Is it really asking too much that those who are in favor of projects pony up the money to fund them?
Isn't the widely acknowledged best practice to use escrow and have funding tied to development milestones, including actual deliverables?
I know you don't want to hear this, but try to get over your hurt little feelings and recognize that Monero's Forum Funding System (FFS) has been a great success, while avoiding all the problems DASH is now vainly struggling to overcome.
While you guys tear each other up trying to do trivial basic stuff like run a Slack and set up a soda machine, Monero's FFS successfully implemented RingCT, a brilliant new way to ensure fungibility, as well as a very nice GUI and other useful under the hood futureproofing stuff like 0MQ.
Instead of trying to reinvent the governance wheel (which has been amply demonstrated to not be Dash's core competency) why not just go with what's already been proven to work?
...of transaction IDs

Do you have anything useful to add to my potentially productive idea?
Aren't you going to even try to defend the desirability and efficacy of Dash's project funding/management over Monero's FFS escrow system?
Are you satisfied with the lack of deliverables, accountability, and communication from the Lamassu ATM, Mycelium integration, and Legal Research projects?
Perhaps I am expecting too much from the person infamous for being the most brainwashed, clueless DashHole around and making the most galactically stupid assertion ever made on this forum.
Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters. It works on a system of digital signatures.
It would seem that you actually do not understand what cryptography is in the modern sense.
A failure to understand and respect these considerations has resulted in a lot of harmful garbage and dysfunctional software.
LOL, no wonder you are the biggest fan of DigitaltrASH, the epitome of "harmful garbage and dysfunctional software."