Hello I'm Amanda B

Johnson And you are watching DASH: Detailed I invite you to sit back, relax, and listen to my chat with Dash's man with the financial plans: Ryan Taylor You are Ryan Taylor Your online handle is babygiraffe

Before we get into anything else, where did babygiraffe come from? Or is that like a weird secret that you don’t want to make public? No, No, I tell people all the time My wife affectionately calls me ‘babygiraffe’ because I’m quite tall I”m six foot five I’m lanky, too I tend to bump into things and I’m pretty clumsy, so she calls me babygiraffe

Look at my photo on the forums – it clearly displays a falling-over giraffe There ya have it Six foot five Yup, that’s tall Ok, so now give me your official title of what you do for Dash, because I know whatever it’s going to be, it’s kind of an irregular thing, because in almost all if not all other cryptocurrencies, one is either a developer or – like – nothing

And in Dash, there are like, more job titles So what is yours? So first of all I don’t think anyone has official job titles here so much We’re kind of a startup so everyone is wearing multiple hats at any given point But my main role – or my focus – is on leading the finance function – you might term it the “treasury” as I’ve heard you call it over the last couple weeks So that’s my main function

I do – play a pretty influencing role in business strategy and product strategy, as well, just because of some of the things in my background, which we’ll probably get into here in a minute And now, so to be clear, for anyone who is not familiar with the process, Ryan has no control over Dash’s treasury, but rather he puts in a lot of proposals for stakeholders to vote on from the treasury That’s right And when we do receive funding from the network, I would then be the one to distribute those funds to the appropriate parties who are subcontractors to the network or what have you Ok

So how did you come to be a person who puts a lot of budget proposals into Dash’s treasury? When did you come into the picture? Who found you, or did you find Dash? How did that work? Yeah, well Like with pretty much everybody around here, I started with Bitcoin and got very interested in that And then I started discovering there were all these other cryptocurrencies out there

And I became involved with Dash very early on in the spring of 2014 And at first it was just as an investor, playing a role on the forums and what have you But in the summer of 2014 I moved to Arizona and was very close to where Evan was, and I knew he was out here, so I reached out And the two of us started meeting periodically and I became more and more involved and that collaboration with Evan continued to grow – And you mean Evan – Evan Duffield, lead developer of Dash So you’d heard of him and you were like, oh, also we live in the same neighborhood now, I want to meet you

Yeah So I just sent him an email and ended up getting more and more involved, mostly in the background at first, with Evan and helping him think through issues and so forth But eventually I started taking on a much more public role And this spring I actually quit my job and have been devoted to Dash full-time ever since Oh wow

So your former job that you just quit – did it have to do with computers and programming, or was it totally different? So I have – I do not have a developer background I have Ok

a varied background within financial services So I started out actually in IT as an architect for a very large company – Dow 30 type company – designing the computer infrastructure for the company

I ended up going to Columbia Business School for my MBA with a concentration in finance and economics, and from there I went on to serve the financial services industry in a strategy-consulting role for about seven years Then decided I wanted to shift over to the investing side of things and invest in financial services companies And so I became an analyst at a hedge fund and I focused on payments And so I would spend probably 30 hours a week talking to experts on the phone, trying to understand business strategies of companies throughout the payment space, from hardware providers to processors to companies like PayPal And so I became a very deep expert within the payment subsegment of financial services

And so Dash kind of draws on my technology background It draws on my interest in financial services and in payments in particular really brings it all together And I’m able to kind of add value in a number of different ways I think So you were working in the belly of the beast before, so like, when you first when you first heard of Bitcoin, were you like, that’s stupid? Or were you like that’s going to eat my lunch? Or like what first got you interested? I think it’s hard to deny the potential power of the technology that Bitcoin and blockchain bring to essentially a very inefficient industry when it comes to the multiple parties involved in making a payment that you never even see And so I think the environment is ripe for disruption

I think the technology is the right technology I think it’s being implemented in a very inefficient and poor way And so I thought that Dash was different It was doing – it was attempting to add value in other ways – privacy was the first example of that And as Evan and I got talking and got generating ideas and improving upon them and figuring out many different problems in payments, in financial services, in banking, we have expanded the vision pretty broadly, and it’s not just Evan and I – believe me – there's a lot of really smart people behind the scenes that are making these things happen and developing a strategy that is viable in what is an incredibly competitive market – there are hundreds of cryptocurrencies – and we’ve held up pretty well and I think that we’re going to do even better

