Ever heard of a "free lunch" ? Well just because it's not paid for at the point of consumption doesn't mean the ingredients don't have to be bought & cooked by somebody.

Dash "free lunches" are not paid for by masternode holders (at least over hosting cost). They are paid for with a loss of marketcap.

That is why I've advocated margin parity.

No, I'm not doing that.

I'm acknowledging the fact that you cannot have a revenue without a corresponding cost (that someone else bears). That is what you and the rest of the community should also be acknowledging and addressing instead of promoting Dash on an "everything is great, it's Dash so you can have revenue without cost, fairytale, wizard of oz land" theory of accounting basis.

I am not a subscriber to that theory because it will drive us over a cliff.

I'm saying we need to prioritise the coin protocol to appeal to the NON-DASH holding community, not to ourselves.

Lets get a couple of things clear. First of all, Dash has about the most expensive network on the planet to run. The masternode network costs around half a million dollars per week at current prices.

It behoves both Dash holders and prospective investors to do the due diligence to determine who pays that cost.

Turns out it's funded from 2 sources:

1. directly from the blockchain
2. by outside investors if the MN holder sells their rewards in realtime

In the case of "1", that is the supply that would otherwise have gone to investors in the primary supply and therefore represents a competitive cost to them. They get more of the supply with other coins. (IMO we should stop talking about "miners" because they're irrelevant and a distraction when analysing capital flows. If a miner mines to hold they're an investor. If they sell in realtime then the coin buyer is the investor, so the miner as an operative is no more than a proxy in the capital flow. "Investors in the primary supply" is the relevant contiguous group).

So the MN network cost is borne by outsiders in both a direct and indirect sense. At a price of $1000 and the current nodecount, the node network would cost $5 million per week to run. Is it seriously any wonder that the price collapsed ?

Until we face up to this and sort it out so that Dash is investible again we're simply connecting our mouths to our ears. Nobody else is listening. You can argue "speculative value" all you like but remember what speculative value is: it's simply the pre-emptive pricing in of REAL value in the absence of significant futures markets. If there's no "real value" in the analytical appraisal of the asset then there won't be any speculative value either.

Let me help you out there. Investors put their money:

a. where they think they are getting a reasonable deal in the first place and
b. where they think it will accrue value

Dash's primary supply fails at point "a" because (let me restate for clarity):

Coin A: Block size=10 coins, primary investor (who fund mining) receives 4, miner keeps 1, "others" receive 5
Coin B: Block size=10 coins, primary investor (who fund mining) receives 9, miner keeps 1

That is what we are seeing. What we are NOT seeing is a phenomenon whereby progressively reducing the proportion of your primary supply that's subjected to competitive mining, increases the marketcap in relation to other coins that do.

We are seeing the reverse.

Also (btw)..


Who cares about the "Dash community" ? They're not who we're trying to convince. It's the NON-DASH holding community who probably have a very different set of priorities that need to be convinced to keep this coin alive.

Coin A: Block size=10 coins, primary investor (who fund mining) receives 4, miner keeps 1, "others" receive 5
Coin B: Block size=10 coins, primary investor (who fund mining) receives 9, miner keeps 1

If the aggregate mining cost between those two coins is comparable, where do you think the primary supply investors are going to migrate ? Coin A or Coin B ?

That isn't what I was talking about. My post stated "comparison of the return on investment in the primary supply between Dash and 100% mined coins" which referred to  the proportion of the primary supply received by investors who pay for the mining. (Depending on which of 2 views you take, either these investors pay for the proportion they don't receive as well - MN rewards - or the MN rewards are generated on a purely numerical basis at zero mining cost).

With Dash they will receive less than half of what they do with 100% mined supplies.

Also, we are in 2020, not 2019. On the 3rd September 2015 Ethereum was at $1.27 and Dash at $2.37.

In 2015, Ethereum was 6.8x our marketcap.
In 2020 it's 65x our marketcap.

So you can "cook" the stats anyway you like but I don't think you can defend the "store of value" track record successfully against other mined coins who do not inflate their supply on a purely numerical basis (as we do) without subjecting it to competitive mining. Competitive mining puts a primary price on every block. Numerical inflation sets that price at zero.

