You've proven yourself to be a part of the problem by not supporting my proposals to cure the apathy and wasteful spending by incentivizing MNOs to vote. Congratulations, hypocrite.
20% of all mined dash getting dumped on the market with little to show for it is a massive tokenomics problem. Most of that should be kept with the MNOs to increase their attractiveness as investments. With more dash locked up in masternodes the price of dash would rise and we would actually have more money to spend every month in fiat terms.
Further, the DIF should be liquidated, with the holdings either given to masternodes or burned.
Not. Putting it bluntly, not only is your proposal fatally flawed, it demonstrates your lack of understanding of how dash and DCG operate and shape narratives.
For example, IIRC, one of my proposals was to set a variable proposal fee. The response was, "people don't went to keep voting", even if automation could be applied. BUT, when Samuel Westrich declared that content censorship by MNO vote would be required under his leadership, well, that wasn't up for vote, you either like it or lump it. Or username challenges by MNO voting. Just two of many such examples.
In fact, DCG and MNOs have rejected external proposals to almost all of the most basic and smallest changes to the dash dao.
Then there was the buying of MNO votes when, once again, Samuel Westrich offered to increase MNO rewards, I think that was when proposing a block reward share from 10% to 20%. Telling us how it offered more to other contractors and then after implantation DCG taking most of it.
And then there's the ridiculous "decision proposals" by DCG, effectively changing and inventing their own rules for what will count as a pass.
You see, first you have to recognize that dash uses two very different consensus methods. There's PoW for block production and then there's a variant of PoS for the dash dao. There is no unstoppable lucky draw for the dash dao, it is, in fact, the result of a single executable produced by DCG... a PRODUCT of DCG... they write the rules of the dao and there can not be any other competing version for the same treasury, it simply doesn't exist, period. Nor will it ever exist. Why would DCG ever allow a dashd dao alternator with potentially different rules chosen by outsiders? You will be told, if you want different dao rules you must fully abandon the dash name and domains and create a completely separate project and treasury. DCG are lying and disingenuous when they say dash is a "protocol", it is literally, and will only ever be, a DCG PRODUCT. A "tech driven project" with a key influential figure called Samuel Westrich.
When DCG introduced PoSe scoring. were MNOs polled on the idea and implantation rules? - no, never. This is the MO of DCG... be selective and narrow of what you ask, and write the rules of what will be accepted or rejected. When an outsider attempts to change how the dash dao functions, DCG declare limited time, money and resources. Or divert attention to small or insignificant issues and will not attempt to work through those issues unless it's THEIR idea.
In fact, I think maybe I should re-designate dash (again) from a web3 product to simply a Crypto Product with God awful leadership, management and financial stupidity. DCG never cared for the price that could of grew their resources, and more than happy to take on debt instead of ruthlessly cutting resources. How I can hear Samuel's typing hand, about to declare fear that dash would literally die without AWS or something. And apparently it's ME spreading FUD, really!??
No, realistically, there is only one solution and that is to abandon and disincentivize all "decision proposals". Enforce project funding and results, perhaps through collateral and slashing.
forms.gle
I'm afraid I have absolutely no business taking on such responsibility both due to a flaky brain and my current time constraints.
