glennaustin
Active member
This proposal is cross-posted at https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-visual-identity-201805
Proposal background
Last month the community voted on two competing proposals regarding Dash’s future visual identity. We set rules for the contest: the proposal that received the most net votes would be chosen for our visual identity, subject to the constraints that net votes must be positive and at least 20% of the masternodes must have voted. The visual identity presented by Tharp & Clark won according to those rules.
The altered rules were well-intentioned, as we were attempting to use the proposal system as a multi-option polling mechanism. We assumed most voters would vote “no” for one proposal and “yes” to the competing one. Additionally, we knew that masternode operators that preferred the existing Dash identity would vote “no” to both proposals. Under those competitive conditions, we anticipated more “no” votes would be cast than “yes”, and adhering to the 10% net votes threshold would constitute an unreasonable threshold. As expected, more “no” votes were cast than “yes” during the voting cycle.
However, a meaningful number of members of the Dash community and of Dash Core Group strongly feel that since the proposal presented by Tharp & Clark didn’t surpass the 10% net vote threshold, the proposal wasn’t actually passed by the network. Thus, we should not use the visual identity presented by Tharp & Clark until a proper vote is held specifically covering it - because it would violate the rules of our governance system.
The path forward
After countless hours of discussion over this topic, we realized that both interpretations of the rules have merit. Furthermore, it became clear that most people were entrenched and unwilling to change their established opinions on the matter. We don’t want to create a schism in the community over the issue, so we propose a vote on the Tharp & Clark design against only the existing logo. We are quite certain it will receive more than 10% of net positive votes, as most community members seem to favor the design over the current logo, even if they previously voted against it in favor of the Ogilvy option. For many community members that are calling for a vote, this is more about making the decision official and indisputable, and not stemming from a desire to overturn the result. This will put any questions regarding the legitimacy of the design to bed. However, if it doesn’t clear the 10% approval threshold, then we will keep the current logo. Once the vote is complete we will be able to move forward united regardless of the final result.
Why isn’t the proposal funding the Tharp & Clark work considered final?
While there is a proposal to fund the Tharp & Clark design, which appears likely to pass in the May cycle, proponents of a confirmation vote contend that support for funding their work is not the same as supporting the branding change. In short, a masternode operator that preferred to keep the current logo but felt that Tharp & Clark deserved to be paid would feel compelled to vote yes regardless of whether they preferred the new logo. Therefore, the only way to know with absolute certainty is to hold a separate decision proposal.
The visual identity proposed by Tharp & Clark
Below are updated image of the Tharp & Clark design and a short presentation:
This is a revised version of the logo they proposed in the last cycle to includes some of the feedback from the community:
1. Shape and slope of the face of the D to bring more in harmony with rest of the wordmark
2. Slightly longer, bigger dashmark that is also pushed a little closer inside the D that helps with eye flow and unity
3. Interior of the “a” slightly larger and more open
4. Lower case spacing for balance
The presentation is the one included in the competitive phase of the process, so the logo is slightly different to the one presented above. They are working on a full style guide, but it is not finished and we wanted to put up this proposal in this cycle. The changes are small, so we believe that this gives a good enough idea of what they are proposing.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pTq9WtRGXfvOvK5qcwlbx45a_yrmZqHL
Note: Tharp & Clark will be paid for their work regardless of the outcome of this proposal. Their first invoice has already been paid and the second one will be paid upon completion of a few pending tasks. Earlier this month we submitted a proposal to reimburse the Dash Core Marketing budget for the payment related to the first invoice (since that expense had not been previously funded by the treasury). Here is the link to that proposal: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Core-Team-Tharp-and-Clark-0518
If you have any questions, please direct them to @Fernando in the original Forum post.
Budget Request:
Requested funding is as follows for the May 3rd budget cycle:
- 5.00 Dash proposal reimbursement
Manually vote YES on this proposal:
dash-cli gobject vote-many deffb0adc7b786c39e821fb6d5aeffa5b8e42a9f155b8fafda5c758828f04b84 funding yes
OR from the qt console:
gobject vote-many deffb0adc7b786c39e821fb6d5aeffa5b8e42a9f155b8fafda5c758828f04b84 funding yes
Manually vote NO on this proposal:
dash-cli gobject vote-many deffb0adc7b786c39e821fb6d5aeffa5b8e42a9f155b8fafda5c758828f04b84 funding no
OR from the qt console:
gobject vote-many deffb0adc7b786c39e821fb6d5aeffa5b8e42a9f155b8fafda5c758828f04b84 funding no
Proposal background
Last month the community voted on two competing proposals regarding Dash’s future visual identity. We set rules for the contest: the proposal that received the most net votes would be chosen for our visual identity, subject to the constraints that net votes must be positive and at least 20% of the masternodes must have voted. The visual identity presented by Tharp & Clark won according to those rules.
