@untoppable thank you for your email notice about this thread.
For the past 6 months I have been raising questions and asking for more information in the core proposals in an attempt to better understand how they are set up, and how the funds are being used so that I can properly fulfill my role as MNO however, until very recently, I have either been stonewalled or I’ve received feedback from other MNOs who are protecting core and wish to silence me.
One of the primary roles of a MNO is decentralized governance of DASH. This involves a process where the MNO casts a vote to determine how treasury funds are best spent on proposals.
In order for us to fulfill our governance role correctly and cast the right vote, we need to understand how exactly is the money going to be spent. We also need to, therefore, understand who is going to be using the funds and how they intend to use those funds. Our role is also to make suggestions, criticisms and provide feedback to the project owners if we see a more optimal way in which those funds could be used. We cannot fulfill our role as an MNO unless we have the information we need to make solid, informed business decisions.
Nowhere in the above definition, or in fact anywhere I can see online does it say we should not challenge, question and demand the same standards of core proposals as we expect from any other proposal. In fact shouldn't core be setting the example for all other proposal owners? What kind of example are they setting when they do not listen to, or answer our questions?
Surely core should set a higher standard than everyone else when it comes to their proposals?
Nowhere does it say that we “rubber stamp” core proposals without question, debate, or constructive feedback.
The important point here is we
*cannot provide constructive feedback unless our requests for information are answered by the proposal owners*.
Since we are unable to gather the information we need then we cannot, therefore, make informed decisions about how funds should be spent on core projects.
Before we suggest any changes to the core set up we must first fully understand the core set up. However, we cannot understand the core set up unless our questions are answered. Therefore the first stage is to get all our requests for information answered in the core proposals.
However, I have received unprecedented resistance when I have attempted to ask questions in the core proposals. I was amazed to see practically no MNOs where requesting information from the core team (until recently).
For the last 6 months, I’ve been asking questions in core proposals with little to no reply to my questions. Until very recently core mainly ignored my requests for information in their proposals. I'm encouraged to see however that Glenn Austin is beginning to respond to questions in the core proposals. However, my main objection is not with the core team but with the MNOs themselves protecting the core team.
Core need to also respond to our questions however currently they do not feel the obligation to respond because MNOs keep stepping in to shield them.
MNOs need to stop protecting core and start asking questions to spark debate and dialogue with core. If we all started asking questions they will have to respond.
Here are some of the comments from other MNOs why I should not be asking questions in the core proposals. I have also included ways in which MNO responses have attempted to dissuade me from making constructive comments or put down my comments by putting a negative spin on them.
Here is just a small list of objections and negativity I’ve received over the last 6 months regarding requests for information I've made in core projects. There are in fact many more but this is just a sample:
1. Stonewalling i.e. no response whatsoever from the proposal owners to my questions on the proposal. (
A: Hello? is anyone there? What are you saying to me by not answering my questions? )
2. Core have more important things to do than to respond to my questions. (
A: But they have enough time to make a posting to request funds... funds which I have made a major contribution to)
3. The proposals are not the right place to be posting these questions here. (
A: This is exactly the right place to post questions about the proposals IF the proposal owner is not responding)
4. Posting long replies to comments is not unhelpful and the wrong place. (
A: The post is as long or as short as is necessary to effectively get the message across)
5. We cannot “rip apart a finely tuned organization” without consequences (
A: I agree, but I'm not trying to rip apart core, I'm trying to get answers to questions then decide what we should do and then install a time frame where core are not "ripped apart". If the questions are not forthcoming however "ripping apart" core may be our only option)
6. What is my “beef” with core? (
A: I don't have a beef with core, I'm attempting to fulfil my role as an MNO. I also dislike that phrase being a Vegan
)
7. Core PR is essential to take work away from the core team so that they can continue to focus on their work. (
A: No, the role of PR is to raise positive messages through the media to the public about our project, not to take work away from core. It should be called something else if that is what its primary role is )
8. I have misunderstood what core is about and what this proposal is about. (
A: Perhaps, but I can't understand what core is without asking questions
and getting those answers)
9. We should trust Ryan Taylor (or whoever the MNO is protecting) (
A: it is not about trust. Of course I trust Ryan Taylor et al. It is about making intelligent decisions and understanding what we are voting for, then making positive contributions for improvements)
10. I feel we should “spoil core” by X (
A: this is plain favouritism, I could not imagine anyone saying that in any other proposal. Core are not driven by money anyway. They are driven by a mission. If it came to it I know our core team would work for nothing. They believe in what they are doing. Just as we do.)
