Proposal: Visual Identity - Tharp & Clark

[glennaustin]

This decision proposal is cross-posted at https://www.dashcentral.org/p/core-branding-tc-201804

Logo by Tharp & Clark

This is one part of a two-part decision proposal for the selection of a new visual identity concept for the Dash network. Two independent proposals have been submitted to the network for consideration and the better-supported of the two proposals will be selected for the final design. Should both proposals receive a net “no” vote, the current Dash logo will be retained.

Given the above structure, if you prefer the current brand, you should vote “no” on both proposals. If you prefer them both over the current logo, you may elect to vote “yes” on both proposals. A vote of “abstain” will have no effect on the final selection.

We would like to keep the discussion across both proposals in one place and we are designating the pre-proposal thread for that discussion. The pre-proposal (https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-visual-identity.32795/) provides the background, context and process through which each firm arrived at their proposal. The pre-proposal post includes links to presentations on each of the logo options, including examples of watermarks, visual queues, color palettes, and backgrounds.

The proposal for the competing visual identity concept designed by Ogilvy & Mather can be found at https://www.dashcentral.org/p/core-branding-om-201804

As a reminder, the proposal that gets the most positive net votes will be the one selected, regardless of whether it garners the necessary 10% to fund. Again, this is not a funding proposal, but a decision proposal between these options. If neither proposal achieves positive net votes, then we plan to keep the current logo.

The rationale for not requiring a 10% threshold for this set of proposals is because the proposal system was designed for individual proposals. Submitting two independent (but thematically linked) proposals for voting and including the option to vote both “yes” and “no” effectively gives an inherent advantage to the current logo. We assume that many voters who support a design change will split “yes” and “no” votes across the competing proposals, even if they prefer both logos over the current one. Combined with “no” / “no” votes cast by supporters of the current logo, it is feasible we will see more “no” votes than “yes” overall. In this situation, it may be difficult for one of the new options to maintain positive net votes, let alone pass the 10% threshold, unless there is strong support for one option. This creates an “incumbent advantage” for the existing logo, which is appropriate given the costs of changing branding and adopting a new logo are high.

This “incumbent advantage” can be eliminated by the voters supporting a new logo, if they so choose, by voting “yes” on their preferred new logo and “abstain” rather than “no” on the competing logo proposal if they also prefer the second logo over the current one. They can also vote “yes” to both if they prefer both to the old logo. The governance system allows you to change your vote after you cast it by voting again. Keep this in mind if your opinion changes or you are unsure how you would like to split your votes across “yes” “no” and “abstain”.

A minimum of 20% vote (954 votes cast minimum for each proposal, including “abstains”) is necessary for a proposal to pass.

If you have any questions, please direct them to @fernando in the original pre-proposal Dash Forum post (https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-visual-identity.32795/) to ensure we are notified of your request.

Requested funding is as follows for the April 3rd budget cycle:

- 5.00 Dash decision proposal reimbursement

Manually vote YES on this proposal:
dash-cli gobject vote-many 2db774aed761ab96bbf25bc552531cfc421b31cd22f1bbe4204f8e065afa8df7 funding yes
OR from the qt console:
gobject vote-many 2db774aed761ab96bbf25bc552531cfc421b31cd22f1bbe4204f8e065afa8df7 funding yes

Manually vote NO on this proposal:
dash-cli gobject vote-many 2db774aed761ab96bbf25bc552531cfc421b31cd22f1bbe4204f8e065afa8df7 funding no
OR from the qt console:
gobject vote-many 2db774aed761ab96bbf25bc552531cfc421b31cd22f1bbe4204f8e065afa8df7 funding no

 

[demo]

The rationale for not requiring a 10% threshold for this set of proposals is because the proposal system was designed for individual proposals. Submitting two independent (but thematically linked) proposals for voting and including the option to vote both “yes” and “no” effectively gives an inherent advantage to the current logo. We assume that many voters who support a design change will split “yes” and “no” votes across the competing proposals, even if they prefer both logos over the current one. Combined with “no” / “no” votes cast by supporters of the current logo, it is feasible we will see more “no” votes than “yes” overall. In this situation, it may be difficult for one of the new options to maintain positive net votes, let alone pass the 10% threshold, unless there is strong support for one option. This creates an “incumbent advantage” for the existing logo, which is appropriate given the costs of changing branding and adopting a new logo are high.

