I think the term that's starting to be more commonly applied to this type of thing in crypto is "Yearly yield".

That's what the Atomic Wallet calls it at least when comparing staking rewards across different currencies.

Superb !

Yes. They are the same.

"the approx return on investment if purchased at the time of launch (or earliest known price)" = (current value of investment - cost of investment) divided by cost of investment

What are you talking about ?

coimerketcap's definition is correct. Yours is wrong.

They have the cost of the Dash on the denominator. You have the Dash itself on the denominator. They are completely different definitions - you made yours up.


Shortly after launch, Dash price was around $0.74. Now it's around $100. So ROI (according to the definition that I posted which you negate) is:

[ Current value of investment ($100) - Cost of investment ($0.74) ] / [Cost of investment ($0.74)]

 = 134

 = 13,400%

Which squares with coinmarketcap's >9000%.

If Dash is to become "competitive" again - I mean aggressively competitive like it was in its early years before the market became crowded - then it can't afford the kind of laissez faire fanboy, "nothing to see here" promotion that you do in this thread.

You don't do Dash any favours.

There is only one definition of "ROI" and the clue is in the words "Return" on "Investment". The return is on the invested capital, not the 1000 Dash. So if, at the end of the year your 1060 Dash is worth less than what you paid for the 1000 Dash then the ROI is negative. It is not 6%.

You do not get to create your own fake definition of that term just so that what you're promoting looks good alongside competitors. If "other people are doing it" then "other people" are equally scammy. It doesn't do us any favours to join the bandwagon but rather stops us from adequately addressing the real issues such the capital value of holdings and optimising capital gain. It makes like it doesn't exist = you still get 6% return even if the coin loses value. Well you don't as any long term masternode holder will testify.

It's the same hypocrisy as bigging up the treasury system while at the same time dismissing any criticism of masternodes being an economic drag on the coin. Nobody would be likely to argue against getting good value from the treasury such that the proposals presented don't come in at a ridiculous budget over cost. Yet you seem happy for the blockchain to pay masternodes (which are no more than a treasury contractor) several thousands of percent over cost. The treasury and the masternode budget originate from exactly the same source. Paying "too much" for either causes exactly the same economic drag on the coin.

The same is not true for mining. The mining supply that gets "dumped" on markets draws a revenue that goes straight to paying for upwards difficulty adjustments so you can dump mining supply all day long and it just makes the coin harder to access.

Cleaning up these 2 pieces of "scamdom":

 • ditching the term ROI in favour of a more adequately termed descriptor and
 • getting rid of the huge masternode "flab" margins that hold our capital value down

...would go a long way to streamlining competitiveness and getting us ready for a more sustainable next bull market.

How can we complain about the "scammer" label when we engage in this kind of abuse of terminology ?

The 6% is a return, but not on your investment.

Ah, now I understand how you see it. I didn't realise you were intending for the co-ordination of 'members' to be managed off-chain. Apologies.

So you just mean that the collateral would be held in multiple addresses instead of 1 ?

That would be simpler to do than what I was understanding. To me "trustless" meant that you don't even need any "friends" to collateralise the node. But I can still see issues, mainly that any one of them could just bring down the node by moving their funds, so it depends on human co-operation. But I can still see the perceived benefit. It's not one that I think is a very high priority because it's not a great solution for anything other than "friends". Institutionals couldn't rely on it because they'd need to control the address on behalf of their subscribers. So even if the address was split they'd still be controlling them all.

So I still think all this stuff needs to be in the trusted sector and securitised. I don't think multiple address collateral adds anything to the service potential of the chain other than as you say "friends".

But technically it's a lot simpler than what I thought you originally were advocating.

I don't think you realise the can of worms that this opens. Whether it's 5 shared owners or 5000, the principle's the same and so are the problems.

Dash is bitcoin in terms of protocol. The blockchain works in granular units denoted by an address. Those are the "accounts". What you're describing is a meta account that would need entry, exit and balancing protocols just to support exactly the same multi-ownership logic that a single address does at the moment with multi-sig except it would need a lot more on top.

It 's neither practical nor advisable to do this on-chain IMO. It's an off-chain commercial activity.

What's more likely to happen IMO is that this type of service will be supported cross chain, along the lines of the "wrapped Dash" type of idea on say the Ethereum blockchain or one of the other De-Fi chains. That way the actual masternode collateral would continue to be held in the simple, single address configuration but all the complex business logic associated with securitising that holding would be performed on other chains. You'd probably even get multiple platforms doing it with a variety of contractural terms and conditions. (e.g. different minimum timelocks, reward address options, automated currency conversion, fee structures etc). All of that sh* is not stuff you want in the Dash blockchain. It's going to happen anyway whatever Dash does or doesn't do, and not just for masternode addresses, for ALL, so we're better off concentrating on core services that are native to the protocol layer IMO.