The market assigns our aggregate marketcap accordingly. It's right there in front of you, even though I realise the cognitive dissonance doesn't allow you to "see" it.

Sure, and here are the top-10 coins we'd be competing with if Dash prioritised its "value offering" according to that type of "scientifically studied" psychology.



Feel free to invest

My "theory" isn't a theory at all, it's a comparison of the return on investment in the primary supply between Dash and 100% mined coins. Nothing to do with "fully mined" vs "governance" coins.

Further, masternode margins are not used for "governance". In fact they're not used for anything at all that benefits the network, they are pure value drain and go into the pockets of holders, draining the capital value as they go. (Which is why Dash is always careful to express ROI in terms of "Dash" and not "USD", thereby omitting an entire element of the ROI = capital loss. Like cutting a diminishing cake into even thinner slices and saying you've got "ROI" cos you've got more slices).

This theory is deranged.

See August 1st, 2016. BTC/USD.

(Then see what happened next).

Final retests prior to moon-launch. See August 1st 2016.

(But we need to restore the mining reward first).



ANN: Hodler test of nerves in progress. Core support levels getting hammered & subjected to un-announced flash retests across the board. Market checking undercarriage integrity.

This could be extremely bullish if we survive it. Looks to me like a second capitulative retest for bottom confirmation of the bear market. If we snap back up reasonably quickly with a higher low than 0.005312, then it could formally signal that the corner has been turned.

We wait and wonder.

Shakeout.

Surely a major opportunity here for Dash. Data contracts required for monetising self-diagnosics as we evolve into networked automatons.

Could also restore competitiveness by attracting all the transhumanists over at XMR
( + brownie points from Bill & Melinda)

Eh...in case you hadn't noticed we basically share the bottom of the marketcap barrel with all of the above.

This is due to the fact that the market has revalued our scarcity downwards since we now simply inflate half our supply numerically instead of subjecting it to competitive mining. Not a highly valued practice if you're a mined asset.

ZEC also took a major dump.

qwizzie's breathin again

Perhaps.

I don't see that chart turning around so easily. Looks like 40-tonne truck fell on it and didn't get salvaged.

That just makes it even worse. The idea of "we don't need all this hashrate" was to reduce the fiat draw on markets from mining. But it's having the reverse effect. We're having to support a high hash rate AND an additional overhead of high margins (over $5 million per week) just to run nodes. Bitcoin, Litecoin, XMR, ZCash et al don't require this overhead. You can see it on the charts, it's just a deadweight on capital growth.

100% mined coins have a far more optimal and streamlined market draw which is why they're all above us now.


At massive expense. Effectively paid for by the investor because the masternodes receive the coins that investors in the primary supply would otherwise have received had they been buying BTC/LTC/XMR etc.

Is it any surprise our capital value is drifting away to those coins ?

I think you're just reading what you want to see into the tea leaves. Here's the two charts at identical timescales: there's no "3-month stagger" there. They both hit their bottoms at identical times. Do this for any mined competitor you like and you'll get a similar picture.

The fact is that if you don't subject your supply to competitive mining to endorse its scarcity & primary price and simply inflate it numerically instead, the market will trash you. While the mining ratio is so low the utility features are just gimmicks. You can't pull $5.2 million a week out of an asset worth not even $1 billion - which is what masternodes are doing - and still expect its capital value to accrue.

That is the elephant in the room that nobody in the Dash community appears to want to acknowledge, even though for everybody outside it it's about the only thing that's meaningfull in terms of valuation.

Here's what a healthy chart should look like nearly 3 trading quarters after bottoming...



And here's what it shouldn't...



Clearly one of these coins is about to explode and the other is about to...do something else.

That's what the market does to you when you're a mined asset, decide you "don't need all this hashrate" and throw it to the wind.

I doubt they'll be too troubled.

Since Dash announced at the start of the year that it was going further dilute the mined portion of its supply there's been a steady and chronic disinvestment of capital and net migration to our competitors that do not do that.




Could not have put it better myself.