Pre-proposal Feedback - Market Research Report for Investment of DASH into Retirement Funds

Sorry to hear you don't like it and by reading your comments you are very fixed in your opinion.
There is no double money here, I am not looking to sell the report, but to use it to assist clients to comply when making a compliant investment and make it publicly available for anyone else, in any other country, who has the same issues when seeking to make compliant investments.
The reports that you refer to exist for Bitcoin are for Bitcoin, Dash needs its own report.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
 
Hi, you said that reports exist for Bitcoin and that you are also able to offer your clients to invest in Etherium and Ripple.

Who wrote the reports for Etherium and Ripple, and did it cost as much as you are proposing that the Dash network should pay?

Thanks,
 
I don't think we should be paying for this research. There is no way to measure the return on our investment. Voting NO.
 
Let's see, let's take a ballpark guess at ROI. We invest $75,000, they produce a professional report that gives us access to the biggest investors in Australia, who have already demonstrated that they have an appetite for cryptocurrency, and want more diversity in the crypto they can buy, but are held back by the lack of this report. Millions and millions and millions, and possibly even billions of dollars worth of investment in Dash from enthusiastic investors. Let's say we only get 10 million. Back of the napkin says 10,000,000/75,000 = 133:1 return on investment. Not too shabby.

Let's say the OP and I are both grossly overestimating the demand, and it's only 1/10th of that. 1,000,000/75000 = 13.3:1 or a 1,300% return on investment. Still not too shabby.

People shouldn't be overly concerned about what somebody else paid. This is just another version of the sunk cost fallacy. It's irrelevant to our current financial decision. It doesn't matter and shouldn't concern us in the least if Bob got it for half what we're going to pay. The ROI makes sense, or it doesn't make sense.

Now, if you can use the Bob argument to get a little better deal, I'm not opposed to that. I don't really want to get taken advantage of. But don't let your emotions ruin a perfectly good deal. The ROI makes sense, or the ROI doesn't make sense.
 
solarguy said:
Australia, who have already demonstrated that they have an appetite for cryptocurrency, and want more diversity in the crypto they can buy, but are held back by the lack of this report. Millions and millions and millions, and possibly even billions of dollars worth of investment in Dash from enthusiastic investors.
Click to expand...

The mistake you're making is assuming there isn't more investment due to lack of interest on the part of investors. There are legal reasons why you can't put crypto in your superannuation (unless it's an insignificant amount). If you want to do it, you have to do via self managed super fund and not everyone can or is willing to go that route.

Now if OP were to start a fund in Australia, comply with all the laws, and make it easier for investors to participate, then it's a different story.

I'm voting NO.
 
RGXDK said:
The mistake you're making is assuming there isn't more investment due to lack of interest on the part of investors.
Click to expand...

I am not assuming this. We have already found out that his clientele are already asking for more cryptocurrency options.


There are legal reasons why you can't put crypto in your superannuation (unless it's an insignificant amount). If you want to do it said:
This is exactly and precisely the type of clients he is working with. Here's the quote again, " I work with clients who seek out alternative investments, primarily for the purposes of their private Superannuation Funds (in Australia these are known as Self-Managed Superannuation Funds “SMSF”)."

Now if OP were to start a fund in Australia said:
I don't know if he's starting a fund, but apparently there is a fund and they are putting Bitcoin in it now. Why should Dash miss out?



Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
$75,000 is way too much for a document. We should create a new section on dash.org "Why invest", do a little bit of SEO, that would cost $10-15k max and will be available to everyone. I will vote NO.
 
Just as an overview, and without disclosing confidential company information, I would anticipate that we would process similar numbers to what @solarguy is suggesting above in his first example per annum for Dash if we had this documentation in place. We are engaged with Institutional Investors and we are onboarding cryptocurrencies in a compliant manner for a large number of Self Managed Superfunds in Australia.

In addition to the above, I am a Director of a company who will be releasing a fully licensed (under an AFSL) Australia Crypto Fund, which we believe will be the first in Australia, in about 6 weeks. I am sure we will be the first of many and would love to have the ability to include it in our portfolio, and would be happy for any future Licensed Funds in Australia or in other jurisdictions to use it to onboard also.

As mentioned, I am a big advocate and investor of Dash, and this document will be open source and be available worldwide to include as their market research and support their Investment Strategy. I am reaching out to the Dash community to assist in fast-tracking this. I will ensure that a quality product is delivered - I will need research support to turn it around in a fast manner, accounting and legal reviews to be conducted, graphic design, and website. I am only wanting to assist in providing this investment to the broader community who are required to meet compliance issues. I will ensure that Dash is documented with a considered approach that is free of hype that we often see in this sector.
 