Well I want to ask you about an article that you published on Medium a few days ago about inflation and security and allocation of block rewards and how those things all tie together Would you mind giving us an overview of your piece? Yeah so, basically I, I – it started as a simple BitcoinTalk post that I have Steemed where someone said, “Look, how can you take a portion of the miner rewards and hand it to the masternode owners? That – you’re taxing the miner” And that got me thinking about the way that I frame it very differently in my own head And – so I replied And a bunch of people found that post that I put on BitcoinTalk very helpful

And a lot of people reached out to me privately and said, “Hey, could you write something up that’s a little more formal on this and a little more extensive?” And so I sat down earlier this week and put an afternoon into getting my thoughts on paper I have two main points The first is that I wanted to frame who’s really paying for the network And, you know, in our case, it’s not the miners that are paying for our network It’s our users

And basically Does any other case exist? Well Pretty much every cryptocurrency and every government prints new money in order to pay for things You see some extreme examples, I put in the paper, Zimbabwe where they saw inflation over three hundred million percent or something like that at one point in time It’s very easy to see in those cases when they’re printing that much money But in the case of Bitcoin they have inflation even after the halving of about 4% per year

And so what that does is it doesn’t actually increase the value of the currency as a whole – the market cap, if you will It just dilutes everyone else’s holdings In the same way that if a company issues a hundred million more shares of stock, the earnings of that company get split over more and more people And so I view it as the people who are really paying for the network are the ones who are being taxed through the creation of new currency and the inflation that that creates Basically anyone who owns the coin

Exactly Anyone who is a holder of the coin is paying in a portion of their holdings into a central pool And the question is – and the question that I think every cryptocurrency holder – whether Dash or Bitcoin or anything else – where the coin supply is inflationary is, what am I getting for that money? And in the case of Bitcoin, they’re getting a whole lot of security And it never belonged to the miners in the first place, it’s just that the Bitcoin protocol says ‘we’re going to spend a hundred percent of this money, no matter how large of a pool it becomes, and no matter how high of a price Bitcoin becomes, we’re going to spend a hundred percent of that on hashrate’ And by rewarding mining that's exactly what happens

They’re basically spending four hundred million dollars plus a year on hashes And I have an issue with that for three different reasons And I think that if any one of these things are true that Bitcoin’s protocol is inherently a less efficient one than Dash's And the three things are – First of all that assumes that there’s nothing else of value greater than higher levels of security That there is absolutely nothing else that money could be spent on that would have greater value for the holders of the coin

The second thing and related to that is that there are literally no bounds on – the value of incremental security is infinite And the reason that is, is because the more hashrate you throw – the transactions can’t become twice as secure They’re already ninety nine point nine nine nine percent secure with Bitcoin after you've got a few confirmations on the blockchain So that last point zero zero one percent can never be achieved, no matter how much money you throw at it, and you can continue to spend more and more and more, and you’ll just chip away and a tiny incremental level of security And so by having a protocol that does that, you’re essentially saying that the value of that incremental security is always infinite and always worth spending any incremental money on

But I believe if you took just one million dollars of that four hundred million and directed it towards a security review, you’d probably get more security from the Bitcoin network than you are right now That extra million dollars of hashrate is not buying them much They could advertise and bring value to the network by attracting new people and driving the price up They could add value by developing a new way to secure the network like we have – And so – I’m referring to InstantSend in this case, which locks transactions in a different way And so I think that there's just some flaws in the thinking that hashrate is the only way to secure the network and that you should continue spending infinitely on it no matter how high your price goes

And I think that a more efficient model is to allocate what’s needed to secure the network, – to that task – and allocate what’s needed to other tasks as well, in order to have a more holistic and robust system Did you – was there a third thing on that list, or that encompassed the three? The three are, that I disagree that it’s infinitely valuable, I disagree that you can't only achieve security through hashrate, and I disagree that you can’t find anything else of more value than that tiny incremental transactional security gain that comes from your last million dollars spent So those are the three I see I wonder if – like I find it hard to believe personally that someone could think that hashrate for the sake of hashrate regardless of how incredibly high it is, is always worth spending more on

That does seem shocking to me It seems like people were maybe just like trolling you, or do you think they really believe this? Like are there really people who think like: Hashrate to the moon at all costs, and nothing else could possibly be worth spending on? Well, I think that there are some people who recognize the flaw in it But you’d be surprised I have met a lot of incredibly intelligent people – mathematicians, cryptographers, people that have a long list of degrees – that will make two types of statements The first one is, well we have x times as much security, or x times as much hashpower as you, therefore we are x times more secure than you

