this on day 2 the same thing. The test account worked fine the DeepBlue account would not work. This issue on my DeepBlue account occurred directly after my message was deleted.
I can report however today my DeepBlue account is functioning as normal. However I've used the forums since the beginning of the year and to date this has never occurred. Only after my post was deleted. Since another MNO has reported the same thing then it is my belief that someone other than Tao throttled the account to make it unusable.
Thanks,
Drako
This broadens the scope too far IMO because future DCG proposals won't be targeted. MNOs will assume they are voting to fund one thing and find out that DCG decided not to use the funds for that and if this proposal passes MNOs who vote yes for this can have no complaints in the future when DCG don't use those funds in a targeted way.
For me, the scope is too broad but hey, I don't have as many masternodes as those in DCG.
I have no objection to funds to be merged if the funds are to be used exclusively for the Core team on this one occasion and provided it does not set a president for the future. I see this as reasonable.
However if the funds are to be allocated to any projects outside of the core team then MNOs need to be involved in the decision making process. For this and I would suggest before any funds could be allocated to an external project (outside of the core team) that a pre-proposal debate be set up to determine the amount and manner in which those funds are to be distributed. In this debate MNOs would discuss if the external projects are worthy of being funded and how much DASH would go to them. Then a separate MNO vote (1 DASH) for us to vote if the funding should be used on any external projects to the DCG.
I am not a complete fan, but this boom bust cycle in crypto makes unavoidable to make changes.
The Dash Treasure is in my opinion the best working system in crypto, the volatile price does uncover it's not perfect.
Because of the uncovering I would like the system improved. But not know as you are already very busy. I would like to see some adjustment on software protocol level, or a non-profit organisation holding the funds, so to avoid certain taxes. Because it's like that these cycles will remain for the foreseeable future.
They're asking for permission when they could have just gone ahead and done it. This is DCG trying to listen to MNO requests and complaints, and please stop blaming others for your inability to stay up to date and abreast of important information. We're being paid to do a job as well, and I suspect if MNOs were paid in accordance with our performance, many of us would be behaving quite differently.
Questions regarding helping investors invest in DASH by making Github coding activity statistics on private repositories public at the moment the stats are hidden - which means coding activity looks low. DASH is currently ranked 107th position for coding activity due to this issue. Big time investors are simply not going to invest with coding activity stats like that. Full question is posted here: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/coreteamcomp0918
Separate out full time, part time, students and interns - not grouping them with full time experienced staff in funding requests. I know you said it is difficult to do but I posted a reply to your answer.
Glenn we are trying to fulfill our role as MNOs. I know it is a pain from your side to answer these questions but that is how DASH works. We need the answers to make the right decisions. There is no point in asking us questions like this with so many questions unanswered. We are just trying to do our job responsibly. DASH core need to understand that. Thank you / DB
I am also looking at how to reply to your question around full-time, since we technically only have 6 employees (those in the U.S. PEO), everyone else is on a contract with a defined end date. Perhaps providing you with a percentage of contractors that bill over 30 hours per week can give you the information you are looking for?
@kot, you may not have had a chance to read my reply before our overzealous mod deleted it.
@glennaustin, here is my reply to your post to me on the forums:
Hi @glennaustin, thank you for your reply. You have been more responsive here and on dashcentral recently. I appreciate that, and I think the other MNOs do as well.
For the record, the Q2 Q&A answers were finally provided to the forums today, only after I noted the continued lack of response here and on dashcentral. The quality of the responses certainly doesn't reflect time taken to provide thoughtful answers, rather, the entire post seems rushed, and @kot states that not all answers have been collected yet. That doesn't look good on DCG's part. Here is the response to which you refer:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...-call-10-august-2018.39895/page-3#post-195441
It's beginning to appear as though DCG did not prepare to answer the questions, did not intend to answer the questions, and only finally did when the lack thereof threatened today's new DCG proposal.
This is being handled very poorly, to be frank. It feels like a politician giving lip service to their base.
It does show, however, that MNO no votes do carry some power, so my fellow MNOs, please do not be afraid to cast your NO votes if you are not getting the answers you need. Once you get your answers, you can always change it to yes before the clock runs out.
To answer your question Glenn, combining proposals results in less transparency. Since you provide very little in the way of budget line items in your proposals, we have nothing with which to gauge how you spend money other than the proposals themselves. Since that is how you choose to do it, we then need more proposals, not less, to gain more insight.
A relevant example is you intend to combine core team salaries with research. Once that happens, MNOs will have no idea whatsoever how much of a future proposal is going to salaries, and how much is going to research. At least with separate proposals, we know.
