This is the kind of agile and creative thinking we're going to have to embrace to get through the next 3-6 months before prices pick up again.
We cannot allow D-A-CH and Venezuela to die on the vine.
Dash Core Group Q2 2018 Summary Call - 10 August 2018
- Thread starter kot
- Start date
This is the kind of agile and creative thinking we're going to have to embrace to get through the next 3-6 months before prices pick up again.
We cannot allow D-A-CH and Venezuela to die on the vine.
Would DashCore benefit from a board of directors like group for primarily oversight and advisory roles?
Explanation: IMHO we have some armchair experts who believe in unrealistic things around business. It may provide a level of comfort to the MNO's to see a report from peers analysing the efforts of core and assisting in industry connections as well.
Explanation: IMHO we have some armchair experts who believe in unrealistic things around business. It may provide a level of comfort to the MNO's to see a report from peers analysing the efforts of core and assisting in industry connections as well.
camosoul
Well-known member
Hernia warning, you're gonna laugh 'til your sides split.
camosoul
Well-known member
ME WANT INFOS!
DeepBlue
Active member
I have been asking questions in the core proposals for a considerable amount of time and received very limited to no answers from core proposal owners. MNOs are running out of patience having their questions unanswered. We need the answers to fulfil our role as MNOs. Core need to become more transparent, if not there is a very great possibility that MNOs will start raising proposals for drastic restructuring in core which could lead to a destabilization of the network. Here are some questions regarding the core funding for salaries that have not yet been answered by Glenn Austin and which I posted in a thread regarding the core compensation here:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/core-team-compensation-september.39897/
- Development - 30 staff
- Leadership and Admin - 10 staff
- Project Management - 4 staff
- Strategy - 4 staff
- Quality Assurance - 4 staff
- Business Development - 3 staff
- Marketing - 3 staff
- Infrastructure - 2 staff
- Support - 1 staff
- Human Resources - 1 staff
- International Outreach - 8 staff (part-time)
1. Leadership and Admin - can you be more specific about you mean. Leadership of what? Admin for what? How many are leadership and how many are admin and what specifically are their roles?
2. Project management - for what? Is this project management for core development? Core marketing? Core business development? What?
3. Strategy - 4 staff. Strategy for what exactly? Development? Marketing? Business Development? Are the Strategy people working full time on strategy? That seems a lot - what exactly are these people doing?
4. Marketing: What has marketing specifically achieved with our 1200 DASH funds on the last marketing funding? What projects exactly are marketing working on? How is that funding being used? What are the proposed strategies for marketing? What role does core Marketing have with Wachsman PR?
5. How much money is going to each function of core e.g. for Marketing? Development? Project management etc. Provide a breakdown of funds for each.
6. How do each of the individual roles of core interact with each other, what are the dependencies of one function of core compared to another function of core. We need to know this so that we can determine what would happen if we wanted to replace or improve a function of core and what the knock on effects would have.
7. International outreach - where are these people situated? What are they doing? How much money are they receiving? How is compensation calculated for each of these people? When they say part time how much time is being spent? Is compensation calculate on an hourly rate? What criteria determine the amount of funding for each outreach person? What have the outreach people achieved? How is ROI determined on these outreach projects. Who does outreach report to in core? Who co-ordinates their activities?
8. Business development. What have their achieved since Bradley Zastrow took over? What inroads have been made and what direction is business development going specifically? What new and future business partnerships are planned that they can disclose? If they cannot disclose details can they disclose generic details so we have enough information to determine the efficiency of this team?
9. Are core prepared to split up each core function into separate funding proposals so that we can better ask focused questions regarding that function? If not why not?
10. There was mention of "benefits" being given out to core. How much in benefits to each person? What are these benefits and how much will these benefits be worth per year?
We need answers to basic questions now. I, have been asking questions for the last 6 months in core proposals and have been either ignored or had other MNOs protect core.
I have to say reluctantly I'm reaching the end of my patience with core not answering my questions. If this approach continues I will lose my faith in DASH as a coin.
MNOs with business acumen are simply not going to wait for answers to our questions about our investment.
