Why we're having a problem:


****************************************
 • it's ok for mined coins to "hit the market" but..
 • not ok for masternode coins to "hit the market"
****************************************

The "opening price" of the coins from the next block are defined by their scarcity. i.e. the cost of the effort required to mine it. (That is the "real" opening price in economic terms that the market pays. Not the exchange price where they change hands transactionally later on).

Every mined coin that hits the market is therefore balanced by an equivalent amount of fiat which is invested in supporting that opening price (minus a minority profit element which is subject to realtime market forces).

On the other hand (OTOH ) a masternode coin is generated with a zero opening price by comparison. There is no such reciprocal investment in the network when it hits the market. The capital value of the chain is therefore depleted chronically in comparison to 100% mined equivalents. Looked at another way (from a purely accounting perspective) you can't support capital growth by continuously drawing down revenue where it's not replenished. Sales of mining rewards do not do this. They are a balanced capital exchange. Masternode rewards do - they are a pure drawdown.

This is why the chain is continuously losing capital value compared to others.

M = Miners
M = Masternodes
M = Market

Miners selling = benign.
Masternodes selling = malignant.

That's the problem because a miner selling is a zero-sum game. Coin goes out and dollars come in. Those incoming dollars go into raising the price of the next block which sets the de facto "starting price" for the coins that emerge from it.

This is what is flawed about the thinking that tries to "minimise coins to market" from mining. First of all, whether a miner sells or holds is irrelevant because the financing still has to be found to cover the mining cost. If the miner holds then "they are the market". If they sell then the "exchange buyer" is the market. In either case the coin gets sold and ALL of the revenue is invested in the network (not in electricity companies as the flawed DCG economic model asserts) but in the network, because the chain is only as valuable as the initial price of the next block (which equals the cost of mining it) and if you progressively diminish that by reducing its scarcity then the market will simply devalue the entire chain accordingly.

Compare the mining (zero-sum) sales model with the sale of masternode rewards. In contrast with mining, the revenue that the masternode owner receives when they sell a reward coin is NOT invested in the network. So that coin had a mining cost of zero and generates zero revenue for the network. The two aspects of network value its sale revenue COULD have been invested in were:

1. scarcity (raising the "opening price" for the next block) as with 100% mined coins or
2. service provision

But it's invested in neither. Instead it's paid in pure dividend to MN holders at which point its value leaves the network entirely. That's the source of the chronic depletion of capital value in the chain. We have around 6500 MN reward Dash just raining down on us every week which are not supporting the price but decimating it. Bitcoin et al do not have this. Each one of their coins goes straight to maximising scarcity by attracting mining investment. Coin goes out, money comes in and that money raises the "opening price" of the next block. The value is retained in the chain.

We're just going to keep getting hammered down by these 6500 coins per week raining down on us like hail until we understand that.

P.S. People may say..."but masternodes deserve to be paid the dividend because they're protecting the network from sybil attacks".   <-- the flaw in this argument is that masternodes are NOT being paid anything. They're incurring such a capital loss that it offsets any Dash-denominated gain from the reward split. So the reward split ends up being meaningless anyway. The way to sort this is to restore the mining reward, retain capital in the chain, still pay masternodes a reward but adjust the setting so that a far higher proportion of that reward is capital gain instead of revenue gain. That way the store of value performance can be recovered for everybody.

Well at least we're making progress in the "mined coins" inverted marketcap olympics. Gained another place and consolidating the position after tentatively passing a competitor in the last 60 days. Compare with a couple of months ago.

Further endorsement of the sound judgement of reducing the aggregate scarcity value in the chain which is something the market clearly doesn't value

Dash/BTC unable to get thingmied below 0.006.

Came back up. (Because UK GUV threw a damp cloth over the De-Fi flames and people are returning to "coins").

Report of the Attorney General's Cyber Digital Taskforce is out. (Dash mentioned). Page 41 "AEC's". Anonymity Enhanced Cryptocurrencies. Explains DGC's recent handbrake turn on "privacy"

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1326061/download

Great !

At least it will be supported by two of the the three "M"s. I don't think it was designed for the third one anyway.

More like the market "finally got to us".

He only ever bothered with top-10 coins. To have him back would be flattery. Job is done as far as that "contributor"'s concerned.

Lets keep things informative around here and let people make their own minds up about whether it's an "improvement" or not 

Although it would be nice to dream of the kind of gains proposed in that video, the guy doesn't realise the implications of what he's saying and what such a valuation would mean for the economic dynamics in Dash.

A 44x gain would have the masternode network costing $1 Billion per year. $19 million per week. On top of that, we'd still have to find the mining cost from the fiat draw on investors. $1 billion per year at near 100% margin over cost, in any industry, by any economic measure is about as likely to happen as golden apples dropping from a tree and if it ever did, about as sustainable as a brick balanced on a pinhead.