And is that true? It can’t be Because if you’re already starting at ninety nine point anything percent you can only go up to 100 percent secure on any transaction So you cannot continue doubling that for very long before you run into that 100 percent secure threshold you can't pass And so, I think that there’s just this mathematical misconception that there isn't diminishing returns, when in fact, there are There are diminishing returns on each incremental million dollars that you spend on hashrate

And it eventually starts to approach – you get zero value from it Not to mention the fact that, you know, more hashrate does not necessarily mean more secure More hashrate, or – you know, a small amount of hashrate spread across hundreds of providers is much more secure than a near-infinite amount of hashrate spread across two And so I don’t buy the argument that more hashrate necessarily equals more security All else being equal, absolutely, it does equal some small incremental amount of security

but it’s more important to develop other ways to avoid the 51% attack and have a multi-tiered approach to securing a transaction I also think it’s ridiculous to expect that – you know — more security is always needed I would say that if – you know, there’s only so large of a purchase you can make before it becomes incredibly traceable You can’t buy a house They'd be able to find you if they checked the blockchain after buying a house

You can’t buy a car – it’s got a VIN number on it, you would get caught You could probably buy an expensive piece of jewelry That's about the upper-limit of what you could buy and walk out of a store and never be seen again and get away with it You need enough security so that that can’t happen, so that an attacker can’t be incentivized to go buy an expensive piece of jewelry, walk out of the jewelry store and reverse the transaction You know it is interesting to hear you talk about like a real-world retail transaction

I think that, I think that not all cryptos necessarily have that end-goal in mind I'm not sure if – I've interviewed a lot of people and I'm trying to think of like, how many people have told me that they envision their favorite coin being used to buy a piece of jewelry from a real person in real time That's interesting Tangent aside, I would like to ask you because I was not around in – like I was not for example, frequenting the Dash forums at the time when Dash’s block reward was split from being 100% paid to miners to divvied up to miners, masternodes, and the treasury If I remember correctly that happened over a year ago – what like a year and a half ago? Not quite

It was Version twelve, I think rolled out on August 14th 2015 So it's almost been a year So the splitting of the block reward came about at the same time as the treasury system? Ok Oh, sorry, no no The treasury came, function came out then

The splitting of the block reward originally occurred back in 2014 It was initially ten percent, it shifted to twenty percent, and eventually was slated to move up to sixty percent over time, but we never reached the sixty percent We settled on a third model here where we have self-funding now So that was in 2014 Okay so what I want to know is how did the then-miners respond? Because I’ve had people talk to me about this before and they're – they've said like, “Yeah, the divvying up of the block reward in Dash does look to be like a pretty sustainable model, indeed, but I can’t imagine the miners of xyzcoin ever going for such a thing

Hence, blah” I don’t know I'm not really sure what they’re getting at And that made me wonder, like when this was proposed in Dash, were Dash’s then-miners like against it? Or were they like, no that's awesome I will just be a miner and masternode? Or how did that work? Yeah as you can imagine, different people, different responses I think that there were some people who viewed that as robbery

There were some people that viewed that as unfair but understood the reasons for it There were some people that viewed it as a really good idea that would help the coin grow in value and potentially increase their miner rewards But I'd say in the long run, it doesn’t actually affect them in any meaningful way The reason is, if you were to say, change our miner reward from 45% to 90%, a lot of them would react and say, 'Oh this is fantastic, I’m going to make a lot of money' Right? But that isn’t what happens

You end up at a new equilibrium where mining resources would rush in to an environment with excess profits like that You’d essentially double the amount of mining that was occurring on the network, and lo and behold, the expected return on a given investment in mining equipment would result in roughly the same, except for that short period of time it would take for the market to react The same is true when you reverse that process When we cut the miner rewards in half you would expect the hashrate to roughly drop in half The question is, how much hashrate do you want to purchase from the open market? Now that we have ASICs, I would be reluctant to ever change that very quickly, because people are no longer using equipment that can be used for mining other coins or something like that

But back then we were CPU mining and some GPU mining at the time and so no one was really loosing anything they could point their equipment somewhere else I want to be fair to miners that make investments in our coin and so I think that it's important to be cognizant of the commitment they've made to our network and treat them like we would a strategic partner and a vendor and we should be communicating to them if we plan to make changes to that so that they can plan their capital expenditures appropriately And so, I mean, obviously, we can see from the Dash history book that, I mean, a majority of clients – I mean, did it take a fork? It must have taken a fork, right? When the block reward was allocated to these new groups? So a majority of clients did switch over? Yeah So we were a new cryptocurrency at the time – very few users, so we had a lot of flexibility to try things and take risks