DASH will start losing MNOs that have talent and something to contribute if you don't start answering our questions in the funding proposals and in the forum posts.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/core-team-compensation-september.39897/
- Development - 30 staff
- Leadership and Admin - 10 staff
- Project Management - 4 staff
- Strategy - 4 staff
- Quality Assurance - 4 staff
- Business Development - 3 staff
- Marketing - 3 staff
- Infrastructure - 2 staff
- Support - 1 staff
- Human Resources - 1 staff
- International Outreach - 8 staff (part-time)
1. Leadership and Admin - can you be more specific about you mean. Leadership of what? Admin for what? How many are leadership and how many are admin and what specifically are their roles?
2. Project management - for what? Is this project management for core development? Core marketing? Core business development? What?
3. Strategy - 4 staff. Strategy for what exactly? Development? Marketing? Business Development? Are the Strategy people working full time on strategy? That seems a lot - what exactly are these people doing?
4. Marketing: What has marketing specifically achieved with our 1200 DASH funds on the last marketing funding? What projects exactly are marketing working on? How is that funding being used? What are the proposed strategies for marketing? What role does core Marketing have with Wachsman PR?
5. How much money is going to each function of core e.g. for Marketing? Development? Project management etc. Provide a breakdown of funds for each.
6. How do each of the individual roles of core interact with each other, what are the dependencies of one function of core compared to another function of core. We need to know this so that we can determine what would happen if we wanted to replace or improve a function of core and what the knock on effects would have.
7. International outreach - where are these people situated? What are they doing? How much money are they receiving? How is compensation calculated for each of these people? When they say part time how much time is being spent? Is compensation calculate on an hourly rate? What criteria determine the amount of funding for each outreach person? What have the outreach people achieved? How is ROI determined on these outreach projects. Who does outreach report to in core? Who co-ordinates their activities?
8. Business development. What have their achieved since Bradley Zastrow took over? What inroads have been made and what direction is business development going specifically? What new and future business partnerships are planned that they can disclose? If they cannot disclose details can they disclose generic details so we have enough information to determine the efficiency of this team?
9. Are core prepared to split up each core function into separate funding proposals so that we can better ask focused questions regarding that function? If not why not?
10. There was mention of "benefits" being given out to core. How much in benefits to each person? What are these benefits and how much will these benefits be worth per year?
We need answers to basic questions now. I, have been asking questions for the last 6 months in core proposals and have been either ignored or had other MNOs protect core.
I have to say reluctantly I'm reaching the end of my patience with core not answering my questions. If this approach continues I will lose my faith in DASH as a coin.
MNOs with business acumen are simply not going to wait for answers to our questions about our investment.
DASH will start losing MNOs that have talent and something to contribute if you don't start answering our questions in the funding proposals and in the forum posts.
Core - read my questions, read the questions from @DeepBlue, pull your finger out and be transparent....
I wonder what some of the leadership team do all day long? doesnt seem like anything of substance is being achieved....
The Whats going on with Dash reports is now a copy/paste job of getting bank accounts, typing the same reports month after month....not good enough.
By the way, Evolution had better be here in 2018...
I wonder what some of the leadership team do all day long? doesnt seem like anything of substance is being achieved....
The Whats going on with Dash reports is now a copy/paste job of getting bank accounts, typing the same reports month after month....not good enough.
By the way, Evolution had better be here in 2018...
Last edited:
DeepBlue
Active member
Further questions specifically on Dev team:
The following is cross posted from here: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/coreteamcomp0918
There are 30 full time development engineers working on Dash Evolution but each time Evolution deadlines keep getting pushed back. 30 Developers is a lot in the crypto space and currently we are going off blind faith that all these staff are in fact working full time i.e. at least 40 hours per week.
Therefore my question is how can we be certain that the dev team are infact working the full 40 hours per week on our projects work if they are in a distributed environment? What monitoring do you have to track their work and to ensure they are in fact working full time?
I strongly suspect now that either all these programmers are not working full time or your Agile process is not implemented properly.
As part of my business management activity I have also managed a dev team since 2008. I implemented Agile in 2010 and we have always hit deadlines, with only a few exceptions. I ensure that the requirements are fully planned out and documented before the work starts.
If you're not hitting deadlines with a team of 30 developers it strongly suggests that either the management and planning of the development work is not setup correctly, or your estimating skills need work, or the dev team are not in fact working full time on our work.
