Prioritization of fiat gateways

Status
Not open for further replies.
11m99n.jpg


"public awareness" is a 2 edged sword. New DASH users will look at our shiny new budgeting system and see a great tool that enables masternode owners to have a say in the future of the project. Oh, wait a minute. TPTB just decided to flip the proposal from performing "A" to performing "B"? I see a public perception problem here.


EDIT
-----------
David, did you just delete your posts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fible1 said:
Evan,
This is fantastic, truly great things lay ahead.

I do want to say however, and this is bound to come up, that I am concerned by the core team redirecting the PR budget unilaterally. I have to say the money is going to a better purpose, but the core team should have taken the time to make a proposal (which we all know would have passed) and avoid the appearance of the budget system being a discretionary fund. I think the community was already sensitive about that from the last two budgets with no descriptions.

I hope that next time we re-purpose a budget we can go through the proper channels.

Congratulations to Daniel and everyone else for their hard work.

Pablo.
Click to expand...

I'm in complete agreement about this point and am working on a process to revamp our governance workflow. I have a lot of change in mind for the network, but I need a few weeks to get ready to present new concept. As usual though, we are all thinking about the same thing... and I believe I have a really nice solution.
 
koampapapa said:
isysd My interpretation of the post is that we are creating subsidized trading bots to increase Dash's liquidity.

The trading bot requires 10k of liquidity. I assume this will be initialized in Dash? If so, this will require selling a lot of Dash, and is not a safe way to increase liquidity nor attract PR for Dash.

It would be great to know your experience in trading
Click to expand...

This is more than trading bots. It will be a wallet, broker, limit order exchange, and more. Trade bots are just one of the first things that will come out of the parternship.

As for my experience, I co-founded and was the primary developer for Coinapult. We've been building bitcoin wallet, exchange, and trading software since 2011. In this 4th generation, we decided to open source everything and do it right, once and for all. If you wish to start a competing brokerage, as it sounds, please watch and make use of the code that comes out.
 
Shouldn't development be focused on Evolution? Fiat gateways are important, but shouldn't we be prioritizing Dash's robustness as a means of exchange AKA building out evolution?

These exchanges might very well build those onramps on their own anyways. I think I'm most concerned that we should be focusing on building a great product first. The Dash developer funds shouldn't be used to build an entire Dash universe, when other for-profit entities can do that as well.

The time to 'aggressively' roll out this project will take 8-10weeks? Lets say it takes 12-14 weeks. Wouldn't it be so much better to come out with Evolution 12-14 weeks earlier?
 
DashFTW said:
Shouldn't development be focused on Evolution? Fiat gateways are important, but shouldn't we be prioritizing Dash's robustness as a means of exchange AKA building out evolution?

These exchanges might very well build those onramps on their own anyways. I think I'm most concerned that we should be focusing on building a great product first. The Dash developer funds shouldn't be used to build an entire Dash universe, when other for-profit entities can do that as well.

The time to 'aggressively' roll out this project will take 8-10weeks? Lets say it takes 12-14 weeks. Wouldn't it be so much better to come out with Evolution 12-14 weeks earlier?
Click to expand...

I think we need both because spending Dash through the new online and retail channels we're developing relies on users being able to obtain Dash easily first. it's different teams too like Oaxaca said.
 
I don't understand the reason for all the angst and inflammatory language.

If you think what Evan is proposing in the first 2 posts is evil then vote down the public awareness proposal. Simple. Transform-PR was voted down after acceptance and his could be too if MN owners truly think it is a bad idea.

My votes aren't changing as I don't see I as a "bait and switch" anyway. Public awareness money going towards making it easier for the public to get DASH. Seems reasonable.

Again, if you disagree then vote it down. The community controls where the money goes -- not Evan.
 
As for redirecting the public-awareness funds, it's always easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission...
and in this situation, probably the end justifies the means.
 
There is a way to redirect the awareness funds conviently and also preserve the integrity of the masternode governance.

Create a proposal that says something to the effect that fiat payment gateways are an acceptable use of awareness funds and let the masternodes vote on it.
 
flailingjunk said:
There is a way to redirect the awareness funds conviently and also preserve the integrity of the masternode governance.

Create a proposal that says something to the effect that fiat payment gateways are an acceptable use of awareness funds and let the masternodes vote on it.
Click to expand...
Even easier is to create a new budget proposal listing all these items and downvote "awareness". That would be integrity.
 
oaxaca said:
Even easier is to create a new budget proposal listing all these items and downvote "awareness". That would be integrity.
Click to expand...

I think this whole thing was about MN owner convenience anyway -- as explained in the first post.

It would be a pain for everybody to down vote awareness and then up vote the new proposal only to rinse and repeat when 12.1 is released. And what happens if awareness is not down voted in time? If voting participation is any indication MN owners don't really pay attention. That would have been even a bigger mess.

I just think that some of these things are not black and white -- and in this particular case the ends justify the means. Plus if Evan was really trying to circumvent voting process there was no reason for him to saying anything before actual binding contracts had been signed...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe we should put it to a vote whether we should proceed with the downvote? Give it 24 hours to see the level of participation. It would be a great proxy to see how many MN downvotes we would be able to get quickly. If the number of downvotes we would get quickly is enough to ensure Pub. Awareness can be voted out in time, we could proceed. There might still be time to do it safely.

In the future, functionality will exist to allow a budget owner to cancel a budget item without having to request the network to take action. This will allow us to eliminate this risk. In the meantime, it is a risk we have to manage.
 
OR we could just issue a 5 Dash "decision" proposal that says "should we redirect the funds?". That would also be a risk-free approach to getting network consensus without the need for a risky downvote.

EDIT: It is clear to me that most community members are supportive of the redirect... this would just allow us to make it official.
 
fible1 said:
Just to clear this point up:

It should actually have been pretty simple for the core team. Evan publicly stated in the past that the core team as a whole owns slightly under 10% of all coins in existence. If you consider the Yay votes have to be 10% over the Nay votes (only of voting nodes, not all nodes) for a proposal to pass, it should not have been that hard to down-vote the PR initiative. Or you could just start a new proposal indicating re-purposement of funds without having to down-vote anything; either option is pretty straight forward,

Anyway, like I said, I think its a great re-purposement, but we have to be careful not to become complacent.

:)

Pablo.
Click to expand...
Hi Pablo
I hear your concerns and I think an interesting solution to this would be a proposal created by you or any other community member with one simple question: Do you agree with redirecting funds from public awareness budget to the development of Fiat-to-Dash gateways? I'm sure it will pass and everybody will rejoice, however if it didn't pass, the core team would have to take that into account. In other case it would leave a huge stain on the project's credibility.
 
babygiraffe said:
OR we could just issue a 5 Dash "decision" proposal that says "should we redirect the funds?". That would also be a risk-free approach to getting network consensus without the need for a risky downvote.

EDIT: It is clear to me that most community members are supportive of the redirect... this would just allow us to make it official.
Click to expand...

Good idea. eduffield ?
 
The title and content on DashWhale should be updated with the info from the start of this thread.

There should also be a note about the change having been made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top