Although I may not disagree with your rationale, you should have firstly put your rationale into a vote, then put your current proposal into a vote.

It is unfair for this governance decision to pass based on the above unvoted rationale, while other similar decisions to be considered as rejected (like the adaptive proposal fee of @GrandMasterDash which also received more "yes" votes than "no" votes) .

 

[GrandMasterDash]

So many assumptions.

Why is the current logo denied house advantage? Much like the five dash proposal fee having an incumbent advantage, proving difficult and controversial to change. But I think what is being said here is, if I submit two non-funding proposals relating to proposal fees, I can possibly get the change done because I no longer need super majority. That's an interesting thought, thank you.

But let's stick with the math...

Currently:
O&M : 336 yes, 490 no
T&C : 526 yes, 449 no

T&C has more yes votes and fewer no votes, BUT the sum of all no votes is greater than the sum of yes votes. This is important because it tells us a significant proportion of masternodes voted no on both proposals. Is it the case, for example, that the 449 T&C no votes are from the same masternodes voting no on O&M? - in which case, neither proposal deserves to win.

 

[demo]

So many assumptions.Why is the current logo denied house advantage? Much like the five dash proposal fee having an incumbent advantage, proving difficult and controversial to change. But I think what is being said here is, if I submit two non-funding proposals relating to proposal fees, I can possibly get the change done because I no longer need super majority. That's an interesting thought, thank you. But let's stick with the math... Currently:
O&M : 336 yes, 490 no
T&C : 526 yes, 449 no
T&C has more yes votes and fewer no votes, BUT the sum of all no votes is greater than the sum of yes votes. This is important because it tells us a significant proportion of masternodes voted no on both proposals. Is it the case, for example, that the 449 T&C no votes are from the same masternodes voting no on O&M? - in which case, neither proposal deserves to win.

We should not preserve the status quo, as long as the status quo is not voted. I think @glennaustin should put the current logo into a vote , in order to compete with Q&M and T&C logos.

A new governance decision which is put into a vote and gets more "yes" than "no", should be promoted against the status quo that has not been voted (or denies to be voted). This is yet another governance decision that has to be voted, of course.... And as you can easily understand @GrandMasterDash, if this passes, then "Adaptive proposal fee" is considered better than the 5 dash hardcoded proposal fee.

 

[demo]

But I think what is being said here is, if I submit two non-funding proposals relating to proposal fees, I can possibly get the change done because I no longer need super majority. That's an interesting thought, thank you.

You dont need to submit two non-funding proposals. You just need only one. Because the one non-funding proposal has already been submited by @Technologov and got simple majority. https://www.dashcentral.org/p/REDUCE_PROPOSAL_FEES_TO_1_DASH

but wait...you dont even need to submit one! @Technologov already submitted two!! https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Reduce_proposal_fees_to_dot1_DASH

So, regarding the proposal fee reduction, we have one proposal that got simple majority, and one that failed. Exactly what is happening now, to Q&M and T&C logos!

If T&C is baptised as the official logo, without any aditional governance clarification, then the same should happen to the proposal fee, that should be reduced to 1 Dash. Of course someone may say, we dont care about the old votes! People who voted then , are not even active now! Well this is yet another governance decision that should be made. We have to decide whether the votes of the deads are considered valid today or not. And this affects not only the reduction proposal fee decision, but many other old governance decisions (like this one).

Interdependant decisions (or graphe paranomon) this is the key concept here. Do you hear me @fernando ?

 

[Max Yoga]

Webinar announcement - Tharp and Clark Live Q&A Hangout -

Hi Dashers,
I have managed to arrange a hangout with Tharp and Clark (T&C) where they will be addressing questions live in a Hangout for the community regarding their brand development proposal. This will be at 5.30pm EST today (Thursday 29th March). In this webinar, they want to discuss aspects of brand strategy, visual design and their approach to designing the updated Dash logo that is intended to be informative to the community. No matter which option you prefer, O+M or T&C this webinar should at least give additional perspective from two experienced world experts in the field, that will assist with making an informed decision that YOU feel is best for the brand.

