Dash Masternode Collective [Pre-proposal]

Hi just introducing myself on this thread. Some people from here and slack may have had conversations with me. My brother @chaddb and I have a vested stake in seeing Dash grow and thus that is our goal.
 
Thanks for the thoughtful and transparent responses. I'm 94% there. I love the concept of low threshold for entry, and removing 95% of the technical barriers. I am convinced your team has sufficient skin in the game to get motivated to heroic levels if necessary to make this successful.

As I continue to look at various proposed User Interfaces/Front End designs, I think people underestimate the effectiveness of a service that "just takes care of it" for them. I'm sure some percentage of your clients will migrate over to the full featured Evolution product (Woo Hoo!), but I'm also sure that a lot of institutional money and smaller and medium sized investors will have no interest in learning or running that themselves. I think your service will have no problem being viable in the long run, and you make an excellent point that we want and need multiple and redundant ways for people to get involved in Dash. Plus, this gets us a product sooner rather than later.

I think the total amount is not unreasonable at all, and the fact that it's divided up into 4 installments is effectively an escrow service. If anything, I suspect you have underpriced it a little bit. But if you are successful at all, that will all become meaningless a year from now. For those who are unfamiliar with the term FUM, that's Funds Under Management, and the take home message was that the modest fees will certainly pay the bills and generate profit, but it is the appreciation of the principle that will likely make this a huge winner.

I'm just throwing an idea out now...for those who would like to see lower fees, Chad and his team could set up a schedule such that, if Dash triples, fees go down by x percent. If Dash goes up 10x, fees drop by y percent. I'm not advocating for this feature, just suggesting that it could be a negotiating tool for those who are concerned that the fees are high. I absolutely do not think the fees are too high (especially initially) since this is a novel business model.

I would just ask for two things for me to be an enthusiastic supporter. First, a clear set of goals/benchmarks that makes it obvious that the project is moving forward in an objectively measurable way over the 4 month period. DashTracker could play a significant role here. And second, a compelling marketing plan.
 
Hi All, Thanks for all the feedback on this project. Just introducing myself as part of the team. I was introduced to Dash (as I'm assuming many were) by Amanda B early last year. I usually go by @bean on Discord and previously Slack. I have been more active offline introducing people to Dash including being invited to fly to Sydney last week and present Dash as an option for a large Crypto Broker to add Dash to their list. We want nothing more than Dash to be a huge success and this project has been a working progress from the many Think Tanks we have on how to advance Dash.
 
Great idea! Several us have been talking about the need for this for a while now. It has been brought up on the 3 Amigos podcast several times and we were once again talking about it on last week's episode/the after party.

I would like to see some legal safeguards put in place like insurance or bonding or something like that, I know little of how these things work but I know there are different ways to protect everyone. Multisig addresses could help a lot.

Since Dash would be funding this it would be nice to have a small stake in the company somehow.

I suspect the trustless Evo version of this is 2 years off so we definitely need something for people with only one Dash to invest in the meantime, voting rights are huge too. Thanks for trying to make this happen.
 
Non-MNO potential client here.

Some thoughts, having the fees integrated into the returns, rather than up-front, and having them scaleable is a nice way for a small guy to get into it, even if it is a little more expensive.

Even if I have a decent amount of Dash, but not enough for a master node, it would be nice to diversify my counter-party risk. I guess I see the point of posters asking, if it's a viable business model, why would the treasury need to subsidize it? We run the risk of the foundation being a source of crony capitalism if we're subsidizing one party to launch a service that is in competition with three existing services.

I think you've got a good idea. If you launch it. I can definitely send some business your way.
 
Thanks for the feedback Hossman.

Yep, I'd want to present the expenses in a way that represents the 'yield' to investors. It creates a yield curve for dash where the long end represents the highest yield (highest commitment in dash terms, and likely term carried), and the shorter end implies that you earn less for lower amount & time commitment.

Regarding counterparty risk, I think us coming into the space will draw in other groups/competitors. I'm sure chatting to certain groups (in Asia) about working together will actually make them think about (just) doing the service themselves. In fact, it's an intended effect. I hear Huobi started offering interest to their Dash hodlers the other day.

Thanks, the idea really came about from wanting to put together other people we know into a node (and have some voting rights with it).
 
In light of the recent announcement from Dash Core of being able to enter in to legal contracts on behalf of the DAO, I think this is a much needed and beneficial project for the ecosystem. Granted, given the problems with trolls we've had lately, this would bring the barrier to entry for would-be bad actors much lower potentially, but I think that risk is worth giving Dash users of more modest means a greater stake and investment in the network.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top