Should DAO funds be released as grants or as investments?

HedgedAndLevered

HedgedAndLevered

Member
I've been reading over some of these proposals which fund privately owned companies in their business operations. I was wondering why exactly the DAO doesn't take any sort of ownership stake in these businesses?
I mean, choose one:
1) The company takes 100% of profits, forever
2) The company must use 5% of profits earned after year X of operation to return Dash to the DAO.

seems like if we're funding businesses, why not return the profits directly to Dash holders?

I get that just by growing the network, you add value to Dash, and this is one way that there is a form of pay back. You want to have some incentive for businesses to invest in growing the Dash infrastructure and really create a global currency here.
That being said, this payback alone is a little short-sighted.
I'd urge everyone to have a much longer term plan in mind; eventually, the block reward is going to get smaller and smaller, and the DAO funds will shrink along with it. By taking an ownership stake in some of these companies, we could ensure that the DAO persists indefinitely, and is not solely dependent on network fees (in the far future). Any reduction in dependence on network fees would be of great help to the network later.

Imagine if we could eventually even get to the point where there are no fees at all to send dash. All of the masternodes and miners (or stakeholders if PoS at that point) could be paid with DAO holdings instead of network fees if the right investments have been made.

Now is a time when we can really afford to grow the network AND ensure that the endgame of dash is a global payment network that can be sent instantly, privately, and for free.
 
There is a contract created as part of the funds distribution. The proposal and fund release counts as a contract.
Who enforces the contracts now anyway?
Really, we should have these proposals with distributions written up better than they are now, in legalese.
If a company doesn't pay, you sue them, just like any other contract.
 
Last edited:
HedgedAndLevered said:
you sue them
Click to expand...

Who? Me?

The MN network is a bunch of people (thousands?) located all over the world, most of whom choose to remain anonymous mainly because they wish to minimize their exposure to the "state". So, good luck getting them organized to bring suit in some jurisdiction that most of them don't reside in, over money that's not theirs.
 
jimbursch said:
Who? Me?

The MN network is a bunch of people (thousands?) located all over the world, most of whom choose to remain anonymous mainly because they wish to minimize their exposure to the "state". So, good luck getting them organized to bring suit in some jurisdiction that most of them don't reside in, over money that's not theirs.
Click to expand...
Im familiar with the MN governance system. The MNs would hire legal representation, not deal with it directly.
of course, nobody wants an expensive legal battle... but its definitely an option, and the threat of it would be necessary.
Id disagree with you that it isnt the MNs money. If a company isnt fulfilling their contractual obligations, theyre costing anyone who holds dash.
 
Investment in whatever the proposal owner is putting out is an interesting idea, but Jim's right that the legal enforcement would be impractical.

For the moment, the old mutual benefit through trade concept seems to be the idea. Being able to receive payments back into the network (perhaps though burnt coins?) could be a golden ticket if creative enforcement were worked out, though, that's for sure.

Right now, there are delinquent proposals going off left and right without a system for accountability. That one might have to be figured out first, before anything fancier.
 
dashdisciple said:
Investment in whatever the proposal owner is putting out is an interesting idea, but Jim's right that the legal enforcement would be impractical.

For the moment, the old mutual benefit through trade concept seems to be the idea. Being able to receive payments back into the network (perhaps though burnt coins?) could be a golden ticket if creative enforcement were worked out, though, that's for sure.

Right now, there are delinquent proposals going off left and right without a system for accountability. That one might have to be figured out first, before anything fancier.
Click to expand...