Side note: over the last few days T&C and/or myself have personally reached out to all of Tao of Satoshi, Mark Mason as well as Amanda B Johnson who have declined the opportunity to interview T&C for their own reasons. This is about the identity and 'face' of Dash, so was always going to be a contentious debate with a lot of fire on both sides and I expect that they may not wish to appear to be taking sides. Myself, I'm perfectly fine with taking sides when necessary

Also, my apologies for the short notice, but we did want to ensure this went out to the community before voting on both proposals was completed. At the present time the voting threshold of 20% participation has now been reached and T&C are emerging as a the clear winner. We think that we can help build further consensus through this interview, showing some of the intensive process that goes into development of a visual brand design, either as an evolution of a prior design or a departure from it. Please join us on the Hangout if you will have time, where you will be able to ask your own questions.

At present we are waiting the requisite 24h for a new YouTube account that I'll host these kinds of discussions to activate. For those that cannot make it for the Q&A, we will record the full session and post it to the community over the usual channels (Discord, Dash Forum and I'll tweet it out as well).

Keep an eye out for the link - I'll post it soon as possible - all going well this will be for 5.30PM EST 29th March 2018

Thanks,
Drako (Max Yoga)

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@Max Yoga Enough of the bullshit. Neither proposal has emerged as the "clear winner". Core doesn't get to choose or change the rules and neither do you. And btw, how many masternodes voted no on both proposals? I hope you have the answer to that before you claim victory. But regardless, expect a lot of noise if you think you can take the prize without super majority. Right now, you are 312 votes away. Fact.

 

[Max Yoga]

Webinar announcement - Tharp and Clark Live Q&A Hangout - 6PM EST 29th March 2018 -

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Am glad you did this live stream; it cemented in my mind just how unimaginative and dated it looks.

 

[Max Yoga]

@GrandMasterDash I’m genuinely glad it was useful, it was very difficult to organise this last minute with these very busy guys but it ended up being a ‘Masterclass’ in branding and visual design, as one Dasher noted in the webinar. Like I said in my earlier post the webinar is to help everyone form their own opinion, as you have, with the case study being the development of the Dash brand update itself. On your other note, masternode owners are generally putting their ‘Yes’ votes on one proposal and ‘No’ or ‘Abstain’ votes on the other which, given the structure of the voting is to be expected but will mean that you get a pile of ‘No’ votes regardless on the opposite proposal that has a bunch of ‘Yes’ votes. If you net them out (assuming the max 1190 votes cast on T&C) then T&C is at 24.1% net ‘Yes’ ahead of O+M. Hope that helps, hit me up on DN if you would like to chat about any of this.

 

[studioz]

great Webinar !!! Thank you , i changed my Mind after assisting the video and Michael and Chris touched a couple of good points !

 

[GrandMasterDash]

That was not a "masterclass". It was lots of waffle about nothing. It was very introverted / internalized. On the one hand, for example, you rejected various gradients, yet you talk up the Venezuela flag because it's topical. Not least that all of those variations would be taken up by the community; you don't need a "design company" to do that.

Tbh, your attempt at a "logo" was lazy. Just because we have a project code named "evolution", it doesn't mean everything has to evolve. You showed the evolution of other company logos, but this just fits your narrative. Many companies have successfully re-imagined their brand e.g. British Telecom.

I am not saying O&M should win, personally I'd rather see a public competition, but their design, with all it's flaws, is fresh.

Now let's talk facts. You and your friends can dislike this comment but it doesn't change them. YOUR PROPOSAL NEEDS AN ADDITIONAL 289 YES VOTES Just like EVERY other proposal. I am genuinely disgusted that you choose to ignore it. Those 506 no votes you have are rejections. You can't go comparing your proposal to others and claim victory, that's just not how it works. The community has rejected both submissions. THAT'S FACT.

But you can win, all you have to do is submit your proposal again.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@TroyDASH which fact did you disagree with?

This is an attack on dash's governance. If we allow this to pass with fewer votes than other proposals, then we have set a precedence, a template on how future non-funded proposals can be won.

 

[dashnode]

@TroyDASH which fact did you disagree with?

This is an attack on dash's governance. If we allow this to pass with fewer votes than other proposals, then we have set a precedence, a template on how future non-funded proposals can be won.

