A comparison of the funding models of Monero, Dash & Zcash

Crypto currencies are usually open source. For a truly decentralized currency on the Internet, it is necessary to build trust. Bitcoin demonstrated this with an open source code, which means that anyone with an Internet connection can view and evaluate the computer code. So you don’t have to trust a middleman, but can convince yourself of the processes in the technology.

However, open nature also brings with it a difficulty, namely the monetization of further development. How can a developer spend his mind and energy on something that is directly accessible to everyone and can be copied, and earn money with it?

There are different answers to this question. In her own study, Nadja Eghbal addresses this issue and compared the financing models of Dash, Monero and Zcash. She compared the projects in points 1) application process, 2) financing source, 3) decision process and 4) accountability.

The three different Bitcoin news

In Dash, the approximately 4,800 master nodes determine how ten percent of the Mining Reward is allocated to proposals: Bitcoin News Trader Review 2018 » Full Scam Check Submitting proposals costs 5 dash. The rest of the budget “burns” the Bitcoin news and thus lowers the inflation rate.

At Monero, all proposals are created and funded by the community. It is a donation model similar to the Kickstarter platform.

For Zcash, the Zcash Foundation Board issues a part of the so-called Founder Rewards for Proposals. A committee of five to six hand-picked people decides on the proposals and monthly detailed reports on the progress have to be submitted.

Analysis of the Bitcoin formula

In the application process, all three Bitcoin formula projects have similarities in that there is a preliminary stage to a proposal that separates the chaff from the serious wheat. onlinebetrug comes to the conclusion that the Dash and Zcash proposals in particular are well documented. She also concludes that the Dash and Zcash teams are better known and more often funded. The team behind an idea seems as important to her as the idea itself.

The projects differ fundamentally when it comes to financing. Monero does not have a fixed budget and is financed by donations from the community, Dash has a fixed budget that is set out in the protocol itself, and Zcash receives the budget from the Zcash Foundation. Eghbal considers that the fixed budget at Dash could possibly lead to suboptimal ideas finding funding, simply because the money is available. With Monero, on the other hand, the community only invests in ideas it finds valuable. However, the crowdfunding mechanism also makes planning for the future difficult. Although Zcash has a fixed budget, this is distributed by a centralized foundation.

In the decision-making process, Eghbal Dash catches the eye because the master nodes use a fixed stake in Dash and thus have an economic interest in the success of the crypto currency. Nevertheless, it could happen that master nodes conspire and deliberately favour or disadvantage certain projects. With Zcash, on the other hand, the decision-making committee is hand-picked and based on human judgement of character. At Monero, she criticizes the overly open decision-making process, which can quickly turn into a “popularity contest”. Eghbal concludes that all decision-making processes have their weaknesses and that there may not be a perfect solution.

In project accountability, Eghbal Dash Watch highlights Dash Watch as a good example of clear success stories. At Zcash, she praised the frequent and detailed reports the Foundation demands. Monero seems to be a laggard, as accountability is least demanded here.

Analysis of past funding
Eghbal largely excluded Zcash from this analysis as the funding process is still relatively new and not yet sufficiently representative.

The Monero Core team’s funding proposals accounted for ten percent of the proposals, but received a third of the budget. At Dash, the core team’s work accounted for one-fifth of the proposals and was always funded. In contrast, only 80 percent of non-core proposals were able to achieve their funding.
While Monero mainly financed research, core work and conference trips, Dash spends about half of its budget on marketing.

In both Monero and Dash, there were some familiar faces whose proposals were mostly financed. Eghbal sees her presumption of a reputation effect confirmed. The median of the proposals at Mo

The opinion Echo: “Anti-Semites!” – Roubini trolls the Bitcoin community

After the devastating criticism of Bitcoin & Co. by the Permabär Nouriel at the beginning of this week, the problems of the crypto exchange Bitfinex and the stable coin Tether came into the focus of the commentators. The opinion ECHO for the 42nd calendar week.

Here is the Bitcoin code review

Roubini’s anti-Bitcoin tirade before the US Senate continued on the economist’s Twitter account at the beginning of the week. The economist is using ever heavier guns to fire towards the crypto community like this https://www.geldplus.net/en/bitcoin-code-review/. The quintessence of his Bitcoin code review tweets: The Bitcoin community is a cesspool of blinded, coprophagous shitcoiners whose ultra-liberal tendencies are surpassed only by their anti-Semitic tendencies.