As someone who has spent my entire career in financial services, here is my perspective:

The Dash Treasury should not fund an investment report on Dash:
  • Just like an investment bank should not create favorable research reports in conjunction with a securities offering, Dash should not fund its own investment research reports. There are too many conflicts of interest.
  • Dash needs to avoid any chance of being labeled a security under the Howey Test and a self-funded investment report could trigger multiple Howey Test points.
  • Other digital currencies did not need to fund their own investment reports and neither does a project as promising as Dash.
  • I am very confident that Institutional investors in time, likely within the next few months, will create their own investment reports on Dash without needing funding from the Dash Treasury. These reports will be free of Dash Treasury money and influence. These institutional investors are already motivated to create such investment reports in order to attract additional investment capital to their funds.
 
MizzyMax said:
If I'm right, Dash has no exclusiveness in this deal?
Click to expand...

Yes and no, An in depth report on why Dash is a suitable asset in a retirement portfolio can only benefit Dash.

But the people running the fund or portfolio have stated they want a diversity of cryptocurrencies, and they are smart to do so.
 
Nuancer said:
Dash needs to avoid any chance of being labeled a security under the Howey Test and a self-funded investment report could trigger multiple Howey Test points.
Click to expand...

In your estimation, which of the 4 required tests within the Howey test does Dash currently not meet, exempting Dash from scrutiny and regulation from the SEC and other similar bodies in other countries:
  1. It is an investment of money
  2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment
  3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise
  4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party
Securities usually look like 2 parties, A (the investor) and B (the promoter or third party), . A has the money to invest, B has the expertise and is going to "do all the work." A has the expectation of a return from the efforts of B.

Every time I examine this problem, I cannot find any entity within Dash that looks like Party A, or Party B. And Dash wouldn't fit any of the current definitions of a common enterprise without some creative stretching.

So, like you, I would go to great lengths to avoid being classified as a security. Help me out on how the funding of an investment report changes our status under the Howey test?

Nuancer said:
  • Other digital currencies did not need to fund their own investment reports and neither does a project as promising as Dash.
  • I am very confident that Institutional investors in time, likely within the next few months, will create their own investment reports on Dash without needing funding from the Dash Treasury. These reports will be free of Dash Treasury money and influence. These institutional investors are already motivated to create such investment reports in order to attract additional investment capital to their funds.
Click to expand...

I am less concerned about who paid how much, and why should we have to pay. That's the sunk cost fallacy. I don't really want to be taken advantage of, but whether or not Bitcoin paid for a report at some point in the past has no effect on our current calculation regarding whether or not this would provide good ROI.

You are very confident that they will produce their own report, even if we don't pay now. You may be correct, but would you bet millions of dollars on that time estimate? What is the opportunity cost of not getting that investment in the Dash ecosystem for 3 months, or 4 months, or 6 months. In cryptocurrency, 6 months could be half a lifetime. We could look at the cost as cheap insurance that we get that investment money sooner rather than later.

If you can demonstrate how paying for the report changes our status under the Howey test, I will vote against it. And you are absolutely correct that this does appear to be a conflict of interest.

P.S. Full disclosure, I have made no decision at all about which way to vote. I am lobbying neither for not against at the moment. But I want to see every side of the argument developed to the fullest extent possible.
 
Last edited:
Solarguy, thanks for the interesting questions and commentary. Here are my concerns:

solarguy said:
In your estimation, which of the 4 required tests within the Howey test does Dash currently not meet, exempting Dash from scrutiny and regulation from the SEC and other similar bodies in other countries:
  1. It is an investment of money
Click to expand...
Dash is an investment (rather than a currency or commodity) if the Dash Treasury pays for a report saying it is an investment

solarguy said:
2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment
Click to expand...
1) The report will likely say there is an expectation of price appreciation, which can be interpreted as expected profit.
2) Further, the potential Swiss Trust discussed in the Q2 Conference Call per DFN "can also take equity/debt ownership in projects it funds," so there is clearly a profit potential from the efforts of third parties funded by the treasury.

solarguy said:
3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise
Click to expand...
The common enterprise could potentially be identified as the Swiss Trust, which could house Dash Core assets such as patents.

solarguy said:
4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party
Click to expand...
1) Same potential Swiss Trust issue as above regarding profit
2) Is the author of an investment report on Dash, funded by the Dash Treasury, considered a promoter?

