Recent Dash Merchant Venezuela Survey is Faking Data According to Masternode Operator
Cryptocurrency Dash has been faring quite well in Venezuela. Allegedly over 2,500 merchants and tens of thousands of users have adopted the cryptocurrency. Joel Valenzuela, Dash Director of Public Outreach, recently stated
“It’s been amazing to watch the first country in the world adopt cryptocurrency at the merchant and consumer level to such a degree, especially a country that desperately needs it like Venezuela. It has been the perfect combination of decentralized cryptocurrency, low fees and fast transactions primed for use as everyday money, and a decentralized autonomous organization that has enabled a small, grassroots team to obtain the organization and funding of a large company, without asking permission from any one entity.”
The presented dominant presence that the cryptocurrency has been talking about may not be the case, according to a recent report. The report, titled Survey of Dash-Accepting Business in Caracas Venezuela and authored by Edward Stoever, was made available this month. The report features a survey of 299 merchants asking whether they accept dash. Of the surveyed merchants, only 27% reported that they do accept Dash. Meaning, the majority does not accept the cryptocurrency.
The report also highlights a number of contradictions made by Dash Venezuela to the community. For example, even though Dash represents that “thousands of retailers and services” use its cryptocurrency, the report indicates that 299 merchants were listed in Caracas, Venezuela as accepting Dash as a form of payment and 60.5% “could not be located and/or contacted.” Of course, there is always the chance that the addresses were not inputted correctly or the merchant refused contact.
Mr. Stoever’s report did not go unnoticed by the Dash team. The team attacked the methodology and identified the businesses that were noted as unreliable by the report. Dash responded to part of the allegations in the report by stating, “Our independent audit of the same 266 merchants resulted in the following observations: We were able to provide status to 60% of the merchants that the report specifically stated could not be contacted. This means there is only 32% with the “could not be contacted” status rather than 60.52% (as claimed by the survey) and 8% pending for contact. 14% of Merchants listed correspond to Dash Venezuela initiatives and should be excluded from the analysis.
Only 6 of the 15 days when the survey was carried out were working days (due to blackouts, public holidays). This may have had a material effect on the ability of the surveyors to contact/locate the Merchants sampled during this period and therefore invalidate the findings presented in the Survey. At the very least, such a large discrepancy in the number of contactable Merchants demonstrates that there is a major problem with the methodology of the surveyors in the report produced.”
Stover replied that even though the platform was able to locate a merchant does not mean that said merchant accepts Dash. He also issued a new report on the matter.
Interestingly enough, this report isn’t Dash Venezuela’s only issue. The platform’s team has also been accused of embezzlement.