I also hear from other developers and from the core team stating that we cannot commit to a deadline. The devs that cannot commit to a deadline and hit it are not planning their work sufficiently well. Agile estimating techniques and proper planning and efficient management should give + / - 20% accuracy in terms of time of completion date of the release. If you're not hitting that you are not managing the project efficiently enough.
May I ask what software are you using to manage the Agile implementation of the Dev team? If you are not using a software management for implementing Agile then you are most definitely not working optimally.
What software are you using for the following:
Project management of the dev team?
Requirements management ?
TestCase management?
TestRun Management?
QA management?
Automated testing?
Source code control management (presumably you are using github for this?)
If you are not using an integrated software development suite you are not working as efficiently as you can. Period. I can make recommendations if you are not using anything, however I can't make recommendations if you don't answer my questions.
Are the software suites integrated so that information can flow seamlessly between these software?
How do management keep track of the actual time spent on programming by each of the developers? One such service is screenshotmonitor.com have you implemented something like this? If not why not?
I strongly suspect now that the management of the software development cannot be that efficient if you cannot commit to deadlines and meet them.
We were originally informed by Amanda B Johnson the first beta release of Evolution was to be around August of last year, with the release of the first stage at the end of 2017. Amanda was quoting sources from core. Now 12 months on we hear that it is being pushed back again.
Of course we need to ensure security of the system but this should have also been built into your estimates.
Waiting to see if there is any response from core on these and my other questions. Core team we need answers. If they are not forthcoming it is throwing doubt on DASH core team and therefore on DASH as an investment. I have major stake-holding in DASH. I need these answers if you are to retain my investment.
The following is cross posted from here: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/coreteamcomp0918
There are 30 full time development engineers working on Dash Evolution but each time Evolution deadlines keep getting pushed back. 30 Developers is a lot in the crypto space and currently we are going off blind faith that all these staff are in fact working full time i.e. at least 40 hours per week.
Therefore my question is how can we be certain that the dev team are infact working the full 40 hours per week on our projects work if they are in a distributed environment? What monitoring do you have to track their work and to ensure they are in fact working full time?
I strongly suspect now that either all these programmers are not working full time or your Agile process is not implemented properly.
As part of my business management activity I have also managed a dev team since 2008. I implemented Agile in 2010 and we have always hit deadlines, with only a few exceptions. I ensure that the requirements are fully planned out and documented before the work starts.
If you're not hitting deadlines with a team of 30 developers it strongly suggests that either the management and planning of the development work is not setup correctly, or your estimating skills need work, or the dev team are not in fact working full time on our work.
I also hear from other developers and from the core team stating that we cannot commit to a deadline. The devs that cannot commit to a deadline and hit it are not planning their work sufficiently well. Agile estimating techniques and proper planning and efficient management should give + / - 20% accuracy in terms of time of completion date of the release. If you're not hitting that you are not managing the project efficiently enough.
May I ask what software are you using to manage the Agile implementation of the Dev team? If you are not using a software management for implementing Agile then you are most definitely not working optimally.
What software are you using for the following:
Project management of the dev team?
Requirements management ?
TestCase management?
TestRun Management?
QA management?
Automated testing?
Source code control management (presumably you are using github for this?)
If you are not using an integrated software development suite you are not working as efficiently as you can. Period. I can make recommendations if you are not using anything, however I can't make recommendations if you don't answer my questions.
Are the software suites integrated so that information can flow seamlessly between these software?
How do management keep track of the actual time spent on programming by each of the developers? One such service is screenshotmonitor.com have you implemented something like this? If not why not?
I strongly suspect now that the management of the software development cannot be that efficient if you cannot commit to deadlines and meet them.
We were originally informed by Amanda B Johnson the first beta release of Evolution was to be around August of last year, with the release of the first stage at the end of 2017. Amanda was quoting sources from core. Now 12 months on we hear that it is being pushed back again.
Of course we need to ensure security of the system but this should have also been built into your estimates.
Waiting to see if there is any response from core on these and my other questions. Core team we need answers. If they are not forthcoming it is throwing doubt on DASH core team and therefore on DASH as an investment. I have major stake-holding in DASH. I need these answers if you are to retain my investment.
blockchaintech
Active member
In the future investment fund: Dash Venture
1)
What would be the amount estimated in $ for the first initial contribution?
