It's free if it's obtained at a 100% profit margin.


At least that's a legitimate "return" since miners do actually invest something into the network against that return. Their "profits" are revenue over cost from a genuine, real world commercial activity. Masternode rewards on the other hand are a simple "redenomination". That is not a return on investment. It's taking my bank balance and redenominating the same bank balance into smaller units.

Mining reward "raining down on markets" isn't a problem. All mined coins have it (and ALL our competitors have it to more than twice the extent we do and it doesn't cause them an issue). 5000 masternodes all receiving 6500 "free" coins per week though IS a problem because it's an overhead that Dash has to bear ON TOP of the mining cost which barely changes with reward ratio.

So we need to collect DOUBLE the fiat from markets that our competitors do. What does the market do to our valuation in that event as a response ?

Halves the price.

What's not out of circulation unfortunately is the 340,000 "free" Dash per year from those nodes, that's never been subjected to competitive mining, raining down on markets.

Dash/BTC in V-shaped recovery mode after last night's weak hands freakout session.

This is simply not true.

Masternode collateral is traded just as non-masternode supply is traded. Masternodes networks can maintain the same node-count while having the whole network go to zero in terms of value. You might as well say "all crypto is locked up in wallets".

What would make Dash valuable is:

 • have the majority of its primary supply subject to competitive mining
 • have a more versatile network than its mined competitors in terms of utility

But if it compromises the former for the latter then all its doing is eating its own tail. The market will trash it relative to our fully-mined  competitors. Try asking the market what it wants rather than telling it.

Problem is...diverting mining supply to a "gifting" function when the recipients don't add any measurable value to the network results in a massive headwind when it comes to taking advantage of the crypto investment wave.

We may grow in value but plummet in ranking. 5000 masternodes operating at 99% profit margin is a massive expense that is borne by new investors. An expense that competing mined assets don't have to carry. They therefore end up as the net beneficiaries of new capital coming into the sector relative to Dash.

We need to massively ramp up the proportion of the primary supply that's subject to competitive mining in order to arrest Dash's ranking deficit.

The rule for mined crypto is:

 • Subjecting your supply to competitive mining = highly valued by the market
 • Inflating your supply on a purely numerical basis = trashed by the market (Prefers premined ICOs in this case)

I think what I might do from now on is start posting a version of the CMC chart which will allow me to rejoin the Dash community in its "belief" that the market values numerically inflated coin supplies over ones that subjected to competitive mining in our asset sector. That way, as things progress we'll all have something to cheer about as we rise up the rankings  

It's off again - from the second the 15-minute chart signalled a momentum crossover.



Means the weekly has put in a definite higher low...

Well it's already poked a hole in it.

If BTC dominance can drop another half percent into the 50 zone then alt season is arrived.

Dash/BTC skyrocketer commenced.

Lets test jdmcg's theory...

I've always "believed" in this coin because I could see the justification for its existence. I understood and could promote the mechanics of how it could be competitive against the likes of Bitcon, Litecoin, Monero et al.

Now you're asking me to believe...."because". (Or worse still..."technical analysis").

That for me is like religion. Believing in something when the numbers don't add up. Believing that just by owning an asset you can rake in $000's of dollars per week without doing anything for anybody or even putting your investment "to work".

It's Blackcoin & Cinnicoin reasoning. Making policy priorities that appeal to each other instead of appealing to the outside market. It's also why so many quality - though perhaps controversial - people from this community have left (and will continue to leave).

To regain buoyancy, Dash needs to stop collecting fiat beyond its mining cost other than what optimally enhances its capital value. Other mined coins don't do this at all which is why they're above us in marketcap. If that "collection" process makes the masternodes a profit - nice. Buy yourself an extra week of holidays. If not, be happy with capital growth and a highly competitive holding because without that at a minimum there's no revenue either, regardless of reward ratio. There would be if we were a stable coin but we're not, so lets not behave like one.

It hasn't happened.

Maybe you should be more concerned with what IS happening and why rather than what isn't. Try and stay ahead of Ether Classic before we start dreaming about Monero.

Also, if you really beleive the "happened before so it will happen again" paradigm is so powerful then at least swallow it whole. Dash pumps around 8 months ahead of Bitcoin, so it may well be that we already had ours and this was it...

I'd say use the opportunity to exit because the network aggregate masternode revenue at that price, given the current reward ratio, would be completely unsustainable.

Unfortunately the market appears to be giving it legs, even if the community isn't. Expect that trend to continue if having "Thousands of coins underperforming Dash", is the best support that can be found for diluting the mined proportion of the coin supply.

LoL. Are you trying to convince yourself ?

Performance = Competitiveness as well you know and have promoted over the years.

Cherry picking a shallow m.c. rise out of a catastrophic 3-year decline in BOTH marketcap AND ranking is is bit desperate.

...in spite of the policy over the reward ratio, not because of it unfortunately.

Chains with zero utility, no masternode rewards and 100% mining reward have consistently out-valued our marketcap.

We're about to drop out of the top-10 mined coins where we've occupied a place almost since birth. Hopefully you'll still be satisfied with the fact that "value is increasing" if/when that happens.

