Decency, cleanliness and aspirations proportional to every contribution, the only ones that can be considered legitimate. The simple contemplation of any global collective organization chart already clearly indicates that not being a thief is already, unfortunately, a great contribution.

When a position in any hierarchy generates more returns than those strictly proportional according to the agreed criteria of ALL its members, that structure is dead as a collective association, because the human factor exceeds the approach. DASH, which is probably the biggest display of personal influence in crypto, is a splendid example of this. Real transparency, which must be constantly cared for even if this limits the scope of the project, is a good way to limit the movements of any type of personal management.

The half dozen claims that the DeepBlue member neatly summarizes in the post that I repeated here a few days ago, perfectly exposes this type of personal conditioning factors and the abuse capacity of those who particularly have certain skills. And by the way, when the ignorance of its claims - the "silence for response" / "administrative silence" - ... is also corruption (by omission, but absolutely decisive) ... as much as that committed in the irregularities that it exposes in a close-up, direct, of these management abuses. Omission so comparable to the "administrative blockade" in the bureaucracy that manages any of the public administrations that we can see assaulted by the manipulative political parasites of the West ... who are supposed to be the most advanced in the world and are nothing more than another paradise of parasites ... most of which are limited to "looking the other way", a position of excessive impunity ... when that is enough AND NECESSARY to damage the "common good".

A rigorous 1: 1 backup in REAL WEALTH (proven store of value assets) against the main asset (which would also be a constant resource for target price discovery beyond "selling smoke") can be impeccable against corruption of the proposed system ... since whoever differs from the evolution of the project, can claim their corresponding assets without diminishing their private contribution or the general interest of the rest of the members. That is a question of defining it.

On the other hand, the MODULAR operation that is sought with a fork destined not to "divorce" but to co-exist independently within an original project - precisely so as not to have to assume its vices, or what each "modular element" of This collective structure considers vices - it must be guaranteed as far as possible to each of its members.

DASH, with its current technology, should already have infinitely more prominence in the crypto ranking than it does ... but it is a centralized project, hijacked ... and therefore, logically, despised by many of those who contemplate it from the outside. Curiously, governance is continually exposed as a "secondary" resource, which is not assumed by those involved (while, even more curiously, access to it is blocked by the vast majority of its members;)). If governance in DASH is continually bogged down, it is so that those who benefit from its status continue to be.