Be my guest. You and anyone else are free to take the discussion anywhere you want it. Promote Dash's "store of value features" and give investors a reason to invest. Preferably an actual monetary mechanism whereby their investment can grow that is, not a bunch of cheap newflashes that might have raised an eyebrow in 2015.

The elephant in the room is that by giving away half the blockchain supply at zero price without asking for anything in return simply forces the secondary market price towards zero and creates huge headwinds for any investor from the consequent chronic profit-realisation pressure. We have no on-chain sink to offset this as De-Fi chains do since Dash is a bitcoin clone where scarcity is the invested-in property.

It doesn't increase demand for masternodes either because the risk of capital loss is so high if the reward ratio is set wrong (which it is at the moment) given that a large amount of capital collateral is required. For example, take the recent price drop from $200 to $165. How long would it take for masternode rewards to recover that capital loss ? Go on, work it out. I calculated it at around 3 years.

3 years to recover a capital loss that occurred in under 10 days.

That's why targeting capital gain instead of Dash-denominated income would be a far more fruitful and optimal route for the Dash protocol to follow. It's a risk asset anyway by any definition, not a fixed income bond. Potential investors know this which is why we're clinging on to the top 70 by the fingernails most of the time and our fully-mined contemporaries get the investment instead.

Until this gets addressed that will be the case long term.

This is making it it up as you go along & clutching at any old thing that springs to mind to arrest the rot. The "people like to own at least one of something" school of financial analysis. Warren Buffet et al sure missed a trick there.

Try simply not dumping 320,000 Dash per annum of unrealised profit on the market and make people bid for it instead.

You'll soon see that make a difference.

I get gobsmacked that you can justify this (which makes no net difference to demand - there are plenty of multiples of $160k floating around looking for a home with a return) yet you can't justify a change which makes a material difference to demand by exposing more of the supply to competitive bidding.

What's the brain block ?

Nice. Could you also add a feature to slide the protocol reward sharing back towards mining so we can reflate the demand for our primary supply and start recovering some of the marketcap ranking we lost ?

That would be the killer feature.

Ok, Zeus looks like it's working bootiful. Once you understand how the Dash-admin user works (+ need to issue a "protx update_service" transaction to re-sync the new IP).

ok, that moves me forward a bit. I now understand what that "dash" folder was under /home. It was a new user. It also now makes sense of those messages during zeus installation about "enter any password for the Dash user, doesn't matter what it is and you don't need to remember it". I didn't have a clue what "user" was being alluded to there when I installed it the first time.

So Zeus not only installs the core downloads, it also creates an admin user to run it. I can see that can be handy but it makes things a bit confusing without clear documentation. (You're writing the documentation as we speak !)

For example I already created an admin user and put them in the sudoers before I even decided where I was going to get the Dash installation packages from. (lets call it "@tokuser"). So when I downloaded zeus and ran it, it all ran under that account. Then if I "su" into your dashadmin user, as you say you can launch dashd and so on. But I hit 2 problems there:

1. if you need to sudo a command while in the dashadmin user, it asks for the "dash" user password (the one the installation instructions say "just type anything, it isn't too important to remember". So I didn't bother remembering it)

2. to access the Zeus status monitor you need to switch ("su") back to the account that zeus was installed into (in my case "tokuser")

Is this how you envisaged it being used ? (Not a criticism, just asking). Am I missing some steps ?

It works bootiful. Very nice utility. That's what's needed, a menu driven thing (or simple command driven like Dashman that doesn't contain show stoppers like "sh: 18: nvm: not found" or where the instructions in the main Dash documentation look totally different from the Github docs).

Would be good to evolve. I hope you got paid for it (from the Dash DAO   It sure is better value than Ben Swan's 2000 Dash studio). Could do with a bit more error reporting, for example it reports "Sentinel: Failed" but thats it. How does one debug that ? The log is kind of ambiguous and low level - nothing obvious. Block height is current. (ok, looks like the wrong privkey - I entered the old one instead of the blsprivkey).

There is no menu option to start or restart the node. Raw dash-cli commands don't seem to work in the shell, is this because you have to go through Zeus ? Does the node startup and shutdown in sync with the utility or something like that ? (It doesn't seem to. So need to launch it from the shell it seems but dash-cli commands are responded to by "dash-cli: not found"). Does one need to be in a particular working directory for "dash-cli" to be recognised ? Or run some shell command to have them recognised ? Where are the binaries even stored these days ? (Tried /usr/bin, /home/dash, .dashcore, zeus home folder etc).

What's the diff between Zeus and Dashmate ? You wrote it ?

It sounds cool and easy to use. Why don't Dashcore adopt it over dashmate as the "official" utility ? Installed Ubuntu 20.10 on a brand new volume, followed Dashmate instructions to a T but "npm install --lts" () just returns  "sh: 18: nvm: not found". All downhill from there so dashmate's a show stopper. (It's nvm install --lts in the main documentation and npm install in the github instructions)  .

I know you're a cool dude who's integrity is unimpeachable, but is using utilities from random 3rd party's a good idea for installing core node operating code ? Just asking  

Just trying to get docker to install is a feat in itself. Proving impossible. End up spending hours on stackexchange and askubuntu. Unable to fetch some archives etc.
Ubuntu v15 too old I think.

Is anything going on in this coin anymore ?

There seem to be about 9 or 10 threads on dash.org forums started in 2021, all with very polite titles.

This was a very good coin with great potential. But its place amongst the monetary system protocols had to be understood and appropriately levered to succeed. Instead our business model got characterised as "how to create a coin as cheaply as possible". Now we can't even surf the bitcoin wave and match our fully mined competitors.

