Don't you mean 50-60 ?

60000 masternodes is 8 x the entire coin supply.

3 years of development, stable trading and high marketcap ranking got priced in.

The triggers for the pricing in were:

 • Dash's next generation version is on the horizon this year
 • Successful hardfork with no hiccups was completed
 • Trading T/A: the Dash/BTC market reached a long term crossover of moving averages which indicated the onset of a multi-month bull market

Speaking of which, I discovered a website I thought you might like.

Really ? Well in that case, here's a free "tip off" to start your campaign with.

I have some wild strawberries growing in my back garden. I believe they have market value and I'm pretty certain my garden's not been "Registered as as a security" other than for securing the occasional encounter with a tub of ice cream and some hungry kids.

Afraid I can't help you with the "Lawyer's contact info" but a decade's worth of yield should get them interested so I doubt you'll have a problem

Well I suppose when 2 years of cantankerous griping, gratuitous character assassination and vacuous arguments are all lying in shreds on the floor, appealing to "mommy" government regulators is about all you've got left.

That does seem a little undignified for someone who's been promoting black-tunnel money in the name of 'personal liberty' though, I must say.

I suppose they can come in handy if you're in a tight spot. Good luck 

You can't use Dash to buy Dash. So that isn't the most logical explanation.

The most "logical explanation" is in fact that 3 years of development, trading and distribution are being priced in. Previous "large holders" are no longer in possession of what they started off with and OTC sales have dried up.

Secondly, the Dash technical and monetary model has been successful in that it it's been made to work not only for miners and merchants but holders as well. (See stakeholders: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1433982.msg14584154#msg14584154).

You don't need 1000 Dash to benefit from this. There are no loads of investors who have their holdings invested in shared node collateral. Albeit these are 3rd party services at the moment but trustless ones are on the roadmap.

See more here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg12549331#msg12549331


1. The tokens aren't "locked up"
2. The scarcity isn't "artificial", it's real

...once he gets his faulty "signal box" sorted.

Yes we do.

The market is consolidating into 4 sectors:
 
 • a monetary reserve store of value
 • a monetary functional and commercially versatile store of value
 • encrypted payment rails
 • non-monetary blockchains

LoL !

I think I'll start "Churchcoin". Looks like there's a market. Could partner with "Democracy Coin" for those who think markets work like democracies

Thanks. Will read with interest.

"Volatility" (and whether it's favourable or adverse to investors) is a relative thing.

If I'm holding bitcoin as a store of value and it protects me against the collapse of a fiat currency, than that qualifies as "volatility", but I'm on the right side of that volatility by having identified the appropriate monetary priority according to my needs.

If, on the other hand, I'm a motor car manufacturer and have a 6 month time to market, then I need to be on the other side of that "volatility" equation in order to make sure that my revenues are measured in the same units as my budget and I am able to escape the equation with a positive margin.

This is the conflict I was explaining earlier between a currency and a store of value and why if you try to be both you'll end up with a "crap crypto".

Conclusion: Currencies (unit of measure) and Stores of Value are not in conflict as long as you decouple them. They are complimentary. One is needed for commercial operations so the projects don't go bust (due to adverse effects of volatility), the other is needed for storing value BETWEEN commercial operations (accrued from beneficial effects of volatility).


Actually, the Euro was as much an initiative of France as any. Valery Giscard D'Estang proposed it to Germany in 1964 precisely because France was suffering from the adverse "coupling" that I've been describing between stores of value and units of measure.

At that time the post war Western world was operating under the Bretton woods system where currencies were tied to Gold regardless of whether any country had a trade surplus or deficit. This meant that national currencies were conflicted between operating as a unit of measure and store of value and had to go begging the IMF to demand that a neighbouring central bank should purchase more or less of their "currency" just so their population could make ends meet.

You say that Germany wanted to "eliminate exchange rate risk for their European markets". While that may have been a handy bonus for Germany, it wasn't the agenda that created the Euro. That was simply one of globalism - where the US wanted to consolidate Europe into a firewall against the USSR and picked Germany as the seed since it was the primary subject of the post war "carve up".

Anyway, that's all politics.

The monetary lessons are: Don't integrate a store of value with a currency and don't integrate a payments system with either of the other two

It doesn't matter what the "unit-of-account and exchange" is, or whether it's globalized or not.

The trade value of a collateralising asset is independent of how it is measured.

Prior to 2009 there were no electronically manifested collateralising assets. That is because such an asset needs to be capable of reconciling two key properties in a single trade:

 • ownership
 • possession

Subsequent to 2009, this was possible and the value will accrue accordingly.

The currency units that are used to measure that value are irrelevant.

Yes, they can.

Not really - only in a notional sense.

They hold a diverse range of "forms of money". It's just that they all share the same denomination. (See here: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Pages/iadb/notesiadb/m4.aspx).

You're mixing up collateralising assets (or stores of value), units of account and payment systems. These are three distinct aspects of a financial system that can be, and usually are, completely decoupled. All the same they all tend to have the same unbrella term "money" applied.

To illustrate, lets take something that we're familiar with - a cryptocurrency exchange (Poloniex, say).