The altered rules were well-intentioned, as we were attempting to use the proposal system as a multi-option polling mechanism. We assumed most voters would vote “no” for one proposal and “yes” to the competing one. Additionally, we knew that masternode operators that preferred the existing Dash identity would vote “no” to both proposals. Under those competitive conditions, we anticipated more “no” votes would be cast than “yes”, and adhering to the 10% net votes threshold would constitute an unreasonable threshold. As expected, more “no” votes were cast than “yes” during the voting cycle.
However, a meaningful number of members of the Dash community and of Dash Core Group strongly feel that since the proposal presented by Tharp & Clark didn’t surpass the 10% net vote threshold, the proposal wasn’t actually passed by the network. Thus, we should not use the visual identity presented by Tharp & Clark until a proper vote is held specifically covering it - because it would violate the rules of our governance system.
The path forward
After countless hours of discussion over this topic, we realized that both interpretations of the rules have merit. Furthermore, it became clear that most people were entrenched and unwilling to change their established opinions on the matter. We don’t want to create a schism in the community over the issue, so we propose a vote on the Tharp & Clark design against only the existing logo. We are quite certain it will receive more than 10% of net positive votes, as most community members seem to favor the design over the current logo, even if they previously voted against it in favor of the Ogilvy option. For many community members that are calling for a vote, this is more about making the decision official and indisputable, and not stemming from a desire to overturn the result. This will put any questions regarding the legitimacy of the design to bed. However, if it doesn’t clear the 10% approval threshold, then we will keep the current logo. Once the vote is complete we will be able to move forward united regardless of the final result.
Why isn’t the proposal funding the Tharp & Clark work considered final?
While there is a proposal to fund the Tharp & Clark design, which appears likely to pass in the May cycle, proponents of a confirmation vote contend that support for funding their work is not the same as supporting the branding change. In short, a masternode operator that preferred to keep the current logo but felt that Tharp & Clark deserved to be paid would feel compelled to vote yes regardless of whether they preferred the new logo. Therefore, the only way to know with absolute certainty is to hold a separate decision proposal.
The visual identity proposed by Tharp & Clark
Below are updated image of the Tharp & Clark design and a short presentation:
This is a revised version of the logo they proposed in the last cycle to includes some of the feedback from the community:
1. Shape and slope of the face of the D to bring more in harmony with rest of the wordmark
2. Slightly longer, bigger dashmark that is also pushed a little closer inside the D that helps with eye flow and unity
3. Interior of the “a” slightly larger and more open
4. Lower case spacing for balance
The presentation is the one included in the competitive phase of the process, so the logo is slightly different to the one presented above. They are working on a full style guide, but it is not finished and we wanted to put up this proposal in this cycle. The changes are small, so we believe that this gives a good enough idea of what they are proposing.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pTq9WtRGXfvOvK5qcwlbx45a_yrmZqHL
Note: Tharp & Clark will be paid for their work regardless of the outcome of this proposal. Their first invoice has already been paid and the second one will be paid upon completion of a few pending tasks. Earlier this month we submitted a proposal to reimburse the Dash Core Marketing budget for the payment related to the first invoice (since that expense had not been previously funded by the treasury). Here is the link to that proposal: https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Core-Team-Tharp-and-Clark-0518
If you have any questions, please direct them to @Fernando in the original Forum post.
Budget Request:
Requested funding is as follows for the May 3rd budget cycle:
- 5.00 Dash proposal reimbursement
Manually vote YES on this proposal:
dash-cli gobject vote-many deffb0adc7b786c39e821fb6d5aeffa5b8e42a9f155b8fafda5c758828f04b84 funding yes
OR from the qt console:
gobject vote-many deffb0adc7b786c39e821fb6d5aeffa5b8e42a9f155b8fafda5c758828f04b84 funding yes
Manually vote NO on this proposal:
dash-cli gobject vote-many deffb0adc7b786c39e821fb6d5aeffa5b8e42a9f155b8fafda5c758828f04b84 funding no
OR from the qt console:
gobject vote-many deffb0adc7b786c39e821fb6d5aeffa5b8e42a9f155b8fafda5c758828f04b84 funding no
Last edited:
