halso
Active member
Guys, I wanted to share some thoughts on some of the "for profit" business integrations that are increasingly being proposed to the network.
There are two schools of thought on this:
1. Expand the Eco-system as quickly as possible and fund all integrations.
Members like @David have previously raised the very valid point that we need to expand the ecosystem as rapidly as possible as we are in a race with other cryptos to establish a network effect.
However, a second school of thought has also been put forward:
2. We are big enough and have sufficient momentum that we shouldn't have to pay.
If some of these blockchain agnostic "for profit" businesses ignore DASH then the do so at the risk of losing DASH related business. Therefore, they should pay their own integration costs.
Furthermore, these businesses readily integrate other alt coins at no cost.
I would like to raise an example of when we paid for an integration in the past when we probably shouldn't have.
Living Room of Statoshi (which is a great product by the way, and im glad we are on their platform) made a big deal of removing all other altcoins and only accepting DASH and Bitcoin. (We paid 1000 DASH for the integration).
However, within a few months they quickly re-integrated the majority of these alt coins (and others). Here is a snap-shot of their platform today.
As far as I know there was no contractual arrangement that other altcoins would not re-introduced despite requests from some members like @TroyDASH . So we don't have any recourse. But that’s all in the past, so it doesn't really matter anymore. But lessons should be learned going forward.
Conclusion.
There will be instances when "for profit" businesses integrations do make sense. For example, massive exchanges where a little deal sweetener may be appropriate. Or @ThirtySix who are doing something truly groundbreaking and have made a contractual commitment to only use the Dash network for a set period of time.
But there are other instances where I think we should simply say no. For example the GateHub proposal. They have failed to give any guarantees with respect further altcoin integrations. And statements like "at this time we are not planning any further integrations" just isn't good enough.
I would encourage anyone who voted for the GateHub proposal to reconsider @GrandMasterDash @Dandy @Kevin Stalker @Technologov @solarguy @radeon_jas @akhavr
To fund these below par proposals comes at a real cost to the network. I.e. other projects that could be spent furthering the DASH network. And not paying for integrations we would get for free anyway.
We are essentially providing subsidies / handouts to these private companies without any benefit to the DASH network.
Hopefully the committee system being proposed by @eduffield will help thrash out the pros and cons of these "for profit" business integrations.
At the very least, "for profit" integrations should come with some iron clad contractual commitment to the DASH network (I.e. the exclusion of other altcoin integrations for a period of X).
On a side note, if there is DASH leftover in the budget then maybe we should reconsider stockpiling DASH in a future evolution marketing fund – as per @Ryan Taylor previous suggestion.
Interested in other peoples thoughts.
There are two schools of thought on this:
1. Expand the Eco-system as quickly as possible and fund all integrations.
Members like @David have previously raised the very valid point that we need to expand the ecosystem as rapidly as possible as we are in a race with other cryptos to establish a network effect.
However, a second school of thought has also been put forward:
2. We are big enough and have sufficient momentum that we shouldn't have to pay.
If some of these blockchain agnostic "for profit" businesses ignore DASH then the do so at the risk of losing DASH related business. Therefore, they should pay their own integration costs.
Furthermore, these businesses readily integrate other alt coins at no cost.
I would like to raise an example of when we paid for an integration in the past when we probably shouldn't have.
Living Room of Statoshi (which is a great product by the way, and im glad we are on their platform) made a big deal of removing all other altcoins and only accepting DASH and Bitcoin. (We paid 1000 DASH for the integration).
However, within a few months they quickly re-integrated the majority of these alt coins (and others). Here is a snap-shot of their platform today.
As far as I know there was no contractual arrangement that other altcoins would not re-introduced despite requests from some members like @TroyDASH . So we don't have any recourse. But that’s all in the past, so it doesn't really matter anymore. But lessons should be learned going forward.
Conclusion.
There will be instances when "for profit" businesses integrations do make sense. For example, massive exchanges where a little deal sweetener may be appropriate. Or @ThirtySix who are doing something truly groundbreaking and have made a contractual commitment to only use the Dash network for a set period of time.
But there are other instances where I think we should simply say no. For example the GateHub proposal. They have failed to give any guarantees with respect further altcoin integrations. And statements like "at this time we are not planning any further integrations" just isn't good enough.
I would encourage anyone who voted for the GateHub proposal to reconsider @GrandMasterDash @Dandy @Kevin Stalker @Technologov @solarguy @radeon_jas @akhavr
To fund these below par proposals comes at a real cost to the network. I.e. other projects that could be spent furthering the DASH network. And not paying for integrations we would get for free anyway.
We are essentially providing subsidies / handouts to these private companies without any benefit to the DASH network.
Hopefully the committee system being proposed by @eduffield will help thrash out the pros and cons of these "for profit" business integrations.
At the very least, "for profit" integrations should come with some iron clad contractual commitment to the DASH network (I.e. the exclusion of other altcoin integrations for a period of X).
On a side note, if there is DASH leftover in the budget then maybe we should reconsider stockpiling DASH in a future evolution marketing fund – as per @Ryan Taylor previous suggestion.
Interested in other peoples thoughts.
Last edited:
