It's just like the economics of any other "product". If the masternodes are delivering a service that has value to the end user then that will change the whole game and the investment will start to be attractive. But if they're delivering a service that costs peanuts to run and charge (peanuts x 1000) for it then that business model isn't going to last very long. Nor is the coin going to be investible for store of value purposes if its "store of value" is based on delivering a service that's way overpriced.

So while there's so much margin in the node revenues (that investors end up paying for and get nothing in return) it should be directed to miners (because then at least investors get "coin"in return and will keep on investing). If "Evo" starts to be expensive to run and cost MN's more to host then there might be a case for directing more reward share to nodes if there's a lot of uptake (network traffic).

Dash conifer not able to push below 0.006 on the raiche, despite trying extremely hard. Could be a sticker after multiple retests holding.

Even more "stickiness" could be achieved by recovering the mining reward which has gone to waste in paying for the most expensive network of nodes on the planet despite them delivering no net measurable value to end users nor investors. This has resulted in USD$ based masternode ROI being trashed to the floor by investors once capital losses are summed with nominal gains measured in Dash.

You can see why the model attracts the "scam" label: If you sell someone a tonne of sand on the basis of a promise of them growing their sand holding, but then you just increase the grain count instead of the weight - you gonna get some people complaining 'bout that.

The way to resolve this is to restore the proportion of the supply that's exposed to competitive mining (the definition of "scarcity" in the commercial sector which Dash exists and is trying to compete).

That way we might relieve ourselves of the catastrophic weight of masternode costs that's suffocating our marketcap and start reviving this coin back to health and competitivity.

Hey. What's not to like  

Signalling Wednesday.

Dashconifer concluding its third and final retest of support at a higher low of 0.006602 and now recoupling with Bitconifer on the ascendancy.

r.o.f.l. That's a troll account. (And this is the "troll thread")

They don't do "tones".

Doge does not have a masternode network to pay for. You don't need to look any further than that to see why they're so close to us in marketcap. It's nothing to do with how they denominate their coin supply.

So you think the Japanese Yen is more investable than the UK Pound because currency traders can have "more Yen" than pounds ?



I've never bought this argument and I think it's slightly insane. Investors make decisions based on speculative future value, not the denomination of the marketcap. What about Dogue ? It has a supply of 126 Billion. I actually value the reverse when investing - LOW supply count. It's the first thing I look at on CMC. I hate these high supply assets because they feel valueless at an individual coin level.

This isn't an argument for changing the accounting unit, it's an argument for defining MANY accounting units. Most wallets are configurable according to how you want to denominate your holdings - it's a dynamic thing. For example in the mainstream economy, coffees are paid for in cents/pennies and pounds. Cars are bought with thousands, property is measured in "k" and national statistics are done in "B" (billions).

If you change what a "Dash" is it would be like changing the definition of a "dozen" from meaning 12 to 1.2. It's arbitrary. What do you do then when the marketcap goes through another revaluation and you end up using decimals again ? Change it again and keep moving the decimal to suit the purchasing power ? What reference market do you then use for your "optimal convenience" measure ? The price of a coffee or the price of a house ?

The fact is, day to day purchases will be made with stable coins anyway while fixed-supply assets are used for store of value. That's just how things work, so Dash is more likely to get used as collateral to back a stablecoin which you then spend in a market that has standardised price denominations, then spent directly IMO. It's a futile exercise, even if it's only "psychology".

You should have invested in a stable coin then. They revise their supply far more regularly and faithfully in response to demand than Dash ever would (or could). In fact they actually target liquidity demand (which is what you're proposing to address) as a priority over everything else.

As a bonus, they don't lose value like Dash does  

Fine.

Go here, switch "Views" to "All Time High", sort on "From ATH" column, try to find Dash. I make it ranked around 88 on that basis.

No it isn't, it's a flash in the pan and not remotely representative of long term ranking trends.

Coins like LTC, BCH, XMR, Dash etc, however are. You can't dismiss a chronic marketcap difference of a factor of between 2 and 5 as something that we should "not pay too much attention to".

Indeed. But slightly more well-founded than the assumptions that "Dash has value...because" and that we can pull millions a week in revenue out of an asset, never re-invest it and still expect that asset to sustain a growth in capital value.

The words "rabbits" & "hats" spring to mind. Remember to leave your calculator alone or the illusion may be ruined which may mitigate your gatekeeping capacity


He re-arranged the deckchairs by shifting who gets more Dash than who else, making sure at all times that all calculations are denominated in Dash, not $USD so as to be able to eliminate capital loss from the analysis.

That isn't the same thing as adding value to an asset. Mining adds value (by amplifying scarcity). Distributing numerically inflated wallet balances that get used to pay for "hookers, blow & cruises" does not.

Outside investors understand this. They understand that it is they who are endorsing the value of the next block which ends up as a masternode revenue, not the Dash blockchain and no amount of "slicing and dicing" its supply up onto little tiny pieces and re-distributing it in some "optimal way" is going to substitute for their endorsement and investment.

Here's how they look at it:







i.e. it's not a good investment if you're not a masternode owner. (And even then you're exposed to massive capital loss from small holders dumping). We need to make it a good investment based on the mining return alone before the utility is even worth a single dollar.

That way you'd get growth in "dollars" instead of just growth in "Dash". The market would then endorse the asset and we'd have sustainable capital growth instead of "pump group" capital growth that's just enough for an exit plan til it crashes again.

Not a baseless assumption at all. How else could mining be remotely profitable without a drastic reduction in hashrate ?

The "baseless assumption" is that reducing the mining reward without reducing mining cost comes without a price.

Aren't these discussions slightly superfluous now that we know that miners are subsidising themselves with masternode revenues ?

If that doesn't show that the protocol is wrongly configured I don't know what does. The nautical equivalent would be full right engine against full right rudder.

It's the free market simply correcting for flawed governance policies and telling us we've got it wrong.

Dash/BTC skyrocketter. 15k DRK shot getting munched. (Despite only 45% of the chain being subject to competitive mining)   .

No takers for a 3448 DRK shot @ .007250 ?

Otoh (or someone pretending to be Otoh) is back with his walls.

Dash/BTC skyrocketer.

38 odd Masternodes purchased on 1 exchange in 10 minutes as the Bank of International Setlements moves in.

Further evidence of a possible 'stremely long-term bottom being signalled.

It got above $10k and now wants to retest from above prior to continuing with proceedings.

LINK tankeroo.

Not enough exit doors.

Only if you subscribe to the 2+2=5 theory of accounting.

A second hand car may sell for 10% of its new value. Nobody may have literally "paid" the cost of the 90% depreciation but it's accounted for as a cost all the same and ends up being a real cost when I sell it due to the capital loss.

Similarly, the gap in your calculations (between hosting cost and MN revenue which amounts to around 95% of revenue) gets accounted for in real terms over time. If Dash primary investors are undersupplied compared with competing assets (which they are, by 55%), the market will go elsewhere. That competitive deficit devalues the capital value of your holdings over time.

That capital loss represents an unrealised "cost" that has to be offset against the masternode ROI and drastically reduces it if not cancels it altogether. If we restore a competitive supply to primary investors (by recovering the mining reward) we can address both issues. 1: arrest the haemorrhaging of investment to competing assets and in doing so 2: stabilise and grow masternode ROI in real terms instead of "Dash" terms