2)
When could it be operational?
3)
What would be the requirements and characteristics to access it?
4)
What criteria and how would decisions be made where to invest?
Thank you
1)
What would be the amount estimated in $ for the first initial contribution?
2)
When could it be operational?
3)
What would be the requirements and characteristics to access it?
4)
What criteria and how would decisions be made where to invest?
Thank you
We've seen big declines before. Guess what came afterward...another big run up.
https://imgur.com/i54lqNB
Macrochip
Active member
You didn't get the memo the first time your post was deleted?
Asking for financial aid is not "micromanaging" and misrepresenting it as such is ridiculous.
And pretending as though suspending non-essential functions like marketing activities has any impact on development efforts by making an invalid analogy with "complex machines" is equally ludicrous:
You don't need windshield washing fluid or a cigar lighter to get from New York to Miami with your car.
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Question for Ryan or Glenn -
The recent precedent has been for the core team salaries to be lumped into one proposal, and then particular initiatives such as special marketing campaigns get their own proposal. Although this means MNs can choose not to fund certain special projects, the core salaries proposal is still very much an all or nothing "nuclear option". Would you consider revising this framework to give greater accountability to the MN network at the department level, such that individual departments/teams within DCG (such as marketing, business dev, evolution dev) are separated into different proposals, including salaries? Or, are there any other alternatives to allow MNs to be able to have a greater say at the department level?
Thanks
The recent precedent has been for the core team salaries to be lumped into one proposal, and then particular initiatives such as special marketing campaigns get their own proposal. Although this means MNs can choose not to fund certain special projects, the core salaries proposal is still very much an all or nothing "nuclear option". Would you consider revising this framework to give greater accountability to the MN network at the department level, such that individual departments/teams within DCG (such as marketing, business dev, evolution dev) are separated into different proposals, including salaries? Or, are there any other alternatives to allow MNs to be able to have a greater say at the department level?
Thanks
DeepBlue
Active member
Question for Ryan Taylor: (Question originally posted in https://www.dashcentral.org/p/coreteamcomp0918 )
According Glenn Austin DASH currently has 30 core developers working full time along with additional staff for QA work and management however according to https://cryptomiso.com/ that compares different cryptocurrency coins in terms of coding activity DASH is currently ranked as 120th for the past 12 months in terms of coding activity.
Check here: https://cryptomiso.com/
At github the code contributors report after the date of 18th January 2014, when DASH was forked from Litecoin, shows a peak of coding activity in January 2015 and then shows a steady decline down to the current date. Currently the code contributions are the lowest rate it has been since DASH started: See this graph:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/graphs/contributors?from=2015-01-19&to=2015-02-18&type=c
and here:
https://github.com/dashevo/dapi-db/pulse
Why does the github coding contributions report decline from Jan 2015 if we have taken on considerably more coders?
Additional information added 18/08/2018:
MNOs, investores and the DASH community can gain some indication of the development activity if the statistics for development of code in private repositories is set to be shown publically without us having access to the code itself.
How to make private repository statistics public for GitHub is explained on the pages after following these two links:
https://help.github.com/articles/viewing-contributions-on-your-profile/
https://help.github.com/articles/publicizing-or-hiding-your-private-contributions-on-your-profile/
The public statistics of development activity for the DASH Repositories is very low.
Have the core team made the *statistics* of coding activity in private repositories also private? If so why?
Keeping development statistics private for private repositories in effect means that nobody can track the progress of development other than the people who have access to the private repositories.
I'm asking the core team to explain why their public statistics for coding activity is so low considering we have 30 full-time developers?
How can the MNOs and the DASH community know for certain that the 30 full time developers are infact working full time? What measures have you taken to ensure our developers are, in fact, working the full time they have been contracted to work?
Have DASH core management considered using a service such as screenshotmonitor.com to monitor coding activity? If not why not?
According Glenn Austin DASH currently has 30 core developers working full time along with additional staff for QA work and management however according to https://cryptomiso.com/ that compares different cryptocurrency coins in terms of coding activity DASH is currently ranked as 120th for the past 12 months in terms of coding activity.
