• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Pre-Proposal: Create the first DASH gateway on Ripple

Personally, I'm inclined to vote yes for this (after I've made some basic checks). But as you can see, some MNOs are quite sensitive to funding for-profit proposals. I kind of understand their viewpoint, though personally I take it on a per-proposal basis. Anyway, as it is, this proposal might be a bit touch and go. However, I think if you signed a 12 month exclusive to no further cryptos, then I think that would sway it in your favour.
 
Exclusivity would be nice but i wouldn't say a requirement. The part I would consider more important is that *if* they decide to add more coins in the short term, they don't just add for free. It would be frustrating for dash to pay for an integration and then they add melon the next month for no cost...
 
We're going to have to get used to paying people to do things they are doing for free for other projects. It's not necessarily fair, but it's how the budget system works.

Think about it. Everybody who integrated Bitcoin has done so for free, right? But it's taken EIGHT YEARS for this organic growth to happen. We have two choices. Dash can wait five more years for its ecosystem to mature to the level Bitcoin's is now, getting there organically and without paying for integrations. That is the first option. The second option is to use our unique budget system to pay for integrations and accelerate the growth of our ecosystem, potentially exponentially. What is better, waiting many years for organic growth, or exponential growth using budget funds to incentivize Dash's adoption?

As the OP suggests, Dash integration will probably happen if we don't pass the proposal, but it won't happen nearly as quickly. It won't happen until the OP is convinced that there is enough money to be made to pay for the cost of the integration. He's not asking for a "bribe," he's asking for risk mitigation.

I'm not saying that I'm either for or against this specific proposal, only that we are going to have to become used to paying for things that other projects get for free. It's our ability to pay that accelerates our growth. In the eighteen months the budget system has existed, our monthly budget has grown from $!5,000 to $700,000; I don't believe this is coincidental.
 
David said:
We're going to have to get used to paying people to do things they are doing for free for other projects. It's not necessarily fair, but it's how the budget system works.

Think about it. Everybody who integrated Bitcoin has done so for free, right? But it's taken EIGHT YEARS for this organic growth to happen. We have two choices. Dash can wait five more years for its ecosystem to mature to the level Bitcoin's is now, getting there organically and without paying for integrations. That is the first option. The second option is to use our unique budget system to pay for integrations and accelerate the growth of our ecosystem, potentially exponentially. What is better, waiting many years for organic growth, or exponential growth using budget funds to incentivize Dash's adoption?

As the OP suggests, Dash integration will probably happen if we don't pass the proposal, but it won't happen nearly as quickly. It won't happen until the OP is convinced that there is enough money to be made to pay for the cost of the integration. He's not asking for a "bribe," he's asking for risk mitigation.

I'm not saying that I'm either for or against this specific proposal, only that we are going to have to become used to paying for things that other projects get for free. It's our ability to pay that accelerates our growth. In the eighteen months the budget system has existed, our monthly budget has grown from $!5,000 to $700,000; I don't believe this is coincidental.
Click to expand...

Dash is the whore of crypto and I'm totally okay with that, but let's just remember some clients are just too plain weird :)

But yes, on balance, I would vote yes for this.
 
Kevin Stalker said:
I think I would vote yes for this. But it seems to be a duplicate of this one https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-open-source-dash-gateway-on-ripple.14765/

Are they the same thing?
Click to expand...

No, they are different. My proposal was inspired by this exchange https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...rst-dash-gateway-on-ripple.14721/#post-125192

This is closed source integration, my will be open source, free to anyone to use.

Of course, the code won't be the only thing necessary to run a successul gateway. This is where I hope to cooperate with GateHub Fifth, perhaps by establishing trust lines, or liquidity pool, or something else, neccessary for efficient service.

@ggololicic, I'd be glad to see your comments too :)
 
ok - interesting. Well, if we have the cash, I am very likely to vote yes for both. Ripple is on fire at the moment, and that cos it is getting the banks interested. To me, a few links into their success is a good thing (not that I like ripple - i dont - but thats not the point)
 
David said:
We're going to have to get used to paying people to do things they are doing for free for other projects. It's not necessarily fair, but it's how the budget system works.

Think about it. Everybody who integrated Bitcoin has done so for free, right? But it's taken EIGHT YEARS for this organic growth to happen. We have two choices. Dash can wait five more years for its ecosystem to mature to the level Bitcoin's is now, getting there organically and without paying for integrations. That is the first option. The second option is to use our unique budget system to pay for integrations and accelerate the growth of our ecosystem, potentially exponentially. What is better, waiting many years for organic growth, or exponential growth using budget funds to incentivize Dash's adoption?

As the OP suggests, Dash integration will probably happen if we don't pass the proposal, but it won't happen nearly as quickly. It won't happen until the OP is convinced that there is enough money to be made to pay for the cost of the integration. He's not asking for a "bribe," he's asking for risk mitigation.

I'm not saying that I'm either for or against this specific proposal, only that we are going to have to become used to paying for things that other projects get for free. It's our ability to pay that accelerates our growth. In the eighteen months the budget system has existed, our monthly budget has grown from $!5,000 to $700,000; I don't believe this is coincidental.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But there's also value in evaluating how much leverage we have as a network for negotiation. Sometimes there can be deal sweeteners that can make a proposal more likely to pass, and where both the network and the contractor business still benefit from the project. The alt36 exclusivity contract is an example where a nice agreement was reached. So even though the expectation will be that the Dash network does pay to accelerate its growth, we should still be conscious for any particular proposal, how much each party stands to gain from the arrangement and if there are any additional provisions that can be added to cultivate a stronger relationship.
 
Last edited:
Looks interesting. I will vote "yes" for this, unless we have better proposals for this month.

Dash will be added to the big exchanges regardless, just like Ethereum and Litecoin were added. Even if unfunded.
 
Could you list, what advantages and synergies gives us your proposal?
It is important for MNOs to see the benefits of financing this integration.
 
I was initially reluctant but @David makes some good points. Lets use the Treasury to accelerate the expansion of the ecosystem. We are in a race with other cryptos to establish the network effects. I will vote YES.

@ggololicic some media releases after the integration would be nice.
 
So... You're an exchange that thinks DASH suck so bad that the only way you'd burden your business with DASH is if DASH pays you enough to offset the loss?

I don't get it. Why are you even here if you think DASH is so shitty? You're an exchange which has weighed all the options and decided that DASH isn't worth the effort because it won't pay out in exchange fees. A one shot won't fix that... So... Will you be back to demand more money to prevent DASH from being removed once it's added?
 
Upon further consideration of the proposal, the questions and the answers, I would vote yes. This adds significantly to the tools available to Dash users. It also adds substantially to our exposure to a new demographic (the Ripple crowd) which seems to be growing substantially as well.

If the owner of the proposal has a convincing answer to the immediate "growing pains" problem on gatehub, both in the short term, and in the 1-2 year term, then I would switch to an enthusiastic yes vote.
 

eduffield
May 12
Ripple Gateware

I’ve noticed a couple proposals to make a ripple gateway, while I don’t have a problem with a service like this and adding ourselves to it, we should strive to support the most open and transparent ecosystem possible.

As far as the two proposals go, one of them is open-source, directly from some stakeholders in the community and the other is a private for-profit company which desires to charge us to create a portal that they will keep the source.

No https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Create-the-first-DASH-gateway-on-Ripple

Yes https://www.dashcentral.org/p/OpenSourceRippleGw

https://medium.com/@eduffield/ripple-gateware-fcc377db8e04
 
I support both, and in particular the Gatehub one. They've a good site for Ripple pairs and it'll benefit all. For the price they appear good value relative to other previous proposals
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top