This is the first I've heard of any of this corporate intrigue and backroom staff struggles (I'm not on Discord and for that exact reason).

Sounds like golf club politics. There must be a woman involved, that's all I can say  

Well, being that you're the poster-boy for Dash recklessness I would expect nothing less 

Tanking the ROI on their collateral due to pushing the reward ratio way past the point of diminishing returns does not seem to be a very optimal way of doing that.

We are number 82 and falling. Soon be a Page 2 crypto.

DCG now pulling an impressive global audience of all of 45 people for the quarterly report. (They should contract my local street busker to present it. He has a bigger pull).

Nobody posted a link to this in here.

Dash Platform Team Sprint 75 Review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Jel6udSQk

That remark seems a bit desperate, even for you.

For a start, even if it were relevant I'm not in that jurisdiction. The statutory compliance sourced sell pressure applies to any income stream that doesn't have costs that can be offset against. So it categorically impacts Dash to a far greater extent than any other mined coin.

I won't complain if this "let off" is applied more widely but it was never the reason I opposed the reward ratio configuration.

That was in opposition to the "miners are forced to sell" mantra, since they are not net sellers given that they have a primary market buy to match each coin they sell (which masternode rewards do not).

That isn't a capital flow analysis, it's a calculated example of Miner Amotisation which has nothing to do with capital flows.

It's explained here and is simple to understand.

In the masternode "reward" model, when rewards are sold the capital goes into the pickets of masternode holders instead of going towards bidding for the primary supply. There's nothing to understand. It's the basis of all mined coins value model.

Page 7000.

  Well that's a new one at least. Do you have a cache of these anecdotal explanations available to pull out for gatekeeping duties by any chance ?

Nº 271: All coins lost value
Nº 386: Hashrate's only a measure of carbon footprint
Nº 364: Dash was in a secular downtrend
Nº 210: we had some large elderly whales sell everything recently
Nº 142: Dash performs poorly leading into December
Nº 176: MNs aren't forced to sell, miners are
Nº 481: The instamine !!!

Anything to deflect from the systematic analysis of capital flows in a coin where only part of the yield is used to attract bids into the primary market and where the balance is used to attract fiat into the pockets of existing holders instead. Fiat that should otherwise be going towards boosting our marketcap (and which it is in the case of our 100% mined competitors).

P.S. Howru enjoying your 50% cut in masternode rewards courtesy of the free market ? Please reflect on how ridiculous this makes the idea that "everyone would sell if MN reward was cut". When the free market does it for you it's not only carnage for the reward but for the collateral as well. Wouldn't it be more prudent to use the protocol to set the reward at a sustainable level so that:

A. an optimal dollar reward value was targeted instead of the Dash return (the latter amounting to measuring sand value in sand units)
B. the capital value of the collateral was protected and stabilised

You know that's a red herring that Dash conservatives like to use as cover for core failings in competitiveness. We're talking about its performance relative to other coins, not relative to the US dollar. Dash lost competitiveness BOTH in bull markets AND bear.

The core thesis was that we "didn't need all this hashrate" and it was incumbent on those who argued for that fundamental principle and who implemented it to take responsibility for its subsequent impact (or complete absence thereof) on the primary performance metric that was targeted - store of value. That is ultimately measured in marketcap ranking against other POW assets which serve as effective controls for such a thesis (being that they continued to sustain a 100% mined protocol).

But relative to them our marketcap has in fact cratered instead of grown. So some introspection would seem appropriate from your side of the debate more than from mine.


That sounds like a nose-in-the-air type desperate dismissal of reasonable challenges if I ever heard one. "Golf club politics" in action again. But this isn't a golf club.

Again, the "belief" is all on your side. I've supplied reasoned argument to support my views. You haven't provided any, other than a vague appeal to regulatory authorities which I already pointed out is not having any effect on our competitiveness. "Circulating supply" is an arbitrary metric in Dash's case where it re-defined the term uniquely and unsoundly to suit itself and support a poorly reasoned protocol priority that does not benefit investors.

