Proposal: Business Development - Major Exchange

Ryan Taylor

Ryan Taylor

Well-known member
Foundation Member
This is a cross-post from www.dashcentral.org/p/bsdev-general-201702

This proposal seeks funding to cover the costs of reviewing the software and technology for integrating Dash into a major cryptocurrency exchange with fiat funding. Over the last several weeks the Dash business development team has been working closely together with one of the leading exchanges to define terms of collaboration that ensure a path for growth for Dash liquidity and direct access to FIAT trading.

Our new exchange partner recognizes Dash’s potential and is committed to working with us in an active relationship to facilitate access to our network and build a reliable market for Dash user services to clear transactions. They are expanding their service offerings and will include Dash for other areas of their business as we expand our relationship.

We received a specific request from the exchange to not reveal the identity of the new exchange platform at this stage of the process as a proper launch needs to be planned and executed. While we would like to add more specifics about the additional functionality the network will obtain, that would effectively reveal the exchange partner prematurely. Upon approval of this proposal we will start working towards launch both on the technical and business side with a soft goal of launching around the end of Q1 2017.

We believe there will be substantial benefits to funding this proposal. First, it will eliminate the need for the majority of our users to pass through Bitcoin / Dash trading pairs, and reduce the friction and overall trading and transaction fee costs involved in acquiring and selling Dash today. Making Dash easier to access in a highly liquid market should enable greater flow of capital to enter into our ecosystem. Second, adding Dash to a brand-name exchange provides an endorsement of the value our project brings to the digital currency ecosystem, and adds credibility to many of other ongoing negotiations with other service providers. Third, this relationship will enable other services dependent on major exchange fiat pairs and pricing to more easily incorporate Dash. In short, it is incredibly easy to see a path towards the network recouping the cost of this proposal many times over.

General Terms

1.This proposal will help cover the costs of examining the Dash software and preparing the exchange platform to offer new Dash trading pairs.

2. Dash’s integration cost contribution is to be $50,000.00 USD payable in Dash. Dash will pay 50% of this amount upon approval of the proposal and the remaining balance (50%) prior to the official launch of the new trading pairs.

3. This proposal also ensures that as part of the review and integration process, the exchange technical staff will evaluate Dash’s InstantSend technology and work with the Dash team to test it. Pending a successful evaluation, InstantSend will be enabled for both incoming and outgoing Dash deposits and withdrawals. There are no guarantees at this stage, but there is a firm commitment to study the solution and potentially include it after the exchange becomes more familiar, and the exchange sees real value in the InstantSend technology to both provide a better user experience and potentially drive arbitrage volumes. Barring any security risk findings, they intend to enable InstantSend functionality and work with us if any concerns arise.

4. Additionally, as part of this proposal the exchange platform will operate a Dash margin pool to help bring more liquidity to the Dash market.

5. The exchange partner understands that Dash is a young and upcoming cryptocurrency that may require time to develop into highly active markets. The exchange has a long-term perspective and intends to work together with Dash to build sustainable, liquid, and active order books.

6. Finally, there will be active collaboration on the PR and business side to continue to develop the relationship and bring more liquidity to the Dash market.

We have been working with this exchange for the past several months to arrive at terms suitable for both parties, and anticipated this expense well in advance, which has allowed us to save toward the cost. As a result, we can complete a majority of the funding with a single request, and draw-down the business development funds already set aside to cover the remaining balance. Therefore, this is a one-time request from the network.

The implementation project with the exchange is being managed by Daniel Diaz and Ryan Taylor. If you have questions about this proposal, please tag your message with @Minotaur or @babygiraffe on the Dash Forum to ensure we see your question.

Requested funding is as follows for the February 3rd budget cycle:
Total: 2,183.06 Dash

Note: Any unused funds from this business development funding will be directed toward other business development expenses. Edited to reflect final agreement terminology.