You know, I don't know – this would be a good question for Evan Duffield – but, I don’t know if the network really forked, at least not meaningfully, in the sense of some people just fail to upgrade But I do know that miners were trying to game the system They found loopholes and we closed them And there was a little bit of back-and-forth Not all miners were honest about it but that’s good

It strengthened our network It allowed us to fix the vulnerabilities in terms of their ability to capture all of the reward, and so forth And so, you know, we saw a variety of reactions A lot of miners also said, 'Hey this is great, it’s a new model, it’s probably going to drive the price up and attract new investors You know, I could actually make more

' Yeah that’s what I imagined that most of the miners at the time would have been thinking Like – ok, a temporary cut in rewards but this is the only coin that is doing this, and if it’s a good idea, I will probably make my money back and then some Like more than I would have made otherwise Yeah there were a lot of points in time where people were seeing the innovation and they were clearly mining at a loss Because they wanted to hold the coin and try to profit from it

So I think there there were – there was a lot more interest driven by that than the simple loss of ten percent of the block reward that we started with Huh, that's interesting Well as a final piece, I would like to – I didn't even know that I was going to ask you about this when I first scheduled and interview with you but it is uncanny that just two days after you published your piece on Medium about inflation and hashrate and security, and how all of these things should or should not tie together in your view Vitalik Buterin, head developer of Ethereum, published a piece on the same topic but it seems that he had an entirely different conclusion than you did And I've read just about the first half of that article which, I believe he's going in a totally different direction than you did but I know that you have read the article and I would be interested to hear what you think of his views and how that may mean that Dash will differ from say Ethereum in terms of security and inflation and fees in general Yeah so I think, I liked the article in the sense that I though that he brought up some good food for thought

Some of the things that I liked about it was he talked about the ability of a participant in a network to go around the protocol, and go around the fees, and he calls it a “tax evasion” and he says that theoretically someone could attack, or get around paying the fees that are due to the network by making an indirect payment though another cryptocurrency or something like that to a miner to say hey, include my transactions in a block, even though I’m not sending a transaction fee So in the case of Dash, the transaction fee might be, I don't know I'm going to make it up, point one Dash or something, and 45% of that goes to the miner, so the miner would only be receiving point zero four five Dash as part of that transaction Well, the sender could actually save some money by going around the network completely, sending a transaction with no fees whatsoever, and paying the miner point zero five Dash Both parties are better off, and they, you know, they include this transaction with zero Dash included in it

And so I thought it was good food for thought to think about, well how do you prevent those types of attacks? I think it’s unlikely that with small fees, people are going to go through the trouble to make those types of arrangements except at very large How would one do that? I’ve never even heard of that How does that work? I highly doubt that it occurs Ok But you could imagine a world where a major exchange that has lots of transactions might go directly to a miner and say “Hey, for each one of your blocks that if you include one of my zero fee transactions, I’ll pay you directly” Oh, I see

Like a real person-to-person arrangement Yeah, I think if it ever happened, you’d be able to detect it Certainly if it happened at scale Before you continue, may I make sure that I’m correct – in Dash, are the Proof-of-Work miners able to set a minimum fee that they will amount? Like are there miners in Dash right now who are accepting zero-fee transactions? Like are they able to compete with one another for the fees they’ll accept in that way? Yes, there are zero-confirmation transactions in Dash – Zero fee transactions? Yep I don’t think every miner supports them

But just like Bitcoin when its volume was low, there were altruistic miners that were looking to help grow the network and keep fees low So I think it’s always good to try and reward the efforts of the miners, but yes, it’s possible to send a transaction without fees And so theoretically – I mean you could do the same thing in Bitcoin There’s nothing stopping a Bitcoin miner from including a zero-fee transaction in their blocks But it’s certainly not happening at scale

There’s no evidence that anyone’s going around the system in any way But uh, I don’t think in a system like Bitcoin where 100% of the fees go to the miners that that’s really an attack vector, anyway So it’s something for us to think about and make sure that we’re covering He goes about solving it in a way, though, that’ isn't free-market, and I’m very wary of any solution that is not a free-market solution I think that there are better ways to do it