11. Negative put-downs in how some MNOs respond e.g. “ I don't’ fundamentally disagree with your point X
BUT...” (
A: Could we phrase this in a more positive way perhaps?
When someone says I don’t disagree with your point they are attempting to frame a positive contribution in a negative way. It would be more constructive for MNOs to say precisely what they agree with and what they don’t agree with. e.g. I agree with your point X but I don’t agree with your point Y. To phrase in a negative way such as “I don’t disagree with X is an attempt to put a negative spin on a positive contribution or to make the contribution look of less value than it is.
12. Core have already explained this and made it publicly known you should visit this page: X, Y, Z - Then when I take the time to actually visit and read the page referred to I still cannot find the information I need. (
A: core did not make it clear and the chosen communication route was not effective)
13. Your comments about core are patronizing. (
A: who, exactly thinks they are patronizing? )
14. “Macho” challenges to the core team are not welcome. (
A: There is nothing macho about doing what is right and fulfilling our role as MNOs)
etc etc etc..
These are just a small sample of the repeated and ongoing barrage of negative comments I've personally been subjected to when trying to get the information I need to be able to properly fulfil my role as MNO on the core proposals. A barrage of resistance and negativity.
Yet my comments, questions, and feedback in any other non-core proposal are welcomed as constructive. What is the word or phrase for expecting one standard of others but then not meeting those standards for yourself? Hypocritical perhaps? or perhaps "double standards"? if we wish to be politically correct.
Core themselves rarely responded to my questions knowing full well that the faithful, core-loving MNOs, will step in and valiantly protect them.
"Yes, sign me up for some core-loving brownie points and here is my faithful no thought, rubber-stamp vote. I LOVE the core! Hooya!"
Joking aside, before we make any suggested changes to core we first most surely stop protecting core, and rubber-stamping their proposals in? We as MNOs, need to fulfil our role whether it is a core proposal or not. We must start asking intelligent questions to understand how the treasury funds are being spent exactly and determine if there could be a more efficient way to spend those funds.
I notice today
DASH has dropped to 15th place in market cap below Ethereum Classic. The fact is that DASH is on a downward trend. To have a chance to reverse this we must become more efficient. Smart technology alone e.g. Evolution is not going to save DASH. We must give the very best for our money as we possibly can and work as efficiently and intelligently as we can. We also need to start putting more funds into projects that are leading to results *now*. Results that are leading to real users - now. Not in the future. I am specifically thinking of the Venezuela projects and the other LATAM projects. We need as much money as we can injected into those types of projects.
Core is a major player in how our funds are being used we must ensure that it is being used optimally and we cannot continue as we are. We must fulfil our roles as MNOs and stop protecting core and do our job as we do with any other proposal.
Before I am in a position to intelligently provide feedback as to what we should do I need to understand the core set-up and what they are doing with our funds and I cannot do that unless MNOs stop repeatedly protecting core. We also need to get core to start responding to questions on each of their roles.
Therefore I think the first step is to suggest that the different core roles be first identified and then we request to split up into different funding proposals each of these roles. One proposal for each function of core. In this way, we can start to raise specific questions of the function of core for that role so that we can better understand it.
I think it is unwise to vote out a core role until we actually fully understand its role, how it interacts with other core divisions, and how the money is to be spent within that core function. Therefore I suggest the first step is to separate out the different core functions that could potentially operate as separate entities e.g. Marketing, Business Development, Strategy etc and each should have its own funding proposal. This way we can for the first time start entering into debate with core and question each division of core and understand it more clearly.
Zero tolerance to goading, trolls, bating and flames.
I wish also to raise a point regarding goading, trolling and put downs I've been receiving from some members. From now on I have decided I will no longer respond to posts where the individual is intending to goad me, or try to directly or indirectly attack my person or character. Period. They either respond with intelligent constructive debate or I will simply not respond to that individual. I prefer to give my time and energy to positive contributors. People are free to criticise my logic in a constructive way but I will not respond to goading, trolling, bating, or backhanded negative slap downs. In addition if individuals continue with that style of response I will simply ignore and not read any of their future posts whether constructive or otherwise.
