BIG treasury

mage00000

mage00000

Member
I see people getting all excited when some large company, like MS, shows interest in some blockchain, resulting in massive increases in the price of its token. These people (I think) do not see the power of the dash treasury.
Dash now has about 8,000,000 USD/mo to spend, if 2018 will be as good as 2017 was, by the end of this year it will be 800,000,000 USD/mo. This means that if dash decides it would be helpful to join forces with some company, they do not have to ask them, they can buy them.
This is an entirely new game.
This raises some questions. As Dash is a completely decentralized,.. erhm... thing, if it would buy MS where will its shares be deposited and who will go to the shareholders meetings to represent dash?
Will dash open offices in each country (where useful) as a legal entity so it can do these things?
There probably are people thinking about these issues.
What are their thoughts?
 
Last edited:
A decentralized network can't buy shares in a company, since it has no legal representation. OTOH, someone would be able to create a, say, LLC, submit a proposal to the treasury and get funded to perform such transaction.

This is not a legal advice :)
 
LOL, yes, none of this is legal advice, nor is it financial advice. It is just a thread of more or less random thoughts from more or less random people.
The reason why I am bringing this up is 1 that I was thinking about it (as in "random thoughts") and 2 that I think this is much closer than most people realize.
So, you're saying; dash is not a legal entity so if the idea for such an acquisition would arise then a legal entity will be created and someone will be put in charge. I'm filling in the blanks, correct me if I'm wrong, there will be a reasoning behind the acquisition which will be detailed in a proposal and this will set up rules to which the proposal owner -who will then be the dash representative in the acquired company- must abide.
Dash is setting up legal structures, from what I have understood. Is this part of those legal structures?
 
mage00000 said:
So, you're saying; dash is not a legal entity so if the idea for such an acquisition would arise then a legal entity will be created and someone will be put in charge. I'm filling in the blanks, correct me if I'm wrong, there will be a reasoning behind the acquisition which will be detailed in a proposal and this will set up rules to which the proposal owner -who will then be the dash representative in the acquired company- must abide.
Click to expand...

Yes, something like this

mage00000 said:
Dash is setting up legal structures, from what I have understood. Is this part of those legal structures?
Click to expand...

Dash network doesn't set legal structures. People and other legal entities do.
 
akhavr said:
Dash network doesn't set legal structures. People and other legal entities do.
Click to expand...
Yes, I still have to get into this way of thinking. It is a bit weird, though. If I were to get funded by the blockchain, I am receiving money but there is no legal entity paying me.
So for example -this is an example that I was recently discussing with someone else- say the Coinbase CEO says he will never add dash, but the masternodes decide they want dash added.
Coinbase is estimated at 1.6 billion USD, it could be possible in the future to acquire a majority in shares, and replace the CEO with a more dash friendly person and have dash added.
That would send quite a wave through the crypto community. :eek::)
This is of course a completely fictional example.
But the proposal owner suddenly gets a lot of money out of nowhere (no legal entity) and consequently a lot of power in a company, but there must be a legal entity that he will have to answer to.
And this legal entity should reflect the will of the masternodes.
I think I heard that this problem is being addressed, because even with the current treasury and proposals you want to make sure the proposer does as he proposed.
(I am just trying to create a picture in my mind of how this works)
 
I don't think budget winners have any legal responsibility to the MNOs. The MNOs paid their money and took their chances. The person(s) who control the winning ledger entry are legally responsible for her/his/their actions. They can keep their vote getting written promise to the MNOs, or do whatever they think their promise is, or run away with the money. And the MNOs can vote them budget again or not. And can publicise their actions or not.
 
I'm not worried. MNOs hate people who run away with their money, and have recently funded a proposal to keep track.
 
In the 2018/01/10 ABJ video linked above someone asks her "what if a state actor operated a MN?" She wasn't worried because you have to have nice skin in the game so you will vote nice. We can only hope that some state actor, such as say WTPOTUSA (We The People Of The USA), decides to execute a sybil attack against the network. It would quickly cause the bids to overwhelm the asks, drawing in more competing bids, in a vicious price runaway. I predict a good three orders of magnitude price bump if We decided, just for purely hypothetical example, to purchase, say, a one year federal budget supply worth of Dash, or roughly $4T worth. But, in spite of the price bump, hopefully WTPOTUSA would still manage to operate a few MNs when it was all said and done, and then get to vote on our de-facto new national money. And the lucky MN operating Planet Earthicans all finally get to realise their life long dream of being wealthy philanthropists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top