Proposal: Green Candle Inc.

greencandle_jeremy

greencandle_jeremy

New member
TLDR: The purpose of this proposal is to secure 3 months of operational costs for Green Candle Inc. to continue providing escrow services on behalf of the Dash network.

Green Candle works to fill the void that exists in the Dash Network by providing the necessary escrow services and support required to achieve long-term success.

We saw the need to create a bridge between the Dash network and the greater business communities that would help shape the future of Dash. After months of planning, discussion and encouragement from our peers, Green Candle Inc. was incorporated on August 26th, 2017.

As the value of Dash continues to grow, it is clear that trusted escrow services are a required component for its continued success. In our short time, we have successfully escrowed over 4100 Dash on behalf of the Dash Network.

Green Candle protects the network and the proposal owner by ensuring that both parties perform according to the provisions outlined in the signed MOUs. These signed agreements protect the Dash community from being exploited and help to prevent fraud.

We are requesting 3 months funding for operational costs. This will allow Green Candle to scale to meet the needs of the proposal system and its members. We will submit for new funding at the end of the 3 month term giving the network a chance to evaluate our work. This commitment from Dash will allow Green Candle to continue essential services, secure proposal funds and mitigate risk on behalf of the network. We will continue to draw from the initial funds until they are 1 month from being depleted.

Key Points
  • Green Candle is requesting 3 months of funding for operations.
  • Green Candle will act an an impartial, trusted 3rd party to the Dash network when asked to provide escrow services.
  • All funds for each proposal will be held in their own funding lane. The proposal fee will be made available for return after the proposal passes and the proposal owner has signed the MOU. All remaining funds will be dispensed from the funding lane upon completion of the deliverables outlined in the MOU.
  • Remaining funds held in escrow from a proposal lane will will be disseminated through our mirco-donation and micro-proposal initiatives.
  • Funds held in trust during a proposal will not be used to operate Masternodes at any time.

Value
  • Fully operational and compliant escrow service for Dash blockchain maintained in Canada
  • Added layer of protection provided to Masternode network for proposals that are escrowed through GC. All GC proposals require the signing of a binding memo of understanding between the proposal owner and Green Candle Inc.
  • First company to handle compliant escrow services outside of Dash Core Group Inc.
  • Proven track record handling large, medium and small proposals
  • Consulting with top law/accounting firms to get legal opinions on all proposals we handle (Deloitte)
Proven Track Record

GAP - 2000 Dash
General Bytes - 180 Dash
Dash Aerosports -1366 Dash
Rory MacDonald - 330 Dash
Colibit - 74.02 Dash
Dash Boost - 158.01 Dash


Fee Structure

1 - 50 - Fee: 3 Dash
51 - 100 - Fee: 4 Dash
101 - 500 - Fee 5 Dash
501 - 1000 - Fee: 10 Dash
1001 - 2000 - Fee: 20 Dash
2001 - 3000 - Fee: 30 Dash


Budget

Administration - 54
Operations - 14
Development - 7
Infrastructure - 6
Legal - 80
Rental Space - 11
Accounting - 5
Insurance - 2
Contingency - 10
Proposal Fee - 5.01
_______________________________________________
3 Month Proposal - 567 + 5.01 = 572.01 / 3 = 190.67 Dash

 
Last edited:
I'd really like to take the burden of escrow (and any potential conflicts of interest) away from Core.
This is the best path forward for that.
If we want to have a trusted 3rd party escrow corporation that can enter into legally-binding contracts, this is it.
Not cheap, but I believe this is a good investment into the Treasury and will professionalize the public-facing interactions with the Dash Treasury.
These guys have proven themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I'd vote YES.
 
There was me thinking GC Inc was an ongoing for-profit business. If not, why not? Do we not have environment to create competition for escrow services?
 
greencandle_jeremy said:
  • All funds for each proposal will be held in their own funding lane. The proposal fee will be made available for return after the proposal passes and the proposal owner has signed the MOU. All remaining funds will be dispensed from the funding lane upon completion of the deliverables outlined in the MOU.
  • Remaining funds held in escrow from a proposal lane will will be disseminated through our mirco-donation and micro-proposal initiatives.
Click to expand...
A few questions:
Could you elaborate more on these two points? When you refer to a "funding lane", is the flow of money viewable/auditable? I am asking this because I have heard previously from GC that everything can be seen on the blockchain, but I also thought I heard that none of the escrowed dash have been moved, or that everything has been paid out of pocket separately from the escrowed dash?

