I think Dash needs some changes

qwizzie said:
Roadmap on Dash Core Group Quarterly Call Q4-2021 (Includes Masternodes Shares on the 'Future' part)
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-core-group-q4-2021-quarterly-call-3-february-2022.52664/ (see slides)

rNUzFme.png


Current roadmap ( https://www.dash.org/roadmap/ ) : No Masternode Shares, but instead we get Inter-Blockchain Communication (not totally sure if that is needed or not), Fungible tokens support (not needed in my opinion) , NFTS support (definitely not needed in my opinion).

yGSMTD8.png


I would like to know why our official Dash Roadmap is not showing Masternode Shares and instead is showing a lot of unnecessary or not needed feautures ?
Unless the Dash Roadmap website shows outdated information ? ( i am kinda praying that is the case, but then the question becomes : why have outdated information there in the first place ? Why not simply replace the roadmap with that of the quarterly calls ? Or at least adjust the 2023 part ?)

Maybe CTO of Dash Core Group could find the time to explain this ? I would appreciate it.
Having two different Dash roadmaps, showing different goal posts for 2023 is just confusing to Dash users.
Click to expand...
I so agree with you, this is unfortunately a problem. I believe developers become myopic and look for efficiencies in integrating new features (Wow, if we use this, it'll only take that to integrate this cool new feature) but in the end, does anyone need this new feature? Or more importantly, now? NFTs might be useful some day, but even on ethereum they have no real use yet, why make them a priority? I'm completely with you on that!
 
kot said:
Quite a lot of time passed by and I didn't see any news or announcements from the new CEO.
What is happening?
Click to expand...
We don't really have CEO, what we have is Patrick, who stepped in to hold things together after you, Ryan etc al abandoned Dash, rather than work things out, thank goodness Patrick Quinn was willing to step in and hold things together. But with such a mass abandon ship, and a few unpaid months later, if you expected miracles from him, I'd say that's the biggest hypocrisy yet! Maybe you didn't mean for it to come across that way, but I'm still hurting a bit about the abandonment of DCG, and incredibly thankful toward Patric Quinn stepping in as he did.
 
Last edited:
The way i see it a lot of pressure has been placed for years now on certain Dash Core Group members (and on their previous CEO) through Dash Discord and other Dash media channels, blaming them for pretty much anything .. ranging from the downfall of Dash in marketcap rank and price to the lack of media presence from the previous CEO to a general lack of DCG transparency towards the Dash community.

That led to certain masternode whales (1 or 2 major whales) to stop supporting DCG compensation budget proposals, in an effort to force the previous CEO to resign.

After they managed that, they flipped their votes once more in support of the DCG compensation budget proposals and most likely thought things would go back to business as usual.

I am not at all surprised to see so many DCG resignations after the whole forcing the previous CEO to resign, and there is little doubt in my mind that things have only detoriated after that whole debacle.

Dash marketcap ranking / price : Pretty much the same if not worse and something that should never have been directed towards DCG in the first place. People just seem to have a very narrow view on things and most likely got blindsided by this crypto winter causing massive sell pressure on all altcoins and they needed a scapegoat for themselves. So they blamed it on either the former CEO or on DCG in general.

Current (Interim) DCG CEO media presence : Same as that of the previous DCG CEO (if not worse), pretty much zero media presence. Which does not bother me all that much, as marketing, promotion and media presence just don't have much effect in a bear winter, let alone during a crypto winter.

Lack of DCG transperancy towards the Dash community : Only got worse. We lost the DCG quarterly calls and we lost the Dash Quarterly Financial results and the Dash roadmap is still pretty much out of date and unclear.

Then there is the talk of DCG new interim CEO of moving more of the miner blockrewards to the Dash budget in the future (he seems to really like that idea, eventhough DCG already promised to the miners that we would not mess with the blockrewards anymore), talk of full market rated compensation of the DCG CEO role, when that same DCG CEO role was not compensated for many years by DCG previous CEO due to the bear market (which we are still in !!) and talks about some magical management tool being the solution of getting a grip on the devs release schedule.

* Will Dash survive this bear winter / crypto winter : yes, no doubt in my mind
* Is DCG seriously damaged by its own Dash community members : yes, no doubt in my mind and not by those that felt pressured to resign their position, but by those that did all the pressuring.
* Do i want Dash Core Group to have a full CEO postion with market-rated compensation during a bear market / crypto winter, when there are still DCG members not being (fully) compensated ? No.
 
