Escrow

dote

dote

New member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Hello there!

Some proposal claims to send funds to the Core for escrow. Now we ask for a conformation from a Core member to be sure the money will be send to a Core wallet and not a proposal owner.

We can avoid this processes if we will know for sure the wallet is belong to the Core.
It would be great if we'll have a list of wallets belongs to the Core in advance.
 
Since escrow is actually a legally binding scenario, it requires simply more than embedding a core wallet address into your proposal hash. You actually need to sign an agreement with them containing milestones, payout amounts, etc. So you do need to email them and begin that process.

I hope this is helpful. What's your proposal about?
 
feedbands said:
Since escrow is actually a legally binding scenario, it requires simply more than embedding a core wallet address into your proposal hash. You actually need to sign an agreement with them containing milestones, payout amounts, etc. So you do need to email them and begin that process.

I hope this is helpful. What's your proposal about?
Click to expand...

It's not really helpful)

For example, a proposal owner claims he has an agreement with the core for an escrow and has all information in a proposal.
But to be sure, we need a conformation from a core member a payout address belong to the core.
If we well have a list of addresses in advance we won't need an additional conformation.
 
Ah ok I see. Yes that would be helpful.

There is also no way to see the wallet address embedded in the proposal, or is there?
 
Ah thank you for that!

I think your idea to have escrow services make publicly available their escrow addresses is a really good one.
 
dote said:
Hello there!

Some proposal claims to send funds to the Core for escrow. Now we ask for a conformation from a Core member to be sure the money will be send to a Core wallet and not a proposal owner.

We can avoid this processes if we will know for sure the wallet is belong to the Core.
It would be great if we'll have a list of wallets belongs to the Core in advance.
Click to expand...
Depending on the nature of the escrow service, we will either use one of the following escrow addresses, or will create a custom address for instances in which we are not providing currency fluctuation protection.

Business Development = XfNeikkfga1GUVt3TUE5XjB4jRhQXPPiKa
Academic Research = XsHZ3XYVaR8r1By5Ludnjv9ZSAoxZW4UV1

Other than those two, addresses are usually custom. If there is a specific proposal that is claiming they are using core team escrow services, it is best to verify with the CFO (currently me until the open position is filled), or the functional area (usually Business Development @Bradley Zastrow or Marketing @fernando). We will usually post a confirmation as soon as a proposal goes live and the proposal owner notifies us to verify an escrow publicly. If there is a proposal owner that is claiming to use escrow services that have not been verified by the core team, it is best to contact us for verification. If you let me know the proposal in question, I will check it for you.

Keep in mind that green candle also provides escrow services, so be sure to check with the correct service.
 
By the way, i could implement a green escrow checkmark on DC for proposals having a core escrow address as a payout address. Potential downside: proposals indicate that they negogiated escrow services with core, which did not do so by simply setting a escrow address as a payout address. Opinions?
 
rango said:
By the way, i could implement a green escrow checkmark on DC for proposals having a core escrow address as a payout address. Potential downside: proposals indicate that they negogiated escrow services with core, which did not do so by simply setting a escrow address as a payout address. Opinions?
Click to expand...

It would be great!
 
rango said:
By the way, i could implement a green escrow checkmark on DC for proposals having a core escrow address as a payout address. Potential downside: proposals indicate that they negogiated escrow services with core, which did not do so by simply setting a escrow address as a payout address. Opinions?
Click to expand...
To prove the escrow agreement proposal owner should provide smth (proposal hash?) signed by the escrow service using escrow address. So it could be a 2 step procedure - 1) proposal payment address matches the one escrow service publicly announced and 2) proposal owner provided correct signature (produced by the escrow service).
 
I own a masternode and I love dash. I've long felt an obligation to get involved and cast my vote on proposals, but I simply haven't had the free time to participate as much as I would like. Recently I have made attempts to review and vote on all proposals, but it's simply not possible.

Now I only scan for proposals which have made some sort of escrow arrangement, and I review those as best I can. Everything else gets a no vote. It may not seem fair, but as far as I can tell the vast majority of proposals never see real-world results, so I must do what I can to raise the bar on all future proposals. Exceptions do exist, of course, such as if it is someone who is just requesting a vote for something, and just want their 5 dash back, or if you're Amanda or a Dash Core member.