For the record, I am skeptical that the Swiss Trust representing the masternodes would actually hold up in court as "common enterprise", especially given that masternodes do not have to consent to being part of the trust. That being said, regulations are a matter of interpretation...


solarguy said:
You are very confident that they will produce their own report, even if we don't pay now. You may be correct, but would you bet millions of dollars on that time estimate? What is the opportunity cost of not getting that investment in the Dash ecosystem for 3 months, or 4 months, or 6 months. In cryptocurrency, 6 months could be half a lifetime. We could look at the cost as cheap insurance that we get that investment money sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
There are already several investment funds, both active management and passive index funds, explicitly investing in Dash. See 1) Crypto Asset Fund, 2) A privacy focused fund (ScalarCapital), 3) Hold 10 Index, 4) Bit20 Index. I suggest the proposal author reach out to them and see how they got comfortable holding Dash.

Also, the #1 reason preventing larger funds / institutional investors from holding Dash is the lack of custodial services as these investors are not equipped or ready to assume the risk of securing Dash themselves. This is a problem that will not be solved with an investment report, but rather by the emergence of trustworthy custodial/security services for Dash. For example, BitGo provides such services for institutional investors that are invested in Bitcoin.
 
Thanks Nuancer, informative and thoughtful.

In the old days, "money" meant money. But lately, the SEC has broadened the definition of money so far, I think you could buy Dash with chickens, and that would count as money.

And, as you pointed out, equating any part of Dash as the Promoter, Third Party or Common Enterprise would in my opinion be coloring outside the lines. But, if the oligarchy really wants to get their hands on Dash to hold it down, the government(s) they own and operate will somehow find a way.

Finest regards,
 
solarguy said:
Thanks Nuancer, informative and thoughtful.

In the old days, "money" meant money. But lately, the SEC has broadened the definition of money so far, I think you could buy Dash with chickens, and that would count as money.

And, as you pointed out, equating any part of Dash as the Promoter, Third Party or Common Enterprise would in my opinion be coloring outside the lines. But, if the oligarchy really wants to get their hands on Dash to hold it down, the government(s) they own and operate will somehow find a way.

Finest regards,
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that the Oligarchy can hold down cryptocurrency. The toothpaste is out of the tube so to speak. Firstly, no one country wants to stifle innovation a lose competitiveness to another territory who will welcome the technical and economic advantage by having much lower regulation of the fin/tech industry.

Secondly, the "getting a worse deal than Bob" idea u mentioned earlier is an important thing to consider. Why should Dash (one of the absolute best coins) have to pay to join the party when it is free entry for literally everyone else?

A real life example for you...After months and months of patience with TenX I am still waiting for my card (I'm in Europe and not the USA) and I'm about to blow my fuse with them because they have now effectively lied and broken their promises to me. I have many paragraphs of private conversation interaction with Julian Hosp on this forum, and many many emails from their technical support which now amount to broken promises.

We paid them for speedy service!

... Do I need to mention Charley Shrem??



No, I'm sorry @solarguy ive had enough of smooth talking financial industry ppl price gauging us, and then treating Dash worse than other coins.

If incidents like this have ruined it for people who follow, like this proposal, then I'm sorry but the balance of my opinion is now set firmly in the negative.


Dash is great. Write the report. (If u want) Sell Dash to your clients. (If u want) Make some commission from this activity. (If u want.). But, don't ask me to pay you to do it.



Btw, I'm off to Bristol today to interview the proposal owner of the Dash Circus City Sponsorship event. I'll be posting all the interviews on YouTube. (Pls check my link below. It's not monetised.)

I'm funding the travel and hotel and time costs myself because I believe in Dash, and there needs to be some voluntarianism involved in the building of our project to make the world a better place.

I'm sure if the proposer of the report looked inward and gave a heartfelt truthful answer, he could write this report and post it online with his own resources.

Please think about that.

Not every single thing should be funded by the network.
 
Last edited:
dashinstant said:
No, I'm sorry @solarguy ive had enough of smooth talking financial industry ppl price gauging us, and then treating Dash worse than other coins.
Click to expand...

Don't apologize, I'm not necessarily even in favor of the proposal. I just want to make certain that we have examined every side of the issue from every angle and in full depth, otherwise we make flawed decisions.
 
Thanks for all the feedback. It has certainly raised some interesting thoughts.

One key aspect of this Report would be that no opinions or speculation of mine would form it in anyway. As I mentioned the report would be fully referenced to 3rd party reports, articles and official statements from Dash.

I take the point that there is concern over the "Howey Test" which is rightfully so as this is concerning the whole sector. Common sense to me says that the nature of the instrument would cause it to be a security, and that a report summarising the sector and Dash's utility and use case would not trigger it's collapse. I am not sure of the legal backgrounds of everyone on this thread (I certainly don't have one), and I have no doubt we can speculate all day long until "fear" makes a decision on this proposal. Therefore I have decided to reach out to Dash Core Legal Team before submitting a final proposal to the Treasury. I will share this feedback on this thread as ultimately it will determine whether I proceed with submitting the proposal or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top