The masternodes do not have ultimate power over the free will of others. The only thing that the dash governance function has complete control over is where funding goes. "We" can do anything we want. If people want to continue using the old logo they can. If other people want to use O&M's logo they can. If some other people want to make their own logo and use it they can. This is the blessing/curse of decentralisation. If core want to use the highest voted logo they can. I don't agree with the way core has undertaken this rebranding but they are free to do whatever they want as part of a decentralised system. Masternodes only control their funding.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

The masternodes do not have ultimate power over the free will of others. The only thing that the dash governance function has complete control over is where funding goes. "We" can do anything we want. If people want to continue using the old logo they can. If other people want to use O&M's logo they can. If some other people want to make their own logo and use it they can. This is the blessing/curse of decentralisation. If core want to use the highest voted logo they can. I don't agree with the way core has undertaken this rebranding but they are free to do whatever they want as part of a decentralised system. Masternodes only control their funding.

I agree, except to say, it looks like the T&C logo will be adopted by Core, and T&C will get paid, even though it didn't get fair masternode approval. By "fair" I mean, all proposals should be held to the same standard. We can't go moving the goal posts to favor one proposal over another. This looks like an abuse of trust or, at least, a poor decision.

The 20% rule doesn't apply to no votes, excluding them from the equation.

Current yes and no for both proposals:

O&M yes + T&C yes = 348 + 696 = 1044

O&M no + T&C no = 704 + 508 = 1212


You see that? - more total no votes than yes votes. It could be (unknown and unaccounted) that 508 masternodes voted against both proposals. We can't just assume that no votes on one side equals yes votes on the other, it may not be like that at all.

It looks like Core and T&C are doing wordplay here, massaging numbers to fit their agenda.

 

[dashnode]

I agree, except to say, it looks like the T&C logo will be adopted by Core, and T&C will get paid, even though it didn't get fair masternode approval. By "fair" I mean, all proposals should be held to the same standard. We can't go moving the goal posts to favor one proposal over another. This looks like an abuse of trust or, at least, a poor decision.

The 20% rule doesn't apply to no votes, excluding them from the equation.

Current yes and no for both proposals:

O&M yes + T&C yes = 348 + 696 = 1044

O&M no + T&C no = 704 + 508 = 1212


You see that? - more total no votes than yes votes. It could be (unknown and unaccounted) that 508 masternodes voted against both proposals. We can't just assume that no votes on one side equals yes votes on the other, it may not be like that at all.

It looks like Core and T&C are doing wordplay here, massaging numbers to fit their agenda.

I know this isn't ideal, but their payment is going to be coming out of cores budget. Core is free to spend their dash on whatever they want, aren't they? The masternode governance system has no penalty system in place if people are spending money they have already been given on something other than what they said they would.

 

[TroyDASH]

@TroyDASH which fact did you disagree with?

This is an attack on dash's governance. If we allow this to pass with fewer votes than other proposals, then we have set a precedence, a template on how future non-funded proposals can be won.

Proposals that don't have funding are just barometers. Anyone can ask the network a question and tell us what they are going to do depending on the answer.

 

[demo]

Proposals that don't have funding are just barometers. Anyone can ask the network a question and tell us what they are going to do depending on the answer.

And who is going to pay this "barometer"? If the network PAYS, then it is NOT a barometer....it is a DECISION!

In our case it is the network that PAYS for the visual identity and for the logo, thats why you ought to RESPECT the decision of the network and you should not consider the network's decision as "barometer".

 

[GrandMasterDash]

What he's saying is, because it was already paid, they can (and will) do whatever they choose. Thus, for example, Shrem could come back here and ask, "Should I give the money back, or should I continue to spend it?". And it doesn't really matter what our answer is because he's already got the money and he will do whatever he will do.

 

[TroyDASH]

What he's saying is, because it was already paid, they can (and will) do whatever they choose. Thus, for example, Shrem could come back here and ask, "Should I give the money back, or should I continue to spend it?". And it doesn't really matter what our answer is because he's already got the money and he will do whatever he will do.

Yes, he could do that. However unlike your example, I have no reason to think the core team will not do what they say they will do as a result of the vote.

A better example would be this. DashForce is funded by the treasury. Suppose they were to submit a non-funding proposal something like, "Should we continue to focus on our meetup program or should we focus more on community contests?" They just want to know what the network prefers so they can proceed accordingly. If you disagree with them not using a supermajority or if they go against what they said they would do, then you can make your point by voting against their funding proposals.