I certainly didnt mean to imply that it would be easy or practical! These are really tough things to work out, and involve a lot of work. Its crucial to strike some balance between suing everyone that doesnt comply, ruining the reputation of the network and scaring away future potential good investments, and having no consequences, inviting scammers.
Whatever the case though, its a lot better to have some legal protocol ready to go for enforcement of these contracts.
Anyway...
I think that avoiding taking an ownership stake in proposals just to avoid a (large) hassle is a bit weak for a DAO of this size, with these resources. Its just a matter of time before the network has to sue for breach of contract in a (non-DAO-owned) proposal anyway to deter future scammers...
Im not saying I have all the answers here, Im just trying to call for action on having more of a directed effort to make sure we're giving out grants because we want to give out grants, and not because we're unwilling to dedicate some resources to setting up a structure whereby the network would stand to gain even more.
This isnt pocket change any more. Its time to treat these like the investments they are.
 
HedgedAndLevered said:
I certainly didnt mean to imply that it would be easy or practical! These are really tough things to work out, and involve a lot of work. Its crucial to strike some balance between suing everyone that doesnt comply, ruining the reputation of the network and scaring away future potential good investments, and having no consequences, inviting scammers.
Whatever the case though, its a lot better to have some legal protocol ready to go for enforcement of these contracts.
Anyway...
I think that avoiding taking an ownership stake in proposals just to avoid a (large) hassle is a bit weak for a DAO of this size, with these resources. Its just a matter of time before the network has to sue for breach of contract in a (non-DAO-owned) proposal anyway to deter future scammers...
Im not saying I have all the answers here, Im just trying to call for action on having more of a directed effort to make sure we're giving out grants because we want to give out grants, and not because we're unwilling to dedicate some resources to setting up a structure whereby the network would stand to gain even more.
This isnt pocket change any more. Its time to treat these like the investments they are.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you on all of that. Taking this DAO to the next level will mean more than just spending more each month. You're totally right.
 
@HedgedAndLevered . I agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, I see the budget proposal as an investment and not a grant.

Although for the moment it would be legally complicated to enforce anything, it doesn't mean that it won't be in the future. Before bitcoin was invented nobody thought a decentralized currency would be possible. And here we are...

Every month, any funded project should put a report stating about the evolution of the reach of their project. That's what @stellabelle is actualy one of the few doing, keeping up posted with the number of people reached and the number of suscribers. It would be easy to any project to add a line about the earnings and give some back to the network (that would be use to decrease transaction fees - that is so important - nobody from the real world will pay more than 0.1 cent to buy somehting that cost 1 dollar).

How to do that remains to be seen, but agreeing on it as a community is a first step.
 
I think that may have been the reason for Evan setting up the DAO research lab in Honk Kong, a zero-profit DAO is perfect for that kind of thing (ie. everything coming in gets paid out) and can do just about everything any corporation can do but in many cases can do it far more efficiently. It will take a while for that to get established though, folks simply getting their head around the concept of DAOs could take a decade or more and the costs could be incredibly high for many projects so funding more regular methods of doing business is about the only option for now, burning coins as a method of giving back makes a lot of sense though.

And talk of DAOs and jurisdiction?? That's an extremely touchy subject, something like suggesting raising Bitcoins cap to 42 million would be trivial in comparison! A DAOs inherent lack of jurisdiction is probably their most powerful feature. Sure, in most cases they'd need a real world presence of some sort but that link is a danger to their security and should be very well guarded.
 
I would say it would depend on the stage of the startup. If it hasn't traded yet then it wouldn't be expected to get as much as a company with a long-standing record.
 
haileykhysen said:
it hasn't traded yet then it wouldn't be expected to get as much as a company with a long-standing record.
Click to expand...

The reason I said "Geez finally" was because they actually finally implemented this (2 years after I suggested it)
Unfortunately they decided to blow an insane amount of money first, so here w̶e̶ you Dash holders are, at these prices.
Dash had every chance with the ingenious treasury system to take advantage of the 2017 surge like no other crypto could and fund a deployment of ATMs in venezuela, but instead they allocate a relatively small % of the budget to Venezuela and terribly mismanage the rest of the money like when they gave away $1,000,000 to traders on Huobi for almost nothing in return (not even data) among countless other giveaways to DAO scammers (because everyone knew there would never be any repercussions)
Dash was a great idea and they had every chance to get the network effect working in places like Venezuela, but bitcoin just has too large a lead now and the Dash budget is shrinking. And it won't be replenished because the Dash network took no equity in "investments" over the years.
 