Check here: https://cryptomiso.com/
At github the code contributors report after the date of 18th January 2014, when DASH was forked from Litecoin, shows a peak of coding activity in January 2015 and then shows a steady decline down to the current date. Currently the code contributions are the lowest rate it has been since DASH started: See this graph:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/graphs/contributors?from=2015-01-19&to=2015-02-18&type=c
and here:
https://github.com/dashevo/dapi-db/pulse
Why does the github coding contributions report decline from Jan 2015 if we have taken on considerably more coders?
Additional information added 18/08/2018:
MNOs, investores and the DASH community can gain some indication of the development activity if the statistics for development of code in private repositories is set to be shown publically without us having access to the code itself.
How to make private repository statistics public for GitHub is explained on the pages after following these two links:
https://help.github.com/articles/viewing-contributions-on-your-profile/
https://help.github.com/articles/publicizing-or-hiding-your-private-contributions-on-your-profile/
The public statistics of development activity for the DASH Repositories is very low.
Have the core team made the *statistics* of coding activity in private repositories also private? If so why?
Keeping development statistics private for private repositories in effect means that nobody can track the progress of development other than the people who have access to the private repositories.
I'm asking the core team to explain why their public statistics for coding activity is so low considering we have 30 full-time developers?
How can the MNOs and the DASH community know for certain that the 30 full time developers are infact working full time? What measures have you taken to ensure our developers are, in fact, working the full time they have been contracted to work?
Have DASH core management considered using a service such as screenshotmonitor.com to monitor coding activity? If not why not?
Last edited:
DeepBlue
Active member
Questions for Ryan Taylor:
1. What would you say to people who believe that DASH is becoming centralized organization through the expansion of the core team and it's varied business activity groups who are not being transparent in their activities and not willing to separate out the different core divisions to individual funding requests?
I am aware that there is a legal structure in place where MNOs could theoretical "fire" the core team. However, if the entire core team composes of many grouped and diverse activities for DASH that are important for the network to survive how can we do this? If all the different activities such as Code Development, Business Developement, Marketing, PR etc are all grouped in the same funding compensation request doesn't this negate the legal structure put in place? It would be near impossible for MNOs to vote out the core team with all divisions being grouped together. If we needed to do this it would pull the whole management of the DASH organization down in one fail swoop. If however we had separate sDAO's (sub-DAOs) for each DASH core business activity then it might be possible to "fire" or preferably make suggestions for improvement of a division without causing damage to the rest of DASH management.
2. Would the core team be willing to consider to separate out different core team activities into separate funding requests for treasury funds so they are more accountable to the MNOs questions in their funding requests? If not why not?
3. Why are the core team proposal owners in the majority of cases not responding to questions by MNOs posted in their requests for funding? I have heard reasons such as we are "too busy", we are working on being more transparent etc etc. However transparency is not something that requieres working on. The proposal owners just need to answer the questions posted by MNOs in their proposals. As for not having enough time, answering questions only takes a few hours per proposal. Time can be made for that. I have listed a small sample of reasons (14) given why core do not respond to questions in my posting in this thread:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dcg-and-non-core-functions.39457/
Background to these questions:
My view is that DASH is becoming a centralized financial organization. This is occuring through the ever expanding core team that is choosing not to be held accountable to the MNOs questions in their funding proposal requests. To date unwilling to break up their different divisions of core to separate funding requests and answer my questions and others MNOs questions in their proposals. DASH is looking more like a commercial organization on a daily basis.
I think this centralization of the expanding core team with non developmental roles (e.g. marketing, business dev etc) could well be a factor affecting the DASH position fall from 4th to 15th position in coinmarket cap. A centralized organization is putting off investors who are choosing lesser coins than DASH but who are maintaining the values of true decentralziation. I have to say personally I am feeling that way myself.
Grouping all salaries together so that we cannot vote out or comment on individual divisions of the core team is not operating as a decentralizated organization. It is a centralized organization, even if the people themselves are based in different geographical locations. It makes no difference because the decisions and money are all going to one central body, and that central body, currently referred to as "core team" is not being transparent. I've heard all the reasons given e.g. "we don't have enough time", "what would you rather we do answer your questions or get on with work etc etc etc.