Were you to provide clear, accurate data in the form of line items in your proposals, as is expected of other proposal owners, this wouldn't be a problem. But since you don't, the MNOs must ask a long series of questions in attempts to understand how the money is being spent. Those answers are typically unanswered until they are irate and howling, and people start using foul language and labeling each other trolls. Is that a healthy community?
This situation is of DCG's doing, not the MNOs. There are many proposal owners out there who provide us great transparency in their budget, and we happily approve them month after month.
Another concern I have is the ability for DCG to move money between accounts essentially turns DCGs accounts into one big slush account, with money sloshing back and forth into whichever items they choose, rather than that being voted on by the MNOs. It sets a very bad precedent which could be abused in the future.
Lastly, as I suggested previously, and someone else mentioned today, it would be another step in the right direction if you were to put these proposals up as pre-proposals here on the forums before posting them on dashcentral, as does nearly every other proposal owner. I know you're a smart man, and I know you know what I'm talking about, and that it is not unreasonable.
We as a community could have hashed it out here a little before posting it on dashcentral. That is why it is the typical series of events.
Glenn, continue as you have been recently, increasing your engagement with us here. Post your proposals here FIRST. Allow us to comment and ask questions. Give us timely, relevant answers. Post budget items if requested, then post on dashcentral.
I maintain that combining proposals and granting the ability to move money between accounts is the wrong thing to do.
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/CORETEAMTAXES0918
Submitting this proposal so late and without prior consultation with the community / Masternode Owners is unacceptable.
I'm not against merging or using funds, in principal, for other areas DCG needs those funds and in cases where there are exceptional circumstances or there is a genuinely strong case for doing so but without any conditions attached to where, when and what for that this can be done is just allowing DCG to potentially use funds on something that was not voted for.
I'm concerned that this will lead to even less transparency of where, when and what DCG are using funds on. It is basically asking to allow the transfer of previously allocated (voted on) funds to be used for other things that Masternode Owners might not agree with and that the funds were not originally earmarked for. Secondly, it will give a much broader scope in the future surrounding where, when and what DCG can assign funds to for less votes.
For example: A future proposal may seek funds for one thing that was voted YES, yet without any further consultation with Masternode Owners those funds could be used for something different, that was not voted for.
I will vote "No" due to another lack of communicating by DCG with Masternode owners. There should have been consultation as a pre-proposal prior to submitting such an important proposal.
Please submit a pre-proposal so Masternode Owners and DCG can agree on the best approach to use, instead of DCG dictating it.
Thanks
HotFlow
In the future we will continue to maintain segregated funds so a future proposal that may seek funds for one thing can't be used for something different without consultation with Masternode Owners. This proposal merely asks to combine 1) Marketing and conferences/travel, 2) Salaries and Research and 3) 2 infrastructure accounts that were last funded in 2016 and which are used to fund our software and hardware needs. Is there anything particularly controversial here that is driving you to vote no?
I think most MNO's would like DCG to produce a yearly financial audit so MNO's can see how and where funds were spent (taking into consideration sensitive information).
Just announcing something in the Q2 call isn't really consulting MNOs in a meaningful manner - you could have raised a pre-proposal or had a session on discord with MNOs to get feedback.
The scope of what is being sought in this proposal appears too broad, imo. You say "a future proposal that may seek funds for one thing can't be used for something different without consultation with Masternode Owners". How will you be consulting with MNO's on this and what if MNO's disagree?
If DCG put in a proposal for research, for example, that passes and DCG decide they wish to divert some of it for Salaries then that was not what was originally agree the funds should be used for.
Best regards
HotFlow
I’m generally very supportive of DCG, but on this occasion I’d like to suggest you go back to the drawing board and engage with MNOs properly before we go any further.
The only good thing about it is the consideration taken in deciding to only request 1 Dash.
Every cloud has a silver lining I suppose.
Walter
Had DCG been more transparent and responsive with the MNOs in the past, I would consider voting yes. But, as it stands, they cut the Q2 presentation short at the Q&A and still have not provided responses.
This proposal will further reduce the very little transparency we get from DCG. We need more granularity, more transparency, and more accountability. Not less. Strong no from me.
DCG has still not gotten the message from concerned MNOs. No votes is the only tool we have to steer them in the direction we need them to go.
If the MNOs don’t like this Core proposal they will vote NO. Simple.
I also suspect that most of the Yes votes so far are from masternodes owned by people in DCG. To me, that allows DCG proposals to pass even if they are under performing, which could be detrimental to the treasury and the Dash network, but i digress.
If the tax proposal is reject, tax will necessarily be paid from existing funds from other budgets.