Manually vote YES on this proposal:
dash-cli mnbudget vote-many 1fc41901a29ea67ef70ab59c5784af387bac9a04a4c15539f76e4d7ec36af3da yes
OR from the qt console:
mnbudget vote-many 1fc41901a29ea67ef70ab59c5784af387bac9a04a4c15539f76e4d7ec36af3da yes

Manually vote NO on this proposal:
dash-cli mnbudget vote-many 1fc41901a29ea67ef70ab59c5784af387bac9a04a4c15539f76e4d7ec36af3da no
OR from the qt console:
mnbudget vote-many 1fc41901a29ea67ef70ab59c5784af387bac9a04a4c15539f76e4d7ec36af3da no
 
Last edited:
Wow, It's hard to evaluate without knowing who the exchange is, but in situations like this, I feel we have to trust our core team's instincts and abilities. I definitely trust your opinions and abilities after these 2 - 3 years, so I will vote yes. But it better be one I can use, or you'll be hearing me cry all through next 3 quarters of 2017 and beyond until someone steps up to the plate that I can use, LOL. Seriously though, I would think that if this is a major exchange, it might help us get on other exchanges as well, so yes, do it!
 
So just to be clear:

1. This proposal is for listing on a major, already existing exchange - not some obscure (central American) start-up?

2. This first $30,000 is NOT being paid to the exchange, but rather to 'development contractors'?

3. Can you disclose who the development contractor is? ie. Is it Ira Miller?

@Minotaur @babygiraffe
 
bitstamp, coinbase or kraken?
bitstamps has usd, eur and xpr. coinbase has btc, eth and usd from what i can tell.
could be kraken, they have lots of pairs but i'm guessing none of them paid 50k to get listed. not sure i would consider them a major usd exchange but i guess they are. i saw something not too long ago that could be a hint that it is kraken or it might not be anything and i'm just reading into it. smirk ;)
 
Exciting enticing news. HOWEVER..... It's a lot of funding to "look into" something without a firm commit to "go ahead". I'm not in favor of Daniel Diaz being involved in handling one single Dash on my behalf unless and until there is a full and complete disclosure of previous alleged fraudulent dealings by him. Ryan, If you want to pick someone else then fine you have my vote otherwise I'll wait until Daniel addresses the community.
 
I also fear that this proposal could end just like Daniel's Lamassu proposal...

$50,000 gets paid to this unnamed 'developer', then Dash ends up not getting listed (because of some explanation of another), and then silence - no communication until the next funding request...
 
bertlebbert said:
I also fear that this proposal could end just like Daniel's Lamassu proposal...
Click to expand...
Or the Fiat Gateways project....Wait, wasn't this what was promised with the Fiat Gateways project?

Proposal says fiat. Probably not USD. I'll take a guess on Euros, Pesos, Yuan, or Balboas.
 
bertlebbert said:
I also fear that this proposal could end just like Daniel's Lamassu proposal...

$50,000 gets paid to this unnamed 'developer', then Dash ends up not getting listed (because of some explanation of another), and then silence - no communication until the next funding request...
Click to expand...

Anything can fall through... so I look at this from a risk vs reward standpoint.

If this doesn't pass (or was never submitted) then that DASH will be burned amounting to nothing. If this is approved, then we may get on a major exchange (a huge boon) -- or it may fall though.

Both choices may result in no benefit for DASH, but only choice has a chance for a big payoff. Seems obvious to me...

Plus, if you are truely worried about Daniel running off with the funds (I am not) then rest assured that babyG is in control of the money -- as he is for all core projects.
 
JGCMiner said:
Plus, if you are truely worried about Daniel running off with the funds (I am not) then rest assured that babyG is in control of the money -- as he is for all core projects.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm not worried about Daniel 'running off' with funds... where did I suggest that?
 
bertlebbert said:
Lol, I'm not worried about Daniel 'running off' with funds... where did I suggest that?
Click to expand...

You didn't -- but that is the only reason I can see for not supporting this proposal considering the coins will be burned otherwise. I was guessing at your possible concern (considering you brought up the gitguild stuff were some feel DASH was "scammed") -- but I guess I misread you.
 
JGCMiner said:
You didn't -- but that is the only reason I can see for not supporting this proposal considering the coins will be burned otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that 'the coins will be burned otherwise' is a good reason to vote for any proposal...
(but that is a different issue, and has been discussed many times since the budget system began)
 
bertlebbert said:
I'm not sure that 'the coins will be burned otherwise' is a good reason to vote for any proposal...
(but that is a different issue, and has been discussed many times this the budget system began)
Click to expand...