The fact remains the core team has a responsibility to answer MNO questions in funding requests whether they like it or not. That is how DASH was setup.
Invariably I have received little to no response from the core team to requests for information on their proposals. Much of how core are setup and operate is kept private, away from scrutiny from the MNOs and the DASH community. No matter how busy the core team are time needs to be made to adhere to the requirements that proposal owners are accountable to answering MNO's questions about their funding requests. There are no questions on this point. The core team are accountable to the investors.
Isn't one of DASH's core values "Radical Transparency"? With secrecy comes unaccountability, potential corruption and doubt.
Wasn't the reason to run an open source project so that we would live up to our values of "radical transparency" and in so doing ensure that corruption and the devastating results from it cannot occur?
All other proposal owners respond to questions posted by the MNOs *except core proposal owners* who only answer very few questions.
One of the primary reasons I became interested in crypto was due to the financial world crisis in 2008 that wiped out the livelihoods of millions of people. This decimation of the world economy happened as a direct consequence of large financial institutes such as Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sacks keeping their working activities secret. In this way they were able to set up an environment where they could do what they wanted - ultimately cheating the world out of their money. This cannot be allowed to happen with DASH.
DASH core team are becoming a large centralized organization. If we do not step in now to stop this then DASH cannot be called a decentralized organization any longer and we are open to all the same issues that have happened with the World financial crisis in 2008 with the Lehman Brothers.
"Radical transparency" is just one key component in ensuring that we can trust an organization. In addition no organization should be so big that it becomes "too big to fail". This is now the case with the core team. All their proposals on core team compensation go through. Because they have to go through. If however core is split up into separate subDAOs and and these have their own funding requests we are in a much healthier environment for debate to improve or replace core team members that are not performing.
1. What would you say to people who believe that DASH is becoming centralized organization through the expansion of the core team and it's varied business activity groups who are not being transparent in their activities and not willing to separate out the different core divisions to individual funding requests?
I am aware that there is a legal structure in place where MNOs could theoretical "fire" the core team. However, if the entire core team composes of many grouped and diverse activities for DASH that are important for the network to survive how can we do this? If all the different activities such as Code Development, Business Developement, Marketing, PR etc are all grouped in the same funding compensation request doesn't this negate the legal structure put in place? It would be near impossible for MNOs to vote out the core team with all divisions being grouped together. If we needed to do this it would pull the whole management of the DASH organization down in one fail swoop. If however we had separate sDAO's (sub-DAOs) for each DASH core business activity then it might be possible to "fire" or preferably make suggestions for improvement of a division without causing damage to the rest of DASH management.
2. Would the core team be willing to consider to separate out different core team activities into separate funding requests for treasury funds so they are more accountable to the MNOs questions in their funding requests? If not why not?
3. Why are the core team proposal owners in the majority of cases not responding to questions by MNOs posted in their requests for funding? I have heard reasons such as we are "too busy", we are working on being more transparent etc etc. However transparency is not something that requieres working on. The proposal owners just need to answer the questions posted by MNOs in their proposals. As for not having enough time, answering questions only takes a few hours per proposal. Time can be made for that. I have listed a small sample of reasons (14) given why core do not respond to questions in my posting in this thread:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dcg-and-non-core-functions.39457/
Background to these questions:
My view is that DASH is becoming a centralized financial organization. This is occuring through the ever expanding core team that is choosing not to be held accountable to the MNOs questions in their funding proposal requests. To date unwilling to break up their different divisions of core to separate funding requests and answer my questions and others MNOs questions in their proposals. DASH is looking more like a commercial organization on a daily basis.
I think this centralization of the expanding core team with non developmental roles (e.g. marketing, business dev etc) could well be a factor affecting the DASH position fall from 4th to 15th position in coinmarket cap. A centralized organization is putting off investors who are choosing lesser coins than DASH but who are maintaining the values of true decentralziation. I have to say personally I am feeling that way myself.
Grouping all salaries together so that we cannot vote out or comment on individual divisions of the core team is not operating as a decentralizated organization. It is a centralized organization, even if the people themselves are based in different geographical locations. It makes no difference because the decisions and money are all going to one central body, and that central body, currently referred to as "core team" is not being transparent. I've heard all the reasons given e.g. "we don't have enough time", "what would you rather we do answer your questions or get on with work etc etc etc.