Last edited:
I once heard, when a relationship breaks up, the calculation for getting over it is one month for every year of the relationship. Imo it's not a good human trait but if it also applies to DAOs then I think we maybe entering a new phase in Dash's life. Exit the old guard and welcome the new.
 
TanteStefana said:
I so agree with you, this is unfortunately a problem. I believe developers become myopic and look for efficiencies in integrating new features (Wow, if we use this, it'll only take that to integrate this cool new feature) but in the end, does anyone need this new feature? Or more importantly, now?
Click to expand...

This is exactly the reason why we URGENTLY need to start asking governance questions to the damned crew!

 
Last edited:
TanteStefana said:
We don't really have CEO, what we have is Patrick, who stepped in to hold things together after you, Ryan etc al abandoned Dash, rather than work things out, thank goodness Patrick Quinn was willing to step in and hold things together. But with such a mass abandon ship, and a few unpaid months later, if you expected miracles from him, I'd say that's the biggest hypocrisy yet! Maybe you didn't mean for it to come across that way, but I'm still hurting a bit about the abandonment of DCG, and incredibly thankful toward Patric Quinn stepping in as he did.
Click to expand...

Well... I would not say we abandoned the ship - I was on the ship during much worse times and tried hard to work things out. Things went sideways due to a few very unacceptable incidents triggered by some particular individuals and it did not seem to me that Trust Protectors were interested in working things out - they were interested in their own agenda. Ryan was forced to leave and I have resigned for a very particular reason - you can see the story here: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-trust-protectors-please-react.52886/
Patrick was a part of this process - we were very open with him during our conversations.
 
Last edited:
bigrcanada said:
As mentioned before...we do run the risk of solely focusing on development and not proper marketing. As you are also one of the OG's in this project, in the years you were in DCG, what were the discussions on how to approach this. I'm sure there was frustration with the lack of traction...but there must of been some high level discussions as what could be done to curb the slip DASH suffered.

Moving forward...how do you think this could be best addressed?

Richard
Click to expand...

There was a discussion about this basically on monthly basis, during the board meetings. And it was always the same story shared with the board - we are doing better and need 3-6 months.
When we have realized that was a mistake, things went too far, price felt down, we went into survival mode ensuring continuous development and (unfortunately) developers held us hostage for many months/years more. Yes - we have failed as a board by not stopping this.
And I think the current situation is worse - in my opinion there is no fraction in DCG that is business oriented, with strong understanding of the market. DCG is fully tech-oriented at the moment.
What is even more troubling - with Glenn departing there might be operational difficulties that no one cares about at the moment, but they will hit hard soon.
 
Last edited:
kot said:
There was a discussion about this basically on monthly basis, during the board meetings. And it was always the same story shared with the board - we are doing better and need 3-6 months.
When we have realized that was a mistake, things went too far, price felt down, we went into survival mode ensuring continuous development and (unfortunately) developers held us hostage for many months/years more. Yes - we have failed as a board by not stopping this.
And I think the current situation is worse - in my opinion there is no fraction in DCG that is business oriented, with strong understanding of the market. DCG is fully tech-oriented at the moment.
What is even more troubling - with Glenn departing there might be operational difficulties that no one cares about at the moment, but they will hit hard soon.
Click to expand...

This was something I had been pointing out for a long time, though I am pretty sure we are all aware of the short comings DASH is facing. There needs to be a point where we focus on maintaining Platform and Evo once released, while moving a substantial amount of the budget to business and market development. This whole situation is a bit of a mess at the moment. To be fair...its important to point out that we do need our "main" product and use case to be developed before reaching out...initially. But DCG will need to refocus on moving beyond development focus to business and other use cases.

This is why I've advocated for separate DOA's. One DOA strictly focused on Development on contract to treasury controlled by DCG and the products that the ecosystem/treasury pays them for, another DOA strictly focused on administration and business development. I do not think DCG should be developing code...that should be handled by a different DOA, period.

So, is it your opinion that the project is doomed at this point due to this lack of vision? Do you believe in separate DOA's as a solution or what is your thoughts on how this could be addressed?
 
bigrcanada said:
So, is it your opinion that the project is doomed at this point due to this lack of vision? Do you believe in separate DOA's as a solution or what is your thoughts on how this could be addressed?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think the project is doomed. I think there is a clear vision but poorly executed.
As I wrote previously - DCG should do whatever necessary to finish the platform MVP development, release it and make sure it works on the mainnet. After that part of the funds should be redirected towards promotion and marketing - it doesn't matter to me if it would be a separate DAO or DCG or another group doing promotion efforts. Just do it.
 
