The debates surrounding the past couple of Budget Proposal cycles have got me thinking about how Masternode owners should approach new proposals for funding. In a very real sense, MN owners are venture capitalists, deciding how to spend "their" money. If they spend it wisely, their investment will grow; if they don't, then Dash will end up next to Feathercoin in valuation. 
Now I've never been a VC, but I have been on the other side - pitching to VCs. What I write here is from my own experience, but I make no claims to be the final expert on these matters. This is intended as just food for thought.
The first thing I think a MN owner needs to realize is that the budget does not have to be completely spent. The leftover funds unspent act as a sort of "savings" - by being burnt they increase the value of your holdings (small money supply -> greater value per coin), but they only increase it slightly. One should never approve a proposal simply because there is money available, as unspent funds are better than completely wasted funds. At the same time unspent funds don't really help the ecosystem much either, so we shouldn't be miserly either.
After this, I think there are three basic questions that a MN owner should consider when evaluating a proposal:
1) Does this proposal fill a real need in the Dash ecosystem?
In order to be successful, Dash needs to be focused (as does any project). Success doesn't come from just throwing crap on the wall and seeing what sticks; it comes from having a vision that you stick to. The core team has given a vision which I think we all generally support, so proposals which advance that vision should be treated with a higher priority.
2) What is the plan for executing the proposal?
Just having a good idea isn't enough - you need a plan to execute it. The plan should includes details of how it will be done, the timeframe for execution, the team executing it, some basic technical details, etc. Just saying you will do it isn't enough.
3) Who is making the proposal?
Do they have a history of executing in the past? Do they have the experience necessary to make this proposal happen? If someone fulfills #1 & #2 above very well, I can look past this question, but someone with a proven track record should be given a larger benefit of the doubt than someone with none.
A couple more points (I'll be done soon, I promise!). First, I think everyone here is a big supporter of freedom and liberty. This means that each MN owner has the freedom to make their own decisions on how well a proposal answers the above questions. Some might disagree with my own voting decisions, and that is fine - none of us are omnipotent. And everyone is free to lobby for their point of view - that is appropriate to any voting system. But I do think we all should follow the basic thought-process I gave above, and respect others to do the same. We don't want to fall into the trap the Bitcoin community has fallen into - turning into a divided community that automatically accepts or rejects a proposal based only on who else accepts or rejects it, and personally attacking any who disagree.
Second, once a proposal has been approved or rejected, there is no reason to continue to debate it (unless some new information comes to light). This is the great thing about the Budget System: we can have finality in debates (unlike a certain other cryptocurrency I won't name here) - they don't have to linger like visitors who have overstayed their welcome. There have been proposals that have passed that I voted "no" on, and that's okay - the community has spoken. On to the next batch of proposals, I say.
Long term, we all want to fund the projects that, after careful consideration, we believe have the best chance to advance the Dash ecosystem. And fortunately, we have a great system to achieve that. But as the great philosopher Ben Parker once said, "With great power comes great responsibility!"
Now I've never been a VC, but I have been on the other side - pitching to VCs. What I write here is from my own experience, but I make no claims to be the final expert on these matters. This is intended as just food for thought.
The first thing I think a MN owner needs to realize is that the budget does not have to be completely spent. The leftover funds unspent act as a sort of "savings" - by being burnt they increase the value of your holdings (small money supply -> greater value per coin), but they only increase it slightly. One should never approve a proposal simply because there is money available, as unspent funds are better than completely wasted funds. At the same time unspent funds don't really help the ecosystem much either, so we shouldn't be miserly either.
After this, I think there are three basic questions that a MN owner should consider when evaluating a proposal:
1) Does this proposal fill a real need in the Dash ecosystem?
In order to be successful, Dash needs to be focused (as does any project). Success doesn't come from just throwing crap on the wall and seeing what sticks; it comes from having a vision that you stick to. The core team has given a vision which I think we all generally support, so proposals which advance that vision should be treated with a higher priority.
2) What is the plan for executing the proposal?
Just having a good idea isn't enough - you need a plan to execute it. The plan should includes details of how it will be done, the timeframe for execution, the team executing it, some basic technical details, etc. Just saying you will do it isn't enough.
3) Who is making the proposal?
Do they have a history of executing in the past? Do they have the experience necessary to make this proposal happen? If someone fulfills #1 & #2 above very well, I can look past this question, but someone with a proven track record should be given a larger benefit of the doubt than someone with none.
A couple more points (I'll be done soon, I promise!). First, I think everyone here is a big supporter of freedom and liberty. This means that each MN owner has the freedom to make their own decisions on how well a proposal answers the above questions. Some might disagree with my own voting decisions, and that is fine - none of us are omnipotent. And everyone is free to lobby for their point of view - that is appropriate to any voting system. But I do think we all should follow the basic thought-process I gave above, and respect others to do the same. We don't want to fall into the trap the Bitcoin community has fallen into - turning into a divided community that automatically accepts or rejects a proposal based only on who else accepts or rejects it, and personally attacking any who disagree.
Second, once a proposal has been approved or rejected, there is no reason to continue to debate it (unless some new information comes to light). This is the great thing about the Budget System: we can have finality in debates (unlike a certain other cryptocurrency I won't name here) - they don't have to linger like visitors who have overstayed their welcome. There have been proposals that have passed that I voted "no" on, and that's okay - the community has spoken. On to the next batch of proposals, I say.
Long term, we all want to fund the projects that, after careful consideration, we believe have the best chance to advance the Dash ecosystem. And fortunately, we have a great system to achieve that. But as the great philosopher Ben Parker once said, "With great power comes great responsibility!"