The SuckerNodes are absolute rubes and never, ever learn. They beclown the whole project. There's no point talking about all the other problems, when the root issue is still in full effect.
 
HedgedAndLevered said:
The reason I said "Geez finally" was because they actually finally implemented this (2 years after I suggested it)
Unfortunately they decided to blow an insane amount of money first, so here w̶e̶ you Dash holders are, at these prices.
Dash had every chance with the ingenious treasury system to take advantage of the 2017 surge like no other crypto could and fund a deployment of ATMs in venezuela, but instead they allocate a relatively small % of the budget to Venezuela and terribly mismanage the rest of the money like when they gave away $1,000,000 to traders on Huobi for almost nothing in return (not even data) among countless other giveaways to DAO scammers (because everyone knew there would never be any repercussions)
Dash was a great idea and they had every chance to get the network effect working in places like Venezuela, but bitcoin just has too large a lead now and the Dash budget is shrinking. And it won't be replenished because the Dash network took no equity in "investments" over the years.
Click to expand...
They've made the absolute wrong choices at almost every opportunity.

Waayyy too much worketard thinking from people who never did anything before, and never won at anything before. The mentality that winning is bad and profit is evil is everywhere in DCG. It's self-destructive, and is anti-business. No business wants to use money that wants to kill their business... Profit Bad! Capitalism Bad! Orange Man Bad!

You can see the massive bureaucracy they've created. That's all they've ever known, so they made more of the same... DASH and Cryptocurrency were supposed to be completely different from this, but they don't know how to do anything else. They all have backgrounds as part of a giant, bloated waste structure. They don't know how to build a skeleton then flesh it out later. They don't know how to take the initiative for a job left undone, they just say "not my department" and the matter is neglected "until that role can be filled." Which is never. The petty, do-nothing feminized corporate speak is dizzying. I've said it before, but it bears repeating. DCG are "playing corporation" the way little girls "play house." The coders are great, even if some of them are woketards.

Even if DASH delivers on 1.0, it's way, waayyy past too late. They have zero credibility. They're a laughingstock. It just doesn't matter anymore, and they cant pay the bills anyway.

#18 on the list, and falling...

The concepts and ideas of DASH are truly what Cryptocurrency needs to be a real-world thing. But, DASH won't be the name that does it, and DCG won't be the people that do it. At best, these ideas might get stolen and implemented by someone else.

DASH is over.
 
HedgedAndLevered said:
I've been reading over some of these proposals which fund privately owned companies in their business operations. I was wondering why exactly the DAO doesn't take any sort of ownership stake in these businesses?
I mean, choose one:
1) The company takes 100% of profits, forever
2) The company must use 5% of profits earned after year X of operation to return Dash to the DAO.

seems like if we're funding businesses, why not return the profits directly to Dash holders?

I get that just by growing the network, you add value to Dash, and this is one way that there is a form of pay back. You want to have some incentive for businesses to invest in growing the Dash infrastructure and really create a global currency here.
That being said, this payback alone is a little short-sighted.
I'd urge everyone to have a much longer term plan in mind; eventually, the block reward is going to get smaller and smaller, and the DAO funds will shrink along with it. By taking an ownership stake in some of these companies, we could ensure that the DAO persists indefinitely, and is not solely dependent on network fees (in the far future). Any reduction in dependence on network fees would be of great help to the network later.

Imagine if we could eventually even get to the point where there are no fees at all to send dash. All of the masternodes and miners (or stakeholders if PoS at that point) could be paid with DAO holdings instead of network fees if the right investments have been made.

Now is a time when we can really afford to grow the network AND ensure that the endgame of dash is a global payment network that can be sent instantly, privately, and for free.
Click to expand...
The major issue with the budget is that it's a (not so) big pork barrel welfare check. There's no direct feedback loop for failure to choose wisely. No consequences for throwing money away. I warned about this when it was created, and here we are, I was right...

