Search results

We have already discussed this for months on multiple fora. We have explored every facet of it ad nauseam. I don't understand how you could not have gotten the memo... We have had a run-off election of the two proposals, and now the winning proposal (DCG) will be put before the DAO and voted on...

DCG or the DIT will run the DCG proposal again, and if it passes we will implement the plan described therein. If if does not pass, we continue with the current system.

I am talking about the DELTA. Any increase in spending forces miner rewards lower. There is a dynamic element to this that you seem to be missing. We are sharing rewards with miners in any event. The issue is should miners be forced to contribute more when the DAO needs to spend over 10% or...

The MNOs actually have more power IMO in the DCG plan. MNOs can control funds normally set aside for miners and redirect them toward some (hopefully) beneficial purpose.

As you can see from the above table, maxing out the budget would hurt MNOs more than miners, which is why I termed your idea self-destructive as you are an MNO.

A working definition of "stupid" is "tending toward self destruction." What you are saying is, by that definition, stupid.

Here are both plans in a nutshell: RT -- Plan is easier to explain without a spreadsheet. Successful proposals get paid out of MNOs and Miners rewards proportionately 60/40 so MNOs don't get too miserly. RG -- Miners get a fixed reward. All successful proposals get paid out of MNO rewards...

It's very simple... We need to be able to deploy more than 10% of the block reward in extenuating circumstances and this allows us to do that. Also, we need to do away with the "use it or lose it" treasury so tungfa can stop posting, "Please vote. There is still some unspent treasury this...

If at some point one of these proposals is the clear winner, I hope that the proponents of the loser switch their votes so that we can pass one of these proposals this cycle. I am anxious to get to the next governance change discussion, which involves masternode voting.

What I don't understand is why did the MNOs who fashioned this alternate plan not discuss this initiative anywhere? Why was it done in secret? The first I heard of it was when both proposals were published.

On June 29 I proposed what is basically the MNO plan to Ryan and he responded with well-thought-out arguments why he thought his idea was better. You can see that exchange here: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-economics-discussion-series.50278/#post-222407 At first blush the MNO idea...

I spent a fair amount of time trying to make my concerns and my argument as clear as possible. Please don't take offense as I am simply trying to insure that the DIF we were presented with and which we voted for is the DIF we get. The DIF may not always have supervisors of yours and Ryan's...

https://blog.dash.org/introducing-the-dash-investment-foundation-370cafcc48ee Ryan Taylor's original description of the DIF included an investment manager. It did not specify an optional investment manager or an eventual investment manager. He even listed the "appointment of an investment...

Also, I found this article that explains the math behind VC funding for a typical firm... https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/how-vcs-look-at-startups-and-founders/ They screen 3,000 proposals and look at 200 very seriously. In the end, they invest in about 20...

I would like talk about the DIF maintaining a "rainy day" fund. Since learning that Allnodes is hosting over 800 masternodes, I believe there is a real possibility that one day someone will hack into one of our masternode hosting services and access a significant number of voting keys. If this...

I have joked in the Discord that the DIF should be renamed DIEHARD (Dash Investment, Escrow, Holding And Rainy Day fund). I see the DIF as the savings account the DAO never had. And since the funds exist for the benefit of the DAO (MNOs), these funds can be used in any LEGAL way the DAO...

Thank you Darren Tapp. What a relief to have you as a DIF supervisor! You are spot-on with regard to the DIF running masternodes BTW. PLEASE engage the community by commenting on the DashCentral DIF proposal page. This is where a lot of the debate happens. Here is the link...

What about the idea of keeping miner rewards fixed and letting the unspent treasury accrue to masternodes only. Your plan of letting miners share in the unspent treasury adds unnecessary uncertainty for them and dilutes the basic idea that masternode owners can directly benefit from being...

What is the plan for implementing the 0% to 20% treasury? Would this be phased in over time or done all at once? If all at once, would it be done ASAP or after some milestone relating to the reallocation of mn/masternode rewards?

I have a prediction: In order for Dash to scale with the proposed feature set, masternode quorums will have to be employed as the block emission mechanism. This would allow Dash to deprecate IS locks completely, which are too expensive and limit scalability. Masternodes will have an increased...