Are the MOU arrangements denominated in Fiat or in dash? If it could be either one for a proposal, will this information be communicated? If denominated in Fiat, how is price volatility managed?

When you refer to remaining funds for microdonations or microproposals, is this referring to funds that were leftover due to price appreciation? And can you share more about the nature of how you decide who receives these funds, and will those payouts be made public?
 
djcrypto said:
I'd really like to take the burden of escrow (and any potential conflicts of interest) away from Core.
This is the best path forward for that.
If we want to have a trusted 3rd party escrow corporation that can enter into legally-binding contracts, this is it.
Not cheap, but I believe this is a good investment into the Treasury and will professionalize the public-facing interactions with the Dash Treasury.
These guys have proven themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I'd vote YES.
Click to expand...

@djcrypto Thank you for the comment, your support is greatly appreciated. We look forward to working with you and the community in these very exciting times.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
There was me thinking GC Inc was an ongoing for-profit business. If not, why not? Do we not have environment to create competition for escrow services?
Click to expand...


@GrandMasterDash Thank you for the comment. We have been fortunate to receive a lot of feedback from the community in recent weeks. From those conversations it became clear that MNOs want a trusted 3rd party to provide escrow for the network. The sentiment is that we should operate as a non-profit business to avoid blurring the lines in terms of protecting the network. Our fees are public so the network can rest assured knowing that everyone is treated equally.

To answer your question, the environment exists for competition. We call them partners rather then the competition, and in fact we have worked together with DEMO and InstantKarmaFund to help secure funds for the network in the past.
 
TroyDASH said:
A few questions:
Could you elaborate more on these two points? When you refer to a "funding lane", is the flow of money viewable/auditable? I am asking this because I have heard previously from GC that everything can be seen on the blockchain, but I also thought I heard that none of the escrowed dash have been moved, or that everything has been paid out of pocket separately from the escrowed dash?

Are the MOU arrangements denominated in Fiat or in dash? If it could be either one for a proposal, will this information be communicated? If denominated in Fiat, how is price volatility managed?

When you refer to remaining funds for microdonations or microproposals, is this referring to funds that were leftover due to price appreciation? And can you share more about the nature of how you decide who receives these funds, and will those payouts be made public?
Click to expand...

@TroyDASH Thank you for the thoughtful questions. In reference to funding lanes, the flow of money is view-able / audit-able on the blockchain. Some of the funds held in escrow have been moved as proposal owners successfully complete their deliverables. Operating expenses for GC were paid out of pocket because we felt it was the best approach to getting started. We believe that trust is earned so we went to work and the results have led us to this juncture.

MOUs have been denominated in Fiat and in Dash depending on the request from the Proposal Owner. This information is public for each proposal. If the price is denomiated in Fiat, there will be a price gaurantee with payments made at the current market rate at the time of the payout. This will help protect the network if the price shoots up and protect the proposal owner if the price plummets.

Remaining funds for microdonations or microproposals can come from price appreciation. They can also come from a proposal that does not complete its obligations, therefore not all the funds were released. Whatever the case, we will hold the remaining funds in trust until the community, not GC, decides how to spend them. When the funds are released the payouts will be made public.
 
greencandle_jeremy said:
To answer your question, the environment exists for competition. We call them partners rather then the competition, and in fact we have worked together with DEMO and InstantKarmaFund to help secure funds for the network in the past.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what worries me; sticking your fingers into the pies of your "competition / partners". Imo this is not the way to foster healthy competition. We already have Core to help with escrow, and frankly, I don't trust your setup enough to vote for it. On the one hand, you want to take a commission for taking on risk, yet you want to be paid from the treasury because you can't (or won't) make it profitable to operate. You've had long enough to make this self-sustainable, yet here you are asking for money again.

To be fair, this isn't entirely your fault, Core is also at fault here because on the one hand they want to take ownership of how the treasury is managed, yet they openly admit that improvements to the treasury are low priority / more important things to do. This is exactly why Core needs to be broken up instead of having this all-encompassing body that wants to take ownership of everything yet only work on Evolution / DAPI.
 
GreenCandle has escrowed many great projects so far. Colibit is one of them here in Venezuela. I know Rafa (from Colibit) and they are working very well. Also GreenCandle is escrowing the Dash Boost proposal which was funded last cycle and IMO is one of the most disruptive proposal so far. I also have seen the great work that Coingun (from GreenCandle) has made for the Dash Community.

Good luck my friends
 
Good luck with this proposal. I know very well that they are a very good and qualified team that are helping Dash to grow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top