I think that we have some ideas that we were working on for other reasons that will address it And they just happen to solve that issue And so I think for us it’s going to be a non-issue What is it that he proposes, and what is it that you imagine would be better? Yeah, so he’s proposing something where the protocol itself determines a minimum fee that ensures that given a certain volume – it would work much like a difficulty adjustment where it would be a variable within the protocol that would change over time and ensure there isn’t much of an incentive to go around the network itself So like price fixing? Yeah

It's essentially I thought they already had that with gas I thought that gas was a fixed price, anyway That what was? That like the fees in Ethereum – they call them gas – and I could have sworn that there is a minimum protocol-level gas amount that serves as like a fixed fee, and that’s why like, for example, there was that business – they had an elephant as their logo – Ecoin! Ecoin! It was like a DAPP on Ethereum with its own coin and it wanted to like do its own suite of things, and then when the Ethereum price rose, because gas was fixed and not like something that the miners could compete with one another, for like – hey, I’ll charge you less gas than this other miner over here – Ecoin’s business model became non-feasible because it involved sending many, many, many transactions per day and they could no longer afford the gas, so, okay Well yeah, I think there are minimums in just about any cryptocurrency that relies on fees, but I think that the concept of ratcheting those up when the network gets busy and so forth is part of that equation that he’s talking about In any case, it’s not the sender or the receiver that's setting that rate and determining how quickly they want to receive those funds

So I’m very wary of anything that isn’t free-market like that There are other ways to protect against it, and I’m not an expert on how they work, but there are things we were working on anyway that resolve this issue completely And so, l like I said – he brought up a really good point with that, but I don’t think that it’s really a cause for any concern or something that can’t be easily addressed should it ever arise as a major issue But I did have a lot of criticisms of his paper, too – he basically only analyzed Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake as ways to secure the network, and as we talked about earlier, those clearly aren’t the only two ways Dash has InstantSend that locks transactions through the masternode network in a completely different way

And so I think that assuming that again that hashrate or staking rate is the only way to do it I think is a false one The second thing is he assumes that the only way to generate funds for the network is through transaction fees and inflation, and as Evan talk about in his talk, we want to actually be – you know, provide services outside of that that are revenue-generating for the network and for its users And in that way we become more like a mutual bank or something like that, where the profits of our entity belong to the masternode owners and the users in the form of interest and masternode rewards And so we want to develop some of these alternatives So by assuming that when over time that the inflation rate drops like it does in Bitcoin can only be replaced by transaction fees? I think that that's a false assumption to make, too

And we're going to prove that that's not the only model And then I think that he basically makes a bunch of arguments that bolster the idea that Bitocin getting rid of inflation over time is the wrong answer, and I don’t support that, either I think that inflation is a cost on the network’s users If we can develop a way to eliminate it, that’s the ideal Right? If you can still provide network security, you can provide interest to your users, and you can provide a bounty of different services, and you can do it without inflation? That’s ideal

So you're talking about services – I mean When you say services, are you talking about like PrivateSend and InstantSend? Like the fees that Dash users pay to use those? Or are you talking about something else entirely? I’m talking about something else entirely So one of the things you’ll notice at d10e that Evan talked about was he talked about these three revenue streams, and maybe the third one wasn’t as clear as it could be The third revenue stream is we have the opportunity to take some of our self-funding and invest it You can imagine a plethora of different services that are provided for by an entity or entities that are created by the Dash network We are a DAO, and DAOs can find ways to make money

And, you know, just throwing out some ideas there – what about a for-fee ability to provide arbitrage service, or not arbitrage, services to make decisions between contract owners To say hey, you know, Arbitration Yeah Arbitration services Maybe we could launch anything financially-related

Think about it Wealth management services We could launch investment services We could launch financial advisory services We could launch a network of ATMs that charge a fee to Bitcoin users and it returns its profits to us, and distribute them in the form of interest in masternode rewards

So we have the ability for the network itself tto make profitable investments that feed back to the network And like I said – it’s much like a model of a mutual bank You, me, we’re community members We’re members of the bank We’re in a sense the owners of the bank

And so if the bank makes a profit, that comes back to us And so if we can develop these services – I think we need to get payments right first – but if we can develop these services over time and develop an income stream for the network itself, all of its users benefit That sounds an awful lot like interfacing with the real world, Ryan Are you sure cryptocurrency should aspire to interface with the real world? Well, you know, if you’re an extremist libertarian, maybe not But yeah, I think that engagement and relevancy in the real world is what we’re aiming for