The next issue is narcissism and snowflake stupidity. The second feedback loop is looking like idiots and being embarrassed. But these people are waayyy too arrogant to be embarrassed. No matter how much egg they get on their faces, they are unmoved. they're like Obama. When it's clear they aren't winning, they flip over the chess board, crap on the king, and declare victory. Reality be damned. Just stick your nose even further up in the air and declare inferior anyone offering critique, advice, or just a connection back to reality...

Then comes the "too late" feedback loop, when the market cap collapses due to ignoring the 1st and 2nd warnings. Now it's too late, there's nothing you can do. You've become irrelevant AND you have no money. Everything grinds to a halt and falls apart. This is the phase DASH is in right now. The worst part is that this was not an accident. It was deliberately chosen by people who arrogantly declared that the rules of the game no longer apply to them, so they didn't have to play by the rules. Whatever a sane, experienced person would have done, they deliberately did the opposite, but cause the rules have changed! the rules no loner apply! The future is now! Lets go smoke some legalized pot! Alt36 has a use and purpose, we swear, duuuuude! I've had the sad experience of watching a lot of projects deal with this stage after kicking me out for being, like, totally uncool... None arrogant enough to think the rules don't apply to them ever have the humility to admit they were wrong. They never learn. They go on to "be positive" somewhere else and run it into the ground, too... Pied Pipers.

Disappearing into the discord echo chamber has made it even worse...

Just like any welfare state, anyone with a brain can tell you it's going to fail. But, "the wisdom of the crowd" (a mob of clueless idiots in the center of the bell curve) is the only thing that matters, because it's a bunch of clueless yes men that want free stuff. Nobody can believe it when it collapses, because facts and reality have never entered the mind of those still left in the echo chamber. Anyone with is a brain is excommunicated... So, nobody with any kind of clue in life is still around when it all comes crashing down... "How could this happen" the idiots ask. "How could it not, I'm surprised it lasted this long..." says everyone with an IQ above 70....

We're waayyy past the point of it being moot... It's been moot for 2 years. They still haven't done anything.

Even f DCG reveals that they'e had a secret plan to support vendors with their own cash-out system supported by major, unnamed players, and it's all under the ASH brand; it won't matter. And we all know that no such thing has been created. Even something spectacular like that can't save DASH now, and nothing that cool is planned anyway... There are no "partners." Kraken has no faith in Instant Send. Coinbase will never add DASH.

DASH was #4 or #5? Now, #18. Total garbage like BSV is considered more relevant by leaps and bounds. DASH used to innovate. Now they've disappeared up their own butts. I tried to stop it, but I'm just an old white guy...
 
Last edited:
AgnewPickens said:
Coinbase actually has added Dash and only requires 2 confirmations to BTC's 6.
Click to expand...
True, and cool to see the dash's chainlocks acknowledged by Coinbase, but a Coinbase listing isn't worth much nowadays if they're listing complete centralized garbage like XRP and EOS among countless other shitcoins. Maybe a nod that the dash network is reliable as a medium of exchange, but not much else.
 
AgnewPickens said:
Coinbase actually has added Dash and only requires 2 confirmations to BTC's 6.
Click to expand...
That's conflation... Where's the DASH-branded instant cash-out option?

But; a point on your tangent; Kraken is still 6 "confirmations." Aren't "confirmations" supposed to be obsolete? Volume is so low it could easily be guaranteed to alay the concerns of the clueless protectionists. They're not actually afraid of anything. They just don't like DASH making their Sh!tcoins obsolete... You won't make them stop playing this game by offering the guarantee, merely expose that they're playing protectionist games by eliminatng all excuses other than protectionism. You'd be able to call them out for it. Does DCG have no faith in InstanTX? Yeah, I'm using the name that at least halfway makes sense...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top