DashBoost Official Launch

aarellanes said:
Just some thoughts:

I dont want to be stingy but Is there a way to limit "Meet Up" (aka Marketing) Proposals to a certain amount?
Prioritize a category like "integration" for more Dash?

Would love to hear what others think about this!

Cheers,
Albert
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be wise to do that, integration is important and i like what Dash force News Meetup it's doing about it. Here in Cancun Mexico we need to start the education and adoption, i was planning to put an proposal for Boost for education and adoption in Cancun and Playa del Carmen because in deed we need it.

What would you think it's a better strategy for integration?

thank you my friend.

Saul Q.
 
aarellanes said:
I dont want to be stingy but Is there a way to limit "Meet Up" (aka Marketing) Proposals to a certain amount? Prioritize a category like "integration" for more Dash?
Click to expand...
"Intergration" is great, but the "Meet up" category cannot be considered as only marketing.
A "Meet up" can also be a proof of individuality cryptoparty (which has never occured in dash community, because nobody funds it).

I think the formation of a community of anonymous individuals/voters is crucial for the survival of Dash, more crucial than any code development or integration. Because Dash is above all a community, and not a piece of computer code. The community sense is what differentiates and gives advantage to dash (and to any other governed cryptocurrency) from its (failed) ungoverned predecessor (aka bitcoin).
 
Last edited:
Pasta said:
@Saul Felipe Cano Quiñones We will do what we can to have a cycle in July, and I believe we will be able to. However, I am not in a position to be able to make promises.
Click to expand...

So a new cycle began, which offers 60 dash. Unfortunately the proposal fee remains extremely high. For a total budget of 60 dash, 1 dash proposal fee is huge!!!

Anyway, let me announce that everyone can post his proposal here:
https://www.dashboost.org/proposals

Furthermore I woulk ask @Pasta to add governance proposals, on what it concerns dashboost site itself. And of course the governance proposals for dashboost itself, should be free of charge.

Lets create the dashboost community, which will compete the community of the original dash budget system.
demo said:
The veritas team said:
it would be better to give some level of voting power to all participants in the system according to their stake in that system.
Click to expand...
But I, I am not even asking to give voting power to all actors. I am just asking the opinion of all the actors to be recorded. So that , after some period of time, every objective observer could take the voting statistics , could watch what the bad and what the good decisions were, and thus discover scientifically what is the optimum electorate for the community. You should not be based to the blind faith of the core team, which decided what the electorate should be without an obvious or a scientific reason. Do the core team, do the masternodes have the braveness to accept science rather than blind faulty faith? Do they?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is a request , regarding the statistics presented in dashboost main page.

The current statistics written on the top of the page are:
Dash Price: 264.74 USD / 0.0361 BTC Registered Votes: 12333 Users: 158

Could you please write the below ?
Dash Price: 264.74 USD / 0.0361 BTC Registered Votes: 12333 Users: 158 Voters: 25

...where the 25 "Voters" are the currently registered dash wallets that contain more than 1 dash.

Thank you.
 
demo said:
Unfortunately the proposal fee remains extremely high.
Click to expand...

I highly disagree, if someone cannot afford, or find someone to sponsor, a one dash fee then it is clear the project is not a good one anyway. This fee is a necessary anti-spam feature in order to protect the platform.

demo said:
Furthermore I woulk ask @Pasta to add governance proposals
Click to expand...

Governance proposals will not be added, as DashBoost is not a mechanism which is able to achieve decentralized consensus in a trustless manner. All operations such as governance proposals must be submitted through the treasury as that is the mechanism in Dash which allows the DAO to make decisions.
 
TaoOfSatoshi said:
Deleted some ad hominems and speculation as fact. Please be aware that this is not permitted on the Dash Forum.

http://www.dashnation.com/get-involved/dash-forums-rules-and-expectations/

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Why are you doing this?
Why you misinterpreting your own ruiles?
Where was the "speculation as fact" and the "ad hominen" in my post?

I repeat my questions to @Pasta
1) Will you allow adaptive proposal fees in dashboost?
2) Will you allow low or zero fee governance proposals that deal with dashboost itself?
 
Last edited:
demo said:
Why are you doing this?
Why you misinterpreting your own ruiles?
Where was the "speculation as fact" and the "ad hominen" in my post?

I repeat my questions to @Pasta
1) Will you allow adaptive proposal fees?
2) Will you allow low or zero fee governance proposals that deal with dashboost itself?
Click to expand...
I see nothing wrong with this post. Your questions are not being censored. You violated Dash Nation rules when you insulted @Pasta’s character (ad hominem) and made assumptions about his intentions (speculation as fact). Debate facts, not the character of the person you’re talking with. Stay within the rules posted, and you’ll have no issue with me.
 
demo said:
1) Will you allow adaptive proposal fees in dashboost?
Click to expand...
The one dash fee is what was agreed to by the MN network, in addition, I see no instance where a fee lower than $250 is beneficial for legitimate projects which are large enough to deserve funding. Any project which cannot crowdfund a one dash fee is clearly not good enough anyway to be of any substance.

demo said:
2) Will you allow low or zero fee governance proposals that deal with dashboost itself?
Click to expand...
As DashBoost is a treasury funded entity, any attempt to mandate a change must be approved by the MN network, in line with how our network has always worked.
 