Dash valuations hit exponentially growing headwinds as soon as the price gets into 3 figures, just from having to cover masternode margins alone which bleed the ecosystem dry of capital without recycling it (as happens with mining investment). Reflating the mining reward can protect us from those headwinds and streamline the economic drag profile of the coin sufficiently to sustain a growth in price in a way that we were not able to during the last spike.

In the meantime and in the abscence of any such protocol revision, if it ever does get near any heady valuations, take your profits while you can IMO. Put it this way - that's what the founder did

I already answered that: the fact that investors in monero's mined supply get 90% + of the that supply returned to them whereas investors in Dash's mined supply get only half of it.

The supply dynamics arguments you post are speculative. They don't form part of the actual transaction at the time of mining, nor are they consistent across all mined coins. You're doing that thing again where you cherry pick some arbitrary unique property from a selected coin that suits your argument (last time it was BCH, this time it's Monero) and use that to obscure the real and only significant economic attribute which distinguishes Dash from all other mined crypto - the split reward that allows holders to keep half the mining supply instead of delivering it to the investor who pays for the coin to be mined.

In the meantime they don't deliver that value back to the investor in any alternative form (the way the split protocol was original intended - to fund the service layer of the chain).

Good question.

Now that we're dropping through the rankings like a brick built sh*house, (due to siphoning away half the mining reward from coin investors and spending it on holiday cruises instead), maybe we should set our sights more realistically on the bottom ones.

Well it's not because of relative "supply" growth, that's for sure. The amount of supply that's emerged in the rankings above us drowns Dash's few million extra coins in the last several years by orders of magnitude. (Anyway, most of that "supply" has gone to masternodes and not "dumped on markets" by miners, due to our wonderfully stabilising store-of-value reward splt, hasn't it )

That is one of the factors, yes (at least in the mined sector). Dash has been pushed out of the race because it doesn't give mining value for investment in hashrate. (Whether that investment comes from the miner themselves or the investors paying the miner for coin). It simply gets siphoned off and wasted. (Not returned to the investor in the form of a share in the coin supply the way it does with our 100% mined competitors).

The 7 most valuable mineables all have marketcaps over $2 billion at least except Monero which is around $1.6 Bn. Dash can barely muster half a billion.


That's an explanation I'd possibly use if I was preaching to the choir (as you do) or is there were no fundamental differences between Dash and its mined competitors. New investors are likely to see the elephant in the room before parting with their cash.

Because Bitcoin Cash faces competition from 100% mined coins - just as we do - and lost investment to them - just as we did.

So the more relevant question is therefore, if bitcoin cash still has all that hashrate that we apparently don't need, (a la "we don't need all this hashrate"), and on top of that "burden" has nowhere near our functional versatility, why did we not perform FAR BETTER than them ?

No need to answer. Potential investors have already asked that question and answered it for themselves before needing a reply from any of us. (You really do set the bar high with your comparisons b.t.w.)

No it doesn't it means that you're trying take ranking performance (which is a direct measurement of how competitive we are in terms of attracting investment compared to other coins) and turn it into an argument about price performance so you can cherry pick some arbitrary segment of a lame competitor's price history and use it to whitewash a genuine debate about masternode margins, how they are going to waste, depleting capital growth and how Dash ROI does not translate into $USD ROI without factoring in capital losses.

They should be doing a lot better than us in marketcap ranking (according to my theory) which they are and according to your theory, any capital value they have lost should be going to Dash, not other 100% mined coins. I think you might find that's not the case.

Well my "little market theory" would seem to have more voters from those that actually matter - which is market buyers and it isn't difficult to see why because they are getting increasingly screwed for value as we advocate for ever greater primary supply reward to be siphoned away from them and consolidated in the hands of existing holders.

Now nobody benefits - not even those holders - because the market simply keeps devaluing the exchange ratio accordingly to compensate
and will continue to do so. So feel free to keep up the mulish gatekeeping based on a single vote. It won't keep you safe or protect you from capital losses. The masternode network costs half a million dollars right now ever WEEK to run. If the coin value only gets to $200 the enormous masternode margin means that that cost  goes to £1.3 million a WEEK.

That is just bookkeeping facts and they're measurable by any potential investor who's looking for a return on their investment. They want to know where that money's going and how it feeds back to them in the form of a return.

In 100% mining, it's a no brainer - it comes directly back to them in the form of coin. They don't need to go through some brainf*k'd contortion to understand supply dynamics and how that "might" compensate for being short changed after financing the coin production. Maybe you should direct your energies to convincing them rather than me

That's because you've never really understood the principle of what I'm arguing for or seen how it can boost masternode rewards in real terms by prioritising the protocol around preservation of the capital value rather than maximisation of (Dash denominated) revenue. You've always presented your case purely in terms of "supply growth" as denominated in Dash whereas this is irrelevant to most non-Dash holders who might be considering investing in it. What they're interested in is capital growth (measured in $USD, not Dash).

You seem to be advocating a "sell out or shut up" philosophy which is not really in the spirit of the governance principle by which the protocol is directed.

If something's wrong and failing, it's wrong and failing whether governance votes endorse it or not and it should be corrected