January
.0061 * 428.85 = $2.61 per dash
2100 * $2.61 = $5481 Paid out for
Reimbursement
Feb
.0146312 * 428.85 = $5.59 per dash
2100 * $5.59 = $11,739 Paid out for Reimbursement
March
.0124 * 412 = $5.10 per dash
2100 * $5.10 = $10,710 Paid out for Reimbursement
Total Payout So Far for Reimbursement- $27,930
Total costs for this purchase of Dash.org is $20,329.99
Positive 7k dollars
These are rough estimates but close enough for us to get the clear picture.
As far as I see it the funds have far exceeded the amount the domain costs. There is no reason for this proposal and every masternode owner should vote no.
*edit add this next payment in they get another 14k.
Our 20k domain name just went to 41k. WOOOOOHOOOOOOOO what a great investment.
*edit 2 if someone sold dash for fiat prove it.
This same issue was raised over at Dashwhale, so I will copy / paste my responses that I gave over there:
First, we have been and continue to be transparent about the overall approach we take to reimbursements...
"You'll notice in every single core team budget we make the explicit statement that exchange rate risk is borne by the team members incurring the expense. If an expense is paid in Dash it is clear that Dash needs to be paid back. However, even in cases when an expense is incurred in fiat, the network commits to pay back at then-current exchange rates. If the value of Dash subsequently goes down by the time the network's payment arrives, tough luck. There's no going "back to the trough" asking for more later. But likewise, if the value of Dash goes up by the time the network pays, the network shouldn't get to renegotiate and pay less. That's what is meant by the community member takes the exchange rate risk. You could think of it very much like the member is making a commitment to a "purchase" of Dash at the point in time that the proposal is submitted at then current rates. It would be unfair - and we would wind up with very few team members willing to shell out fiat to pay expenses - if every time Dash went down, we told them tough luck and every time it went up, we told them "we want to pay you less because it's worth more now". Make sense?"
In terms of the options to deal with changing exchange rates, there are two basic approaches and there is rational for the approach we take...
1) The network bears the exchange rate risk
2) The team member bears the exchange rate risk
If #1, there will ALWAYS be a difference from the time the expense is submitted and the time the network makes one or more payments. In order to "settle up" with the network properly, the team member would have to return any "excess" funds at the time of payment if they received too much Dash, or submit ANOTHER proposal to cover the shortfall at the time of payment in a potentially endless cycle if the exchange rates result in them receiving too little Dash to cover the expense. This is neither practical nor efficient.
EDIT from Dashwhale version: I would also add that if the value of Dash were to drop severely after an expense was incurred, and the network was burdened with the exchange rate risk, the network may find itself owing its entire budget to pay off a large expense for many, many months. This would make budgeting a challenge to say the least.
If #2, the risk of the exchange rate going down before the member is paid can only be fair to that member if they also reap the benefits when the exchange rate increases.
These are contracts... when a British company signs a contract to pay in USD, it still has to pay in USD even though GBP/USD rates change. These proposals are much like contracts with the team member. The team member is committing to a USD expense today only if the network agrees to pay it back with the equivalent amount of Dash at that point in time. They are entering into a contract that is essentially PURCHASING Dash at the CURRENT exchange rate by incurring an expense on behalf of the network.
In this particular instance, the expenses were originally paid by selling Dash, so Dash is owed back to the member, so it's really irrelevant for this proposal. But I want to make this clear so there isn't confusion in the future about who is accepting the downside risk in these proposals, and therefore the upside "risk" as well. It should not matter whether they sold Dash first to pay the expense or if they pay the expense out of their own pocket. What a team member does to raise the fiat (whether they borrow from a friend, sell a masternode, etc) is neither relevant nor any of the network's business, nor is it even verifiable that they sold Dash first.
In fact, I would argue that by differentiating (fiat vs. Dash), we open ourselves up to potential abuse of the system. A community member could sell Dash to fund an expense, but not specify the source of funding until after the Dash payment was made to him. If the exchange rate had declined, the member could then lie and claim that they funded with fiat from their bank account and are therefore owed more money (and there would be no way to disprove this). Whereas if the exchange rate had increased, he could then produce proof of the Dash sale to fund the expense and keep the full amount.
Let's keep this simple. Team members bear all exchange rate risk, not the network. It is simpler for many practical reasons (no refunds or additional payments needed to settle), enables planned budgets, prevents abuse, and is fair to the team members involved.
(for those of you who don't know, babygiraffe is one of the core team)