And that’s what makes us different And that’s what is going to allow us to deliver real value beyond what the existing paradigm of cryptocurrency provides So much of cryptocurrency capital – like market cap right now – is speculative – like banking on a potential future in which this stuff is actually useful And so I think, actually without interfacing with the real world, cryptocurrency will have been a massive bubble and we will all come off looking like fools and we will all lose our money Yeah

And I want to get away from the idea that we are competing with all of these other cryptocurrencies, because when you start comparing yourself to your competition and trying to emulate what they’re doing and they’re trying to emulate what we're doing, no, that’s not what Dash is about Dash is about identifying completely new opportunities that nobody else is pursuing, figuring out how to exploit those opportunities, and then delivering value to our customers We’re not simply looking to be the next Bitcoin We’re saying, look, how can we use this new technology to deliver value to the consumer and to merchants in completely new ways? When you framae the question that way, you come up with completely different answers Look at what Bitcoin’s working on

They’re trying to figure out RBF and whether or not to double their block size And these are not things the consumer or merchant cares about Well, they care about the capacity of the network – that they do care about – but they haven’t been able to make any traction even there But when you shift the question and the conversation towards how can we deliver value to merchants and individuals? You come up with a completely different set of answers RBF

Who cares? Who cares? They’re spending all this time working on a technology that no end user or merchant will ever care about And let them Interesting Well, I – yeah When Evan introduced that term at his d10e talk – and by the way, everyone, there will be links for all these things that we're talking about in the description below – Ryan's article, Vitalik's article, and Evan's presentation at d10e – but when he used the term ‘decentralized bank’ in that talk, it really does provide a sort of picture

And it – and, whereas ‘bank’ has been used as the dirtiest of words in cryptocurrency thus far, it asks the question of, oh, well if anybody who wanted to own a portion of a bank could, and could vote as a stakeholder in that bank, and was competing without special, like, privileges granted them, well what might that look like? And it is catchy terms like that like decentralized bank that get the point of things across And so, I guess what I’m saying is it’s interesting and perhaps helpful that y’all decided to use that term and not be afraid of it Yeah, I mean – I think the aspects of a bank that people don’t like – the fractional reserve system – we kicked that out Right? Your money is yours and you hold it and you’re never at risk of losing those funds And so in that sense, we’re not a bank – I can’t imagine it needing extensive regulation if this whole vision were to come to reality, because you’re not loaning that money back out and taking risks with peoples’ wealth

And so it’s really a low-risk way to provide the same types of services without the risk of the entire economy imploding the way that we’ve seen over the last several years with the financial meltdown in the US, Greece, Cyprus, and now Italy is looks pretty shaky And I don’t think we’ve seen the end of it And it goes further back than that – it was the financial crisis in Asia prior to that It’s never going to end And so if we’re going to come up with a superior solution that leverages this technology, we’re going to have to be able to provide the same types of services and experience people are used to, but in a decentralized way

And so I think that Bitcoin has only scratched the surface of what’s possible And when you really start to expand your thinking, and then expand the thought of what this could become, and you start to prioritize those things in a way that’s going to allow you to go to market and capture a portion of it, well now you’ve really opened up a whole new space and a whole new set of value for consumers that never existed before, and value for merchants So yeah – this is the most exciting thing I have ever been a part of and ever been able to have such an influence over and really shape And it’s exciting for me I’m sure it’s exciting for tons of members of our community

We see the potential there, of what this could really become And I’m just proud to be a part of it Well thank you for your time, Ryan, and for anyone who has any follow-up questions for Ryan, he is babygiraffe on Slack – the Slack invitation for that group is in the description below – and he’s also baby giraffe at dash dot org slash forum And maybe we'll talk again in the future Thanks for your time

Alright Thank you I enjoyed it And finally dear viewer, there are two businesses, newly-accepting Dash this week First is CryptoCompare

com a social-geared site for the comparison of cryptocurrency statistics which accepts Dash for advertising Second is 20thCenturyCollectiblescom A private classifieds site for the listing of antiques and collectibles If your Dash-accepting business would like a free shout-out on this show, just email Amanda@Dash

org And red alert! Be sure to list yourself at SpendDashcom so that shoppers can more-easily find you And finally, if you would like DASH: Detailed to arrive in your inbox every Wednesday, send an email to Amanda@Dashorg with the word subscribe in the subject line

And I'll see you next Wednesday Have a good week! You're watching DASH: Detailed and this is: 10 Things That You Need to Know About Dash Dash was launched in January 2014 – then called Darkcoin –