So what happens if you have 1000 contributors to a single trustless shared collateral address and one of them moves their funds ? The entire node stops receiving rewards ?

A queing system where leavers are swapped out for joiners ? How do you then manage all that without traffic windows where the node is unserviceable ? How do you manage priority ?

This is a different type of monetary asset IMO that's more akin to proof of stake except without the simplicity. Sticking this type of service into a blockchain is the domain of de-fi, on-chain contract type stuff. The beauty of the masternode model is its simplicity and its faithfull inheritance of bitcoin's blockchain protocol where a masternode address is indistinguishable from any other address on the chain both in terms of functionality and liquidity.


With a bit if imagination it's not difficult to get the best of both worlds. Dash is a peer to peer monetary system and there's no change there but it isn't Dash's job to manage who owns its holdings and there's always going to be a contractural ecosystem "out there" away from the blockchain that grows around it. If you don't have clear demarkations between the two, you end up with nasty couplings into a world of business logic that's the thin end of a very large wedge of headaches. The gold trying to be the safe as well.

We do not want that IMO.

I don't know why you're posting that.

It doesn't support your fantasy definition of "ROI" since none of them put the invested asset on the denominator of the ROI calculation as you do. They all use cost of investment at the time of purchase on the denominator, consistent with the Investopedia definition I posted above. It's just that they offer a range of results against different currencies invested.

So if you invested dollars in Dash you'd get the ROI based on the change in $USD value of Dash.

If you invested BTC in Dash you'd get the ROI based on the change in BTC value of Dash.

The only currency you CAN'T use to calculate ROI is Dash itself because you don't invest Dash in Dash.

There isn't "more than 1 definition of ROI in crypto".

You can't put the thing you invested in on the denominator of an ROI calculation. It's the original cost that goes on the denominator, not the thing you bought. That applies in crypto or anywhere else.

If you invest in a property and at the end of the year calculate your ROI as (1 House / 1 House) then you'd always have an ROI of 0% regardless of its value. That's what you're trying to (scammily if I may so) pass of as "ROI" with regards to Dash. You're saying that because you have 1060 Dash this year and 1000 Dash last year that represents an ROI of 6%.

There's no sense in which that is an ROI because you didn't invest 1000 Dash, you invested whatever 1000 cost at the time you bought. That's what the return has to be measured against otherwise you're just measuring Dash against itself. By that faulty formula I could split a length of string into 2 pieces and say I had twice as much string.

No there isn't there's only 1 which is the one cited in my previous post. Any other definition is philosophical at most.


The don't called it "ROI" because it isn't a return on investment, it's a rate of accrual of Dash which is a very different thing. They are even numerically different. They can even have different signs, one plus the other minus.

The two cannot be conflated unless it's a stablecoin.

That is an unfortunate fact we can agree on and why it's no longer as expensive as its 100% mined equivalents that we used to share the top 10/20 marketcap range with.

About as smart as replacing gold with sand so you don't have to pay miners to dig it.

Masternode ROI is:

(Annual Reward + Capital Gain or Loss on the Collateral) as a percentage of the opening value (in dollars or other equivalent stable currency) of 1000 Dash.

It is not:

(Reward / Collateral)

You can continue to call it that if you like but it's extremely misleading at best and outright deception at worst.

But it isn't and no investor that researches Dash is going to pretend it is, so stop using it because it only obscures the understanding of how the monetary mechanics of our investment work. It works for stablecoins but not for Dash as demonstrated here.

Yes indeed. And abuse of terminology only increases that risk. So stop mis-labelling masternode reward percentages as "ROI".

You may think that but it isn't "perfectly reasonable" and no self respecting investor would accept that definition. If it held, it would mean that a positive "ROI" could still leave you with a valueless holding.

If you measure it in crypto then you can't call it ROI.

Your "invested capital" is what you used to buy the Dash, not the Dash itself. I realise that may seem a small and insignificant distinction to some but it isn't, it's huge, because it makes the difference between prioritising earnings or capital gains.

My argument is that we need to target capital gains because one of the criteria for running a masternode (as opposed to, say mining) is that you have to post a large amount of collateral which means that capital gains are actually far more important to you than earnings as soon as the exchange rate moves more than 6% either way. Miners meanwhile are a business. It's a very different model. They're not investors in Dash, they're investors in mining equipment.

Calling the masternode reward "ROI" is therefore a misnomer. It is not a 6% "return" on anything. It's just 6% of the collateral but that's not what you invested, it's what you purchased WITH your investment.

Let us examine this in a quantified manner:

You can now see the distinction. ROI is only the same as masternode earnings (expressed as a percentage) in one case = the stablecoin case. But Dash is not a stablecoin so it doesn't apply.

But that is not ROI. It's the "Dash annual masternode revenue" expressed as a percentage of the collateral.

That is not ROI which is a very different thing.