This problem isn't going to go away and the more noses remain in the air and cotton buds remain stuffed into ears, the more it will continue to shackle our performance. It might be ok with the "golf club hierarchy" whom the current policy seems to be trying to please but try seeing it from the perspective of outside investors for a change.

 

You have got to be joking.

Dash's is now governed by the priorities of  "Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance" ? That's your answer ? You think that regulatory compliance is gonna be Dash's strong point now and that's why people will want to invest in it over competitors such as Monero, LTC, Litecoin, Bitcoin, Doge ? We already only have half the reward proportion donated to mining that they do and they attract investment to multiples of our marketcap so the market sure doesn't seem to be pricing in our "compliant" posture so far.

Be advised that we will always have a primary and a secondary market - right now hashrate happens to be the medium through which bids are made in our primary market. It doesn't mean that it will always be the medium but it is right now and if we want to be competitive we need as many bids as possible which means subjecting as much of our supply to that medium while leaving enough reward to support services. Even if I thought you had a point and we did want to reduce energy use, giving the coins away beyond the point of diminishing returns would still be an extremely poorly thought out way of dealing with it.

We don't have the luxury of indulging random regulatory bodies, our priority and the priority of the protocol is to investors and the optimal configuration of core monetary fundamentals. If that's successful then regulatory compliance solutions will follow. It's the job of investors and governors, not the protocol.

What you're suggesting is suicidal and inane. Nobody's gonna invest in an asset that ditched its most competitive monetary characteristics to satisfy some green regulatory body. We've seriously lost our way if these are the priorities that are guiding us now to the extent of the blockchain protocol itself.

If you seriously think that Dash can morph itself from a POW to a pure POS asset, ditch mining and "everything will be ok" then you're seriously deluded. That is "make-it-up-as-you-go-along", "that-didn't-work-so-lets-try-this" type stuff.

Dash only ever had one thing it could out-do its competitors on and that was to support a VERY high mining quota WHILE simultaneously providing services. --- End ---

The services you speak of are not a replacement for mining, they're a compliment. They're not equivalent to the smart-chain business model in any price-supporting sense for several reasons, amongst them being:

 • Ethereum type services run on-chain and consume blockchain tokens directly. They are more akin to a fiat type monetary system where liquidity creation responds to demand and that demand is derived from on-chain activity

 • Dash services are designed to run off-chain so there's no such "token sink". Dash inherits bitcoin's economic model where value is supported by scarcity and primary market demand (a.k.a. mining). What services do for us is augment our competitiveness against other mined assets by being able to match their mining quota but blow them away on useability

However if we simply ditch the mining thinking we don't need it it's a bit like an aeroplane designer ditching the wings so they can carry more passengers. None of our services wil be worth anything if we can't store value and we can't store value without mining. We are a POW coin and that's what POW coins do.

How about just addressing the matter at hand rather than trying to turn it into some kind of personal issue.

Masternode holders just lost around $80,000 of capital per node in a matter of days. That makes whatever reward "tweak" they get look ridiculous by comparison. So the policy of prioritising revenue over capital gain, thinking that the former is going to support the latter beyond a sustainable level is junk and needs to be addressed. Nobody - not even me nor DCG nor anyone can "do anything about it" until there's widespread community debate and re-appraisal of this policy and how it's actually supposed to support store of value and what our mechanics of store of value actually are.

In that regard I encourage you to promote debate and discourse on this issue rather than sweep it under the carpet as if it's "something we can't change" and have to live with.

We don't.

Wot are you talking about "It really doesn't matter whether you have a point or not" ? Of course it matters. This is a "governance coin". The idea isn't that....


In "governance" you have the luxury of making decisions to direct protocol priorities. You also have the responsibility to evaluate whether past decisions are working for you or not and if not, to re-appraise them and put them right.

That isn't the point.

The onus was never on me to prove anything. Dash made a very bold claim that it "didn't need all this hashrate", despite being a POW protocol where the critical job of hashrate is to mediate a bidding war which supports the marginal cost of extracting the next block from the chain.