NYU resists Roubini with Bitcoin code scam

Roubini’s downright trumpeting Twitter troll has meanwhile reached a degree of review unprofessionality that even calls alumni of New York University (NYU), where Roubini teaches, to the fore. For example, Max Keiser, crypto-investor and alumnus of NYU, criticizes the Bitcoin code scam plan:

“It pains me to see @nouriel [Roubini] behave like a horse’s ass. I am now in contact with the NYU leadership to ask them if they can’t urge this embarrassing rage-aholic to reason. It damages the working morale of the students.”

Roubini’s tirades could also influence NYU’s support through alumni donations:

“Many NYU members have already made contact with Roubini and are trying to get him to shut up. He is known as a rage-aholic, egomaniac and windbag. The students complain. It becomes also for Alumni fund Raiser like me the topic ?

Of course, Dr. Doom also took the opportunity to comment on the current drama about Bitfinex and the Stable Coin Tether (USDT):

“Tether is the mother of all crypto scams and supports Bitcoin and all the other shitcoins by up to 80 percent. But the regulators, who started investigating Tether/Bitfniex months ago, are still “sleeping at the wheel”.

Experts agree, Tether is a massive fucking scam.

I figured it out based on common sense and the background of the people behind the exchange.

It didn’t help that Bitfinex was founded by a Ponzi scammer.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-12/this-texas-finance-professor-sifts-data-for-signs-of-rigged-markets …

This tweet is from the Roubini retweetet Bitfnix’ed series. Indeed, on 16 October, the economist spent his lunchtime sharing the tweets of @Bitfnix’ed, arguably the sharpest critic of the currently controversial Bitfinex crypto exchange.

Ripple Labs and other investments

Total investment: 28 million US dollars. Closing date: May 2015. Total investment: USD 37 million

Investors: US futures, CME Group, Seagate Technology, AME Cloud Ventures, ChinaRock Capital Management, China Growth Capital, Wicklow Capital, Bitcoin Opportunity Corp., Core Innovation Capital, Route 66 Ventures, RRE Ventures, Vast Ventures and Venture 51.

What happened since then: Ripple labs hired the former head of the US Treasury Department as a consultant in July.

Mark Preuss is founder and CEO of BTC-ECHO

After studying economics in the Netherlands and China, he held various positions in finance, first in Switzerland and finally in Düsseldorf. Early on, he became enthusiastic about digital currencies and blockchain technology. In the absence of a contact point in German-speaking countries, Mark finally decided at the end of 2013 to launch BTC-ECHO, his own media platform for digital currencies and blockchain. Since then, he has developed BTC-ECHO into the most widely used German-language platform for crypto currencies.

itbitItItBit
Total investment: 25 million US dollars. Closing date: May 2015. Total investment: 28.25 million US dollars

Investors: RRE Ventures, Liberty City Ventures, Jay W Jordan II and James Pallotta.

What has happened since: ItBit was recognized as a licensed exchange by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Briefly, the exchange began OTC trading.

bitfury15BitFury
Total investment: 20 million US dollars. Closing date: July 2015. Total investment: USD 60 million

Investors: The Georgian Co-Investment Fund, DRW Venture Capital and iTech Capital.

What has happened since

Earlier this month, BitFury announced that it had completed the development of the 6NM ASIC Bitcoin-Mining chip.

KNC
Total investment: 15 million US dollars. Closing date: February 2015. Total investment: 29 million US dollars

Investors. Accel Partners, GP Bullhound, Creandum and Martin Wattin: Accel Partners, GP Bullhound, Creandum and Martin Wattin.

What has happened since then: In June, the Swedish company announced its intention to launch a groundbreaking Bitcoin ASIC Mining Chip.

vogogo1

Vogogo
Total investment: 12.5 million US dollars. Closing date: June 2015. Total investment: 21 million US dollars

Investors. Beacon Securities, Clarus Securities and Salmon Partners: Beacon Securities, Clarus Securities and Salmon Partners.

What has happened since then: Geoff Gordon, CEO of Vogogo, wants to use the funds received for partnerships with various bank partners and to work hard on a healthy branding in the Bitcoin industry.