I apologize for the "misleading" statement on the wiki, and I would definitely welcome any assistance you can provide in "cleaning it up." However, when I wrote that particular page, my intention was to give an overview of the budget system to a complete newbie who has no idea how it works. There is a real danger in getting too technical (have you ever wondered about a technical question, searched Wikipedia, and ended up with glazed-over eyes and absolutely no understanding of the subject?)

I mean, if we want to get technical about it, the budget system doesn't allocate block rewards 45%/45%/10% like most people think. The 10% that's withheld for the budget system is actually hardcoded to the minimum block reward. If hash power is low, DGW adjusts the difficulty, and block reward goes up. It's possible for the block reward, for instance, to be 5 DASH. Yet only 0.388 DASH will be allocated to the budget system, for instance. (At least that's my understanding of how things worked before 12.1). Also, fees are split 50/50 between miners and masternodes, not 45/45/10 as one might assume. But for somebody new to Dash (my target audience) I think that's only going to confuse them, and I doubt they really care.

P.S. If you really believe we are ratio-bound and won't exceed 0.02 BTC/DASH, why invest in DASH? Why not just invest in Bitcoin, then?

I don't think that 10% of Masternodes is nearly enough to commit funds --unless all "members of the board" "employees" devs power-brokers recuse themselves from voting in every case where there is any possible conflict of interest.  Otherwise the "vote" is a complete sham.  Why even pretend to be democratic when only 10% of an already-elite group can make all the decisions?  You might as well just be Bitcoin.  If a higher percentage (at least 50% of masternodes) isn't required, then, Evan, et al (not sure who the other higher-ups all are -- but certainly anyone who is paid any kind of a salary out of the proceeds of the "development fund") need to publish their Masternodes and not vote -- let "outsiders" vote according to the merits of the proposals.

I see this as being like the ideological battle between communism and capitalism.  Bitcoin is, in a way, communist; 100% of the rewards go to the laborers (miners) (never mind that owning a decent mining setup nowadays requires a ton of real-world capital).  I like the fact that Dark/Dash has come up with a way for people to also earn rewards for simply owning enough capital.  I also like that the incentives are aligned; Masternode owners have to lock up their funds, so they can't trade in and out -- they've got to be long-term hodlers, and as more Masternodes are brought online, more Dash are locked up and out of the reach of the traders, thereby lowering supply and hopefully driving the price upward -- which rewards Masternode owners, miners, and small-time hodlers alike.  It's win-win-win.

But it's not win-win-win when somebody can propose something that exclusively enriches a certain few people, and those certain few people have enough power to make that proposal effective.  This is an effective kleptocracy, and I don't think that anybody really wants to be associated with that.  Yes, we all want to make money, but a system that basically ensures that the rich get richer is pretty sleazy IMO.  The Masternodes already do enough in that regard.  And Masternode owners are supposedly in this for the long-haul.  At current prices, a Masternode is over $20,000 -- that's a pretty hefty amount.  Masternode owners are keeping that money invested in order to earn a return -- paid in Dash.  Those Dash will be worthless if people decide to abandon the currency due to concerns about propriety among the whales owners developers (because they are largely the same people).  Think long-term.  The best possible proposals, for the long-term success of Dash, would be:

A) Change the voting requirement to 50% of MN owners;
B) Change the voting requirement to include some percentage of miners;
C) Dedicate some portion of the "10% funds" to trading accounts on major exchanges which is run exclusively to manipulate the price of Dash upwards.

That's my piece.  I may follow this thread a bit more, but I don't have the kind of time that I used to have for this kind of stuff anymore.  I do appreciate the further development of Dash, but I fear this self-serving "governance" is leading us all down a blind alley.

Now for something completely different : i suspect only one or two months till we get the official announcement who will be our new major exchange supporting Dash also in FIAT pairs
(https://www.dashcentral.org/p/bsdev-general-201702). Who do you guys think it is ? Or hope it is ?

It's gotta be bitstamp coinbase or kraken.

I understand that the incentives are all generally aligned -- to make DASH go higher in value.  But that doesn't keep people from voting to give money to themselves or their friends.  

Basically,with all of this talk of Governance, Dash is turning itself into kind of a corporation.  The MN owners are like stockholders, and the big MN owners (hundreds of MNs) are like the Board of Directors.  

The most likely one seems to be Coinbase, according to what I read. To me, Kraken has the best reputation of the three, but anyone of those would be cool.