No, I'm not confusing those two things. I've always been very clear that competitiveness is where we are affected rather than absolute marketcap. Capital drifting relatively from us towards fully mined competitors rather than from them to us.


Except they're not "maintaining the network" they're draining it of capital value rather than investing it. How could they do otherwise when they operate at zero cost ? To justify fees you've got to sell something that the market has asked for and values.

I'm sorry @tao but the idea that circulating supply (& ultimately marketcap) is make or break based on whether masternode reward perfectly compensates for inflation rate is, not to put too fin a point on it...ludicrous.

The nodecount saturated because once the "low hanging fruit" of large holders & large buyers had been moped up, the rest of the coin supply is simply far more fragmented. Add to that the fact that with 5000 nodes, an enormous amount of fiat demand is required to sustain the value since:

1. the mining cost of the primary supply barely changes so we still potentially need to charge the market the same "fiat" cost for mining

2. ADDITIONALLY we now have 5000 masternodes of "earnings" being sprayed at it which 100% mined alternatives don't have. Up to 6500 Dash per week of potential dumping.

The price therefore collapsed along with our ranking and point 2 means that we have an extreme headwind against us in ever recovering that ranking.

The faulty analysis in the Hackernoon article and in DCG's appraisal is that it's ALL done intra-Dash. i.e. it compares one Dash protocol state with another. One Dash ROI (only measured in terms of Dash, not $USD) with another. One Dash inflation state with another. It only works if Dash is a monopoly and the only market option in existence, but it isn't. The analysis needs to be redone in the context of the market as a whole and acknowledging the fact that investors always have alternatives. Capital that previously went into mining won't go into masternodes, it'll go into competing, 100% competitively mined alternatives (as it has been doing for the last 3 years).

Hence we now have no less that 9 mined competitors, NONE of which have ANY ROI let alone an ROI which compensates for inflation in their own currency terms, who's chains are valued more highly than Dash.

I don't. I see a lot of value in the "concept" of masternode rewards.

I just see little value in the current implementation because it's gone so far past the point of diminishing returns. It's the dollar value of the rewards that matters, not the Dash-denominated value. (i.e. inflating your stash in "Dash" is just the same thing as taking a 1Kg sandpile with 1000 grains of sand and turning into a 1Kg sandpile of 1100 grains. It's still 1Kg of sand unless somehow the value of the sand itself increases).

Inflating the supply on a purely numerical basis is therefore meaningless in itself. There's no value unless it's created "out there" in the real economy. There are only 2 ways this happens in crypto:

1. with competitive mining, a price is put on the scarcity of the coin at the point of generating the block (i.e. that price represents a consensus value based on the amount of competition that prevailed when mining it. Nothing to do with "energy". The degree of competition is a consensus measure of the scarcity)

2. with service-oriented smart-contract chains the inflationary element is justified along the fiat model where you inflate according ot the size of the underlying economy or in response to demand for liquidity. It isn't scarcity/store of value per se. So if you're going to create blockchain-hosted contracts that embody entire nation-sized bond offerings and such like, the token value gets this priced in (as happened with Ethereum when all the ICO insanity wave hit in 2017) then maybe priced-out later when its activity declines

The MN reward would be justified if there was a near equivalent amount of cost involved in running the node (whose value fed back to the investor in a way that they found justifiable), but without that it's just pure numerical inflation for the sake of it which the market will eventually reconcile through revaluation of the capital holdings (downwards). At the moment Dash can have all the versatility it currently has with a much smaller MN reward. It's just wasted (apart from paying for ski-ing holidays and living costs for holders, but investors are not gonna be too impressed with bearing those kind of costs those for very long, specially 5000 nodes's worth).

If Dash restored its identity - as a "more powerfully versatile bitcoin" than bitcoin, but retained the security of competitive mining to keep the scarcity of its primary supply elevated then we'd have a higher coin value and need less masternode reward. The MN reward isn't about an income, it's about making the capital gain (store of value) aspect competitive alongside bitcoin. The MN reward can only be fully appraised by adding in the capital loss from the 1000 Dash. If that's negative there's no reward at all.

Conclusion (to answer your "hypocrisy" question), IMO it's preferable for the protocol to target a $10k per year margin on a node worth $500,000 than a $6k per year margin on a node worth $100,000. (In the former case, the MN margin in Dash terms is only 33% of the latter. Think about that for a moment).

I've operated a node since God knows when - 2014 I think. I've also been fairly active on Dashcentral except for the last year or so (used to be dashwhale) and have participated in governance discussions for donkeys (in all areas - Dashwhale, BCT, Toxic Slack, Toxic Discord, Non-toxic Slack, Non-toxic Discord...you name it).

I've been less active in the last year because I started to notice that "big issues" tend to be dominated by big voting blocks (or so it seemed to me - may just be paranoia) and their outcomes predictable. Also, contrarians have been steadily "weeded out" of the community which is very unhealthy IMO. But the last proposal is a line in the sand for me. I've promoted this coin for years on the basis that it's a competitor to bitcoin, not Ethereum/Tezos.

We're above ETC at last. Lets be thankful for small mercies.

Longish range OBV indicating accumulation. Possible cross to the upside if we stay coupled with BTC.