1. You start with a collateralising asset (100 BTC, blockchain based)

2. You make a deposit.
At this point, there is 200 BTC in circulation. That's because you just "signed" a contract with the exchange to permit them to bring an additional 100 BTC of derivative tokens into existence backed by a line of credit that you give them. The original 100 BTC are still circulating on the blockchain. While you're trading, they may lend them out at interest, buy stuff with them - whatever - depending on the terms of contract for depositing on the exchange.

3. You trade. You are trading with other parties who are all using the same class of "money" (credit backed tokens) but denominated differently - Ethereum, Mooncoin, you name it. Note ! While you are trading, none of the blockchain properties of the respective coins make a damn bit of difference to the trading experience. All trades are instant, support the same level of privacy, etc. That's because your are using a payments system (SQL server in this case) which is independent of the technical properties of the collateralising asset. It's also independent of the blockchain denomination which is an important point (see below).

4. You withdraw funds.
At this point, you may have your balance denominated differently to what you started with which will allow you to exchange your balance for a different blockchain token

You can see from those two examples that price denomination, collateralising capital and payment systems are all distinct. Adopting a "currency" means no more than re-denominating the capital base. "Holding a currency" means holding an asset that's denominated in that currency. (That could just as easily be Bitcoin bonds as a private key to a bitcoin balance, so it doesn't have to be a bearer instrument). "Clearing a trade" means using a payment system to facilitate an asset exchange in an arbitrarily nominated currency. "Holding a collateralising asset" means holding a bearer token or instrument where owner and possesor are indistinct. (i.e. where the denomination is instrinsic e.g. piece of coal, diamond, pound in weight of siliver or Blockchain private key).

These three aspects of monetary media not only are distinct, but actually have conflicting priorities - which is why they are almost never the same medium. If you try to create a crypto that does these three things well it will be a crap crypto because you'd have to create nasty couplings between conflicting objectives:

 • Payment systems need to be currency agnostic whereas blockchains have to be currency native
 • good stores of value need to impose scarcity to deflate prices over time whereas good currencies need to inflate liquidity to keep prices stable
 • currencies must be definable against a heterogeneous background of both payment systems and collateralising assets, whereas payment systems only facilitate the clearing of a trade and represent neither a currency nor an asset

Think of it this way. If a Shakespearean play was performed in different countries around the world, then:

 • the language of the performance would be the currency
 • The village Stage would be the payment system
 • The literary work "Hamlet" would be the collateralising asset

Script translation...$100.
Rental of the stage...$400.
Copyright to the script ? (Priceless...!)

I'd agree with that. But "becoming a currency" doesn't necessarily make an asset more valuable.

Lets say the UK government decided to "adopt" bitcoin overnight by denominating the entire economy in "BTC". So the next day, all prices in supermarkets would be in BTC, national accounts reported in BTC, bank account balances re-denominated in BTC and taxes charged and paid in BTC.

All that would happen is that the payment systems, barcodes, shelf labels and national report generators would be reconfigured (in terms of units) to display BTC instead of Pounds Sterling. The M0 to M4 money supply tiers would still exist and continue on at around £2 Trillion. So you'd have an effective broad monetary base of 1000 Billion bitcoins, even though only 15 Million existed on the blockchain.

However, since "currency" as a unit of measure and "monetary assets" as a store of value are distinct concepts, what would happen is that one would simply decouple from the other in terms of value. You can see that's already happened with all fiat currencies since they are mostly named after weights of metals (Peso, Pound etc). Nowadays:

1 Pound of sterling silver metal at spot price = 16 Ounces = £223 Pounds of sterling currency.

The thing is, this deflationary property that the base asset has (i.e. prices measured in pounds of sterling silver decrease while prices in sterling currency inflate) isn't confined to assets who's names happen to be adopted for price denomination. It happens anyway.

So the moral of the story is that cryptocurrencies - if they want to accrue value over time - should NOT model themselves on payment systems or currencies. They should model themselves on hard assets with limited supply that have the added bonus of being mobile on an electronic network and can therefore serve as an electronic "bearer token".

This's what makes them supremely powerful !

What exactly do you understand by the term "currency" out of interest (as distinct from an electronic asset that is deployed as a store of value) ?

He didn't. I don't know where you heard that.

Excellent !

Cryptocurrencies are not actually a "currency". They are far more like equity than a currency and an equity valuation model isn't inappropriate.

For a start, "currencies" are used to measure value independently of their monetary base. For example, if a regional authority is in the process of commissioning an estuary bridge which takes 4 years to build, it will create work in progress entries in its books which will be monetised by credit markets at discrete points to keep the project financed. (This is the 'creating money out of thin air" aspect of currencies)

Crypto, on the other hand, is simply an electronic asset which markets have decided to endow with tradeable value - the only difference form a peice of rock being that it can travel through wires and therefore can be used to directly exchange for goods and services as if it were 'electronic currency'. That exchange is actually barter because instead of being carried out in abstracted monetary units who's denomination is independent of the material of the trade, it's simply a straight swap.

I realise that.

Unfortunately your home-cooked arbitrary definitions of "marketcap" don't count.