WeltZumerr said:
I am afraid of the intervention of the agents who want to control everything and especially the cryptocurrencies. Thats why we should rely on mathematical proof of the security of an algorithm or of a language, rather than rely on the skill or on the honesty of the developers, and this applies to Linus Torvalds too.

But of course , as a compromise, I could accept that rust or C are also fairly secure enviroments, unless it is proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Amazing! An AI bot tries to imitate my speech!

vazaki3 said:
I am a fun of the inherently formally verified languages like haskell (used in Cardano), or OCaml (used in Tezos). Formally verified languages are secure languages, because their behavior is proved mathematically.

I am afraid of the intervention of the agents who want to control everything and especially the cryptocurrencies. Thats why we should rely on mathematical proof of the security of an algorithm or of a language, rather than rely on the skill or on the honesty of the developers, and this applies to Linus Torvalds too.

But of course , as a compromise, I could accept that rust or C are also fairly secure enviroments, unless it is proven otherwise.

Rust's first compiler that was used to create rust and compile the rest rust versions, was written in OCaml, then OCaml was abandonded and LLVM was used. I suspect that the agents may discovered a bug in this first OCaml version (or in the LLVM version) of Rust, that is inherited to all the rest rust versions and they want to get profit of it. Thats why they fired many old rust developers, and hired new ones that are under their control. This is of course a filthy conspiracy theory, and in order to be proved wrong we have to find the first version of rust written in OCaml, formally verify it, then create again the bootstrap of Rust and use it in order to compile the current rust version.

Getting started with Formal Verification Part 1: Introduction and Solvers - YouTube



A formally verified/secure software (or hardware) should be deterministic, or at least a deterministic tree of states should spawn from a non-deterministic state. Polkadot devs believed that rust was secure, but after discovering a hidden non deterministic function they may changed their mind. Of course they are tighten to rust language now, and they cannot step back.

Lets not do their mistake, here in Dash. Lets formaly verify everything, lets be based on deterministic/secure/inherently formally verified languages.

Cardano did that, with haskell, and it is on top of coinmarketcap now.

Click to expand...

:cool:
 
Last edited:
I would like to know :

* When we can expect v18.2 on Mainnet (it does look close to release on Github, which means DCG should be able to point to a release date by now)
* When we can expect v19 on Mainnet ? (or how complete is it currently on Testnet, if DCG does not want to commit to a timeline)
* When will Dash Platform be deemed feature complete on Testnet ? (i guess the Platform Development Updates will eventually provide us the answer.. but still some clarity would be nice, as Dash Platform is currently is firing off all kinds of development delayment signals)
* Why are the 4K HPM's only activated through a hard fork in v20, and not through a hard fork in v19 ? (see : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5039).

Knipsel.JPG


I thought v19 is the version everything comes together, Core & Platform & 4K HPM's ?
Now we have two more hardforks to go ? (v19 & v20 ?)

Why is a relatively small change in code with regards to 4K HPM put in the same Dash Core version (v20) as Trustless Masternode Shares*, with the risk of Trustless Masternode Shares possibly delaying Dash Core v20 & 4K HPM's, as Trustless Masternode Shares seems to have a lot more code complexity to it.

* I seem to recall Sam mentioning that work on Trustless Masternode Shares has already began and that it would be part of v20 ?

Knipsel.JPG


If there really is no other way then to spread Dash Platform implementation and 4K HPM implementation over two seperate hard forks (v19 & v20), then maybe it is better to shift Trustless Masternode Shares to v21, and keep v20 strictly and solely for 4K HPM implementation ?
To avoid the risk of future delayment of Dash Core v20 ?
 
Last edited:
kot said:
So… Another year passed by and platform is still “almost done”. :(
Dash needs more than some changes. Dash needs many fundamental changes.
Click to expand...

Such as Rion creating a group of developers to work on their own compatible version of Core.
 
Interesting feedback : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/EVO-DECISION-4K-HPMN#comments

Knipsel.JPG


Maybe this means that Dash Platform still gets released to Dash Mainnet with Dash Core v19 (with a temp 4x adjustment to number of rewards for 4K HPM's) and that Dash Core v20 handles the 4K HPM final reward logic (+ introduce Trustless Masternode Shares) ?

This would be more positive then what i previously assumed, when i saw pull request 5039 : 4k collateral high performance masternode implementation
(https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5039) and the stated 'enabled after v20 hf'.

The time between Dash Core v19 activation on Mainnet (hard fork) and Dash Core v20 activation on Mainnet (hard fork) would just be a transition time period for the 4K HPM final reward logic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top