Of course that is not the only reason to vote for the proposal, but given what is being proposed and the fact that it late enough in the cycle that not much else is going to be proposed -- one should need serious doubts about this not to support it. Again, potential reward vs risks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daf
JGCMiner said:
Of course that is not the only reason to vote for the proposal, but given what is being proposed and the fact that it late enough in the cycle that not much else is going to be proposed -- one should need serious doubts about this not to support it. Again, potential reward vs risks.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Listing on a major exchange would be huge for Dash... more than justifying $50,000 spent.

That said, I will still say, 'I also fear that this proposal could end just like Daniel's Lamassu proposal...'
 
I think we should trust Ryan's judgement as he has made clear he is now handling core team funds. I agree Daniel did not handle communications or outcomes well in the past, but we should not hold this against Ryan. Given community feeling, listing Daniel on the proposal was likely better avoided, but probably a nod to the work Daniel has done to get this going. As I understand it, Ryan is now the money man, and I'm just fine with that.

Pablo.
 
Can the original proposer please provide some solid timelines for this. without any proper time lines, there is no baseline to measure or even reasonably estimate efforts and other quanta.

Please incorporate timmelines.

EDIT: I understand that there is mention of Q1 2017. But with so much monies involved at least milestones should be pegged. This allows one to track it on a calendar.
EDIT 2: There has to be a reasonable level of accountability.
Sorry for too many edits.
 
Last edited:
bertlebbert said:
So just to be clear:

1. This proposal is for listing on a major, already existing exchange - not some obscure (central American) start-up?

2. This first $30,000 is NOT being paid to the exchange, but rather to 'development contractors'?

3. Can you disclose who the development contractor is? ie. Is it Ira Miller?

@Minotaur @babygiraffe
Click to expand...

- payment and development goes to mayor exchange direct / no in between dev's involved (as far as i know)
- mayor exchange yes - not some 'little' Sort American
- no ira involved !
 
bertlebbert said:
I also fear that this proposal could end just like Daniel's Lamassu proposal...

$50,000 gets paid to this unnamed 'developer', then Dash ends up not getting listed (because of some explanation of another), and then silence - no communication until the next funding request...
Click to expand...

lamassu back then had its own issues and we all learned from that

back then the payments went straight to the developer - and he did not get voted down
water down the bridge (unfortunately)

here it is different
2 payments - 1 advance , 1 after delivery = more control
+
they are not some small time dev , they are big league guys, (company direct) so when they commit , they do commit and deliver (as their reputation - to some degree - is on the line)

just my 2 duff's ;)
 
tungfa said:
- payment and development goes to mayor exchange direct / no in between dev's involved (as far as i know)
- mayor exchange yes - not some 'little' Sort American
- no ira involved !
Click to expand...
Thank you for replying @tungfa That is good news...
So it is an existing, major exchange, and Ira is not the development contractor.

Are you sure though that Ryan plans to pay the exchange, and not someone else - because OP says:
'2,178.06 Dash for development subcontractors ($30,671 USD @ $14.082 per Dash'

(it shouldn't matter if they are competent, reputable subcontractors, and Ryan is in charge of disbursements)
 
bertlebbert said:
So just to be clear:

1. This proposal is for listing on a major, already existing exchange - not some obscure (central American) start-up?

2. This first $30,000 is NOT being paid to the exchange, but rather to 'development contractors'?

3. Can you disclose who the development contractor is? ie. Is it Ira Miller?

@Minotaur @babygiraffe
Click to expand...
1. Yes, the exchange exists and is a well-recognized exchange
2. As the proposal states, $25,000 will be paid at the beginning (not $30,000). All payments are direct to the exchange. There are no third-party contractors.
3. n/a

I apologize for the confusion... I copied and pasted everything from the "Requested funding is as follows for the February 3rd budget cycle" down from there from the Evo development proposal, and I failed to update the wording on that line. I will go back to the OP and correct it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top