On Dashcentral I asked the admin (it appears to be you, rango) to add a couple fields into the proposal header, (escrow yes/no and escrow provider), it would make things quicker and easier, and raise the bar for proposal quality.

However, an Escrow Verified field is even better. Thank you dote! I hope to see it happen. The further development of such protocols will go far in ensuring proposals are actually completed. I'm happy to see the proposal system continue to evolve and mature. Next we need an expansion of escrow services, with the competition it brings. I'm excited to see there is one in pre-proposal now.

This will be a huge time-saver, confidence-builder, and bar-raiser for the entire treasury system. Rango, please get it done quickly, so it's in place for the next budget cycle!
 
I believe the idea of using escrow is for treasury Safety. In as much, not every community members have full knowledge about how escrow works. I have my proposal on the Dash Central and I know about escrow but looking at the amount of fundings am requesting I dont think putting more workload on Dash core or green candle is necessary.
We have to look into the use of escrow well and then develop a criteria when to use Escrow to request fund to support DASH network.
Cheers!
 
Proposal owners will need to put in the time during the pre-proposal stage. There is simply no accountability otherwise. In the future there will be more escrow services, and they will compete.
They each will strive to be easy to use and understand, provide low rates, transparency, and provide good reporting and metrics for the MNOs.

In this environment MNOs can hand out more Yes votes without worrying about whether or not the network will see results.
Accountability is key. The bigger Dash gets, the more accountability matters.
 
Unstoppable said:
Proposal owners will need to put in the time during the pre-proposal stage. There is simply no accountability otherwise. In the future there will be more escrow services, and they will compete.
They each will strive to be easy to use and understand, provide low rates, transparency, and provide good reporting and metrics for the MNOs.

In this environment MNOs can hand out more Yes votes without worrying about whether or not the network will see results.
Accountability is key. The bigger Dash gets, the more accountability matters.
Click to expand...
Then I think you're pushing the responsibility of Accountability to Escrow. The community is supposed to monitor and evaluate it's funded proposal. Even though Escrow ensure good use of Funding but this service should be for expensive development or marketing projects. Imagine a 2Dash project being monitored by Dash Core when they have important assignments to run for DASH network.
I suggest we have a Monitoring and Evaluation system for ongoing proposal and this could be created out of Dash core an officer in charge of Monitoring and Evaluation.
 
UltimateCrypto said:
Then I think you're pushing the responsibility of Accountability to Escrow. The community is supposed to monitor and evaluate it's funded proposal. Even though Escrow ensure good use of Funding but this service should be for expensive development or marketing projects. Imagine a 2Dash project being monitored by Dash Core when they have important assignments to run for DASH network.
I suggest we have a Monitoring and Evaluation system for ongoing proposal and this could be created out of Dash core an officer in charge of Monitoring and Evaluation.
Click to expand...

There should always be accountability for Escrow..?
 
rango said:
By the way, i could implement a green escrow checkmark on DC for proposals having a core escrow address as a payout address. Potential downside: proposals indicate that they negogiated escrow services with core, which did not do so by simply setting a escrow address as a payout address. Opinions?
Click to expand...

That would be a nice addition and add efficiency. I think it would be even better if it would indicate use of either escrow service, Core, or GreenCandle.
 
@UdjinM6

The escrow agreement is negotiated before the proposal submission. So a signature of the final proposal hash would be a bit cumbersome. You could alternatively provide an individual escrow address to prospected proposal owner and additionally provide him with a signature of this address using one of the core teams "master" addresses. This would end up in a nice 1 step only process.
 
rango said:
@UdjinM6

The escrow agreement is negotiated before the proposal submission. So a signature of the final proposal hash would be a bit cumbersome. You could alternatively provide an individual escrow address to prospected proposal owner and additionally provide him with a signature of this address using one of the core teams "master" addresses. This would end up in a nice 1 step only process.
Click to expand...

^ good idea
 
rango said:
@UdjinM6

The escrow agreement is negotiated before the proposal submission. So a signature of the final proposal hash would be a bit cumbersome. You could alternatively provide an individual escrow address to prospected proposal owner and additionally provide him with a signature of this address using one of the core teams "master" addresses. This would end up in a nice 1 step only process.
Click to expand...
Yep, signing new address with a known one is indeed a much better idea!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top