The fact remains the core team has a responsibility to answer MNO questions in funding requests whether they like it or not. That is how DASH was setup.
Invariably I have received little to no response from the core team to requests for information on their proposals. Much of how core are setup and operate is kept private, away from scrutiny from the MNOs and the DASH community. No matter how busy the core team are time needs to be made to adhere to the requirements that proposal owners are accountable to answering MNO's questions about their funding requests. There are no questions on this point. The core team are accountable to the investors.
Isn't one of DASH's core values "Radical Transparency"? With secrecy comes unaccountability, potential corruption and doubt.
Wasn't the reason to run an open source project so that we would live up to our values of "radical transparency" and in so doing ensure that corruption and the devastating results from it cannot occur?
All other proposal owners respond to questions posted by the MNOs *except core proposal owners* who only answer very few questions.
One of the primary reasons I became interested in crypto was due to the financial world crisis in 2008 that wiped out the livelihoods of millions of people. This decimation of the world economy happened as a direct consequence of large financial institutes such as Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sacks keeping their working activities secret. In this way they were able to set up an environment where they could do what they wanted - ultimately cheating the world out of their money. This cannot be allowed to happen with DASH.
DASH core team are becoming a large centralized organization. If we do not step in now to stop this then DASH cannot be called a decentralized organization any longer and we are open to all the same issues that have happened with the World financial crisis in 2008 with the Lehman Brothers.
"Radical transparency" is just one key component in ensuring that we can trust an organization. In addition no organization should be so big that it becomes "too big to fail". This is now the case with the core team. All their proposals on core team compensation go through. Because they have to go through. If however core is split up into separate subDAOs and and these have their own funding requests we are in a much healthier environment for debate to improve or replace core team members that are not performing.
Last edited:
Overall, really quite a positive update.
Just to say.. strategy wise, although Mexico pipped the Philippines for remittance, please note: of all the crypto remittances in the Philippines, Coins.ph is almost certainly all we'd need to bag there. It's a tough nut to crack but doing so would be a real game changer. "Coins" also operates in Thailand. And Hong Kong has a huge OFW (Overseas Foreign Workers) community, sending money home to the Philippines. Dash has a physical presence in both places so I'm wondering if that might count for something.
Regarding Instant Send to exchanges, where fast funding of an account is highly attractive: how about also tackling tradition share trading accounts (share.com etc)? I can see why crypto exchanges would be a higher priority, but I wouldn't discount traditional investors that have to wait "3 working days" for funds to clear.
Just to say.. strategy wise, although Mexico pipped the Philippines for remittance, please note: of all the crypto remittances in the Philippines, Coins.ph is almost certainly all we'd need to bag there. It's a tough nut to crack but doing so would be a real game changer. "Coins" also operates in Thailand. And Hong Kong has a huge OFW (Overseas Foreign Workers) community, sending money home to the Philippines. Dash has a physical presence in both places so I'm wondering if that might count for something.
Regarding Instant Send to exchanges, where fast funding of an account is highly attractive: how about also tackling tradition share trading accounts (share.com etc)? I can see why crypto exchanges would be a higher priority, but I wouldn't discount traditional investors that have to wait "3 working days" for funds to clear.
DeepBlue
Active member
The great majority of the MNO and community questions where not answered on the call.
Questions and doubts remain in the community since these have not been answered. If they are not answered these doubts will only grow with time.
Do you really think it is a good idea for community members and MNOs to continue to have doubts?
We took the time to formulate and post these questions that we are having doubts about.
I suggest the core team consider scheduling another call to answer all questions by the community both here and in the Core funding proposals.
Questions and doubts remain in the community since these have not been answered. If they are not answered these doubts will only grow with time.
Do you really think it is a good idea for community members and MNOs to continue to have doubts?
We took the time to formulate and post these questions that we are having doubts about.
I suggest the core team consider scheduling another call to answer all questions by the community both here and in the Core funding proposals.
Last edited:
flare
Well-known member
It was clearly stated that the other questions will be answered here in the forum.
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
Hopefully in a timely manner.