Pasta said:
As DashBoost is a treasury funded entity, any attempt to mandate a change must be approved by the MN network, in line with how our network has always worked.
Click to expand...

So all the Dashboost internal governance decisions should depend on the MN network and should ask permission by the MN network? Do you claim this as a general rule? Do you claim that for any project that has been funded by the Masternodes, whenever an internal governance decision should be taken in this project, this also requires an approval by the MN network? And all these internal governance decisions by all these funded projects should pay the 5 dash proposal fee in the dash budget system, whenever they want to internally decide something? What are you talking about?

Do you realize how many projects have been funded until now by the MN network? Hundreds of projects! Do you realize how many of these projects ever asked the MN network a permission in order to decide their internal governance questions? Almost none of them!!! Do you expect all these projects to ask permision from the MN network and pay the 5 dash proposal fee, for whatever internal governance decision they should take? Your way of thinking does not make sense!!!!

Lets go back to the Dashboost case again.

Some things have been approved by the Mastenode network, regarding the dashboost project, but nobody said that all these things were mandatory and a prerequisite in order for Dashboost to be approved. The masternodes voted for the Dashboost idea, not for its tiny implementation details. And whether the proposal fee in Dashboost should remain stable to 1 dash for ever or should be able to change , I consider this as a tiny implementation detail, as an internal governance decision. Let us ask the masternodes whether the 1 dash proposal fee for dashboost is an unchangeable prerequisite, or an unimportant implementation detail that can be decided internaly. Do you bet 5 dash, on what the masternodes answer will be?

Additionaly, many things have not been defined by the MN network, regarding Dashboost. At least for all these things that have not been defined by the MN network, there is room for internal governance decisions, in dashboost.
 
Last edited:
Well now, either you read my comment too hastily or you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I did not state that "all the Dashboost internal governance decisions should depend on the MN network." Instead I stated "any attempt to mandate a change must be approved by the MN network." In other words, our team acts autonomously and makes internal decisions that it deems appropriate, and in the case the community does not agree with one of our decisions or wants us to make a change we don't see as needed or beneficial(as you are doing here) then the MN network must approve it.

We at DashBoost will do what we believe to be in the best interest of the network in all ways. If you want to try and override our decision and/or opinion that a variable/reduced fee (or any other change) would not be beneficial, the obligation is on you to get a proposal passed which outlines the change.
 
Pasta said:
Well now, either you read my comment too hastily or you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I did not state that "all the Dashboost internal governance decisions should depend on the MN network." Instead I stated "any attempt to mandate a change must be approved by the MN network." In other words, our team acts autonomously and makes internal decisions that it deems appropriate, and in the case the community does not agree with one of our decisions or wants us to make a change we don't see as needed or beneficial(as you are doing here) then the MN network must approve it.

We at DashBoost will do what we believe to be in the best interest of the network in all ways. If you want to try and override our decision and/or opinion that a variable/reduced fee (or any other change) would not be beneficial, the obligation is on you to get a proposal passed which outlines the change.
Click to expand...

So you dont want to take into account the dashboost voters, when you are about to decide about dashboost. This is you answer, as far as I understand it. No internal governance decisions are allowed in dashboost.

Who is afraid of decentralized governance? Who is afraid to vote the numbers and make them adaptive? @Pasta does.

Fortunately your error (and the error of the Dash community as a whole) has been already proved. Two projects promissed decentralized governance last year. EOS and Tezos. EOS is number 5, and Tezos is number 17. And dash, from number 6 last year it is now number 14. And I predict that it will keep falling as long as the dash community is still afraid of the decentralized governance and of voting the numbers.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
No internal governance decisions are allowed in dashboost.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you want to change something, suggest it to the team. We can debate its merit and come to a decision, if you disagree with the decision then you can put it to a MN vote.
 
Pasta said:
Yes, if you want to change something, suggest it to the team. We can debate its merit and come to a decision, if you disagree with the decision then you can put it to a MN vote.
Click to expand...

Asking a closed team (a cabal) for changes rarely works.
A closed team most of the times remains closed to new ideas.
This is what experiance proves.
Fire the core team.
Fire the cabal.
Let the community decide.
Decentralized governance is the future.
Tezos and EOS are opening new roads and the market follows them.
Not by chance those two are the biggest ICOs.
Not by chance they bypassed Dash.
Think about it, and change your mind.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
Fire the core team. Fire the cabal. Let the community decide.
Click to expand...
If you want to 'fire' us then put in the proposal. If you want to tell us to allow governance proposals in DashBoost, put in a proposal to the MNs.

The people have the power to mandate a change if they see fit.
 
Pasta said:
If you want to 'fire' us then put in the proposal. If you want to tell us to allow governance proposals in DashBoost, put in a proposal to the MNs.

The people have the power to mandate a change if they see fit.
Click to expand...

I dont care to fire you. You should care to fire yourself, if you want dashboost to boost.
This is what all succesfull projects are doing.
This is what Tezos and EOS promised, and they got so much money in ICOs and now they are high in coinmarketcap, higher than dash.
The new trend is the core team to fire itself and to give the decision power to the community.
Following this new trend, the dashboost core team should fire itself and should give the decision power to the dashboost community (at least for the all the dashboot internal governance decisions that are not prohibited by the MN network)
 
Last edited:
DashBoost July Cycle Report
78fd906e9829f2eb5c580d6489a1266e.png

78fd906e9829f2eb5c580d6489a1266e
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top