How much do folks need their noses rubbed in the mud to realise that the Dash protocol is wrongly configured ?

That is the question  

The days of those kind of ratios are gone.

There's far too much competition now and bitcoin has established itself - post fork - as the reference store of value.

moon.

OBV does show accumulation in line with price.



It's even doing something against Bitcoin for now. Nearly 5 Bitconifer for a masternode.

At that price Dash will be generating its masternode holders $taxable profits of $50 million per week, $400 million per month, $4.8 billion per year.

Who is going to sustain that ? Who's on the other side of the accounting equation ? What happens to those profits ?

They get realised and that's what causes the crash (if it even gets that far) because there's precisely no-one on the other side of the accounting equation. There is no service-value that even reaches a thousandth of a percent of those revenue figures. In fact near on a couple of billion per year will have to be dumped just to fund the tax on the weekly rewards.

This does not happen in fully mined coins because the growth manifests as unrealised gains instead so they are far more sustainable. Even miners costs scale with coin price. De-fi deals with it by having on-chain sinks that grow with use, so market buyers don't need to be found to sustain everything.

So sure, the price might spike up to something interesting for an instant, but masternode rewards are so toxic at those levels that they just extinguish the growth.

"Difficulty" is a measure of how competitively the coins are bid for in the primary market.

But Dash doesn't expose all of its supply to that bidding process. Only about 45% of it is. The rest is supplied to existing holders at zero price. Those coins are then sold in the secondary market (exchanges) where the seller will be at a profit at any price all the way to zero, unlike their mining counterparts. That's what results in a decoupling (as far as that portion of the supply goes) between mined price ("difficulty") and market price.

The masternode is not penalised for selling below market price (they would be if the reward appropriately reflected their operating cost). The miner is however.

He ran out of arguments to counter my contra-narrative posts. (Or wasn't being paid enough )

Speaking of which, it was interesting to note that the fairvalue chart which has traditionally favoured the Dash price as being undervalued on fundamentals compared to the market value (i.e. fairvalue was higher than market price), now has us at $31.

Woops.

Litecoin and Tezos are the big investibles on there now according to that metric.

This only works if you measure your wealth in Dash. Nobody does that. They measure their return against whatever currency they invested to acquire the holding and against other assets that they "might" have invested in (opportunity cost).

Dash therefore cannot "pay ROI". Only the market can do that (by revaluing the masternode collateral which has far more to do with "ROI" than masternode rewards do). Lets say an investor buys a masternode for $200. Then the price drops to $170. It would take more than 2 FULL YEARS of masternode rewards just to recover that loss and break even again assuming the price didn't correct any further.

So the protocol should be optimising ROI from capital gain, not from masternode reward *. Then the rewards will take care of themselves. The two are completely distinct concepts to the extent that increasing masternode reward beyond the optimal point, DECREASES ROI by having an adverse impact on the exchange rate (which in turn devalues the collateral). This is what we always see once the nodecount reaches equilibrium.

* There are a whole host of other advantages from this, not least that ROI from capital gain does not attract tax whereas masternode rewards do, so we'd be ditching a whole lot of statutory compliance selling pressure which we have now

To this point:


Ok, lets "think of it like a bank". Here you can see exactly the problem. You don't earn interest just by having a balance. The bank has to re-invest your balance in some economic activity that generates NEW WEALTH. That activity has to be profitable to the extent that there is a surplus to pay your interest. So that could be road building, oil extraction, commercial services whatever.

Masternode collateral is only "invested' to the extent that the role of the node generates economic activity that revalues that collateral. In Dash's case there is no such onchain token-burning activity (like De-FI tokens have) so it has to be monetary velocity. But you can see from the above trends that that that has dropped to near nothing. So we're back to Dash original inheritance from bitcoin - store of value. We are offering scarcity and we should just admit that. Scarcity is optimised through mining (because competitive mining maximises the cost of acquisition from the primary supply). To compete against bitcoin we then add back in services but not by compromising scarcity the way we are at the moment, rather by selecting the reward ratio that optimises capital gain (described a couple of posts back).

Did you read a single thing I wrote above ?

We're not rewarding masternodes for their investment if they don't hold their dollar value after the nodecount stabilises. We're penalising them for their investment.

(Note I said after the nodecount stabilises, so your reference price for store-of-value metrics - according to your own criteria - is the Dash price once the new nodecount equilibrium is reached. Not some "got in early" pre-pump price).

Could be yes, could be not. I see 4516 nodes. You see ~4700 using your metrics. Either way it's the change in MN count that causes the price rise. Once it reaches the new equilibrium stable nodecount that's when we get the problem again - of cancerous free monetary issuance tanking the price as it spills onto exchanges.

i.e. you're proving my point - that it's the 1st derivative of masternode count that causes the marketcap growth, not the count itself. Therefore a strategy is needed to optimise marketcap when masternode growth rate is zero. That is the strategy I outlined here (and quantified here) so that we could more intelligently target the "sweet-spot" optimal store-of-value performance point illustrated here.

Because we're getting a tiny bit of growth from the massive capital inflows to bitcoin and crypto in general.

But nothing that does justice to Dash's unique technological innovation that allows it to absorb as much mining interest as bitcoin while supporting a service protocol at blockchain level which bitcoin cannot.

The reason for that is that the protocol has been rigged to give away more than half the supply for zero dollars rather than exposing it to competitive bidding as all our contemporary fully-mined competitors did (and have therefore ended up with better store-of-value performance and consequently more blockchain use than we have).

For such a "big platform" it doesn't seem to be seeing much use does it ?

There's always #pumpiscoming