Ryan is wrong that "cost doesn't drive price" because cost IS price. It's simply not a unit price that's all. What he meant was "price in the primary market doesn't necessarily drive price in the secondary market" (when the coin changes hands for the second time). But as we shall see below, that point is moot anyway.

If you want it formulaically: cost = price x quantity.

Re-arrange the equation to solve for price and you get:

price = cost / quantity

In this specific case, (primary price of coin = daily cost of hashrate / coins generated per day).

So there's scarcity defined & quantified for you right there. That's the formula that defines Dash's "price" in the primary market, the market we're concerned with here. If you reduce a proportion of the "cost" term to zero by donating it to masternodes, bypassing the bidding war then the formula tells you what will happen to price long term. In anecdotal terms, when a masternode sells a reward coin the $USD revenue from that reward does not find its way into the chain. It goes straight into the masternode operators pocket as unearned income. It does not help to raise the marketcap because whatever price support the coin purchase had on exchanges is cancelled by the deficit in demand at the point of coin extraction from the chain.

This isn't "my theory", it's the fundamental Satoshi principle by which POW coins work and anyone who claims they can bypass it and just "give coins away to holders as a bribe" needs a hell of justification to demonstrate how that can support marketcap. You don't have one, neither does Ryan, neither do the masternodes in general. You've never demonstrated any solid reasoning in capital flow terms that supports this crazy reward split policy, just some general hand waving about not needing hashrate and the odd scrambling for other random footholds like "carbon footprint". Even the idea of "circulating supply" is an arbitrary, custom-concocted term because masternodes churn just as the rest of the coin supply does so they're part of the circulating supply. There's no such arbitrary definition for bitcoin "circulating supply" even though much of the BTC cold wallet base is even less liquid than Dash masternode collateral. That in turn is due to it performing better than us as a store of value.

If "your theory" had any basis to it, we'd be seeing Dash EXTREMELY competitive against other mined coins because we have only 50% or less of our supply exposed to the hashrate bidding war. All of the other POW coins above us in marketcap send 100% of the reward to miners. Remember that's a 2-way street, like electrical charge. Positive charge flows in one direction and negative charge in the other. With mining, coins flow in one direction (blockchain --> miner --> secondary buyer) and capital flows in the other direction (secondary buyer --> miner --> blockchain).

This principle does not get acknowledged by Dash community. It's as if it doesn't exist. You do not entertain challenges, discussion about it or present any economic basis on why it doesn't apply to us. Comparison with POS chains is irrelevant because they use a completely different basis to support token value by having on-chain services that consume tokens directly.

Meanwhile, as predicted by the fundamental Satoshi model, we continue to lose both ranking and relative marketcap against other POW assets that value mining more than we do.

 LoL !

You might have had a point if my perspectives hadn't been vindicated by events. You seem to be imagining that they somehow haven't.

Should I be celebrating instead 

Descending smoothly into the $70 arena. Exit pump complete.

The last one went to $1400. This one peaked at $476. The next one.....? Will we be lucky to get back into 3 figures ?

Preparing to break support on the 2.5 BTC ratio:

The $80 support level is already broken.

Masternodes that incurred 30% income tax on rewards at $180 per coin now require more than double the Dash to cover that liability. Capital loss on masternode collateral has blown any reward "increment" to Kingdom Come for all nodes that were invested in above $100.

Nodecount is in sustained recession, not growth.

"Store-of-value" remedial measures working as planned ? Even being priced in ?

1

Discussion on mining, energy and other topics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4QTThokPOM

What a painfully deluded perspective - "carbon footprint" nonsense. wtf are you doing investing in a POW coin in the first place if you buy into that cr*p.

You missed the most important thing - competition for the next block.

No wonder we're tanking faster than a brick built sh*house out of the sky if these are the priorities of governance.

Dash in the news:



It's ok. We because sacrificed that hashrate for useability. We didn't need it.

oops...



It's ok. Because what tok sed here about mining being a metaphor for the capital transfer mechanism by which capital gets captured into the blockchain is just philosophical indulgence. Everyone knows that external investor capital should go straight into the pockets of existing holders and not be used to bid up the price of the next block to maintain scarcity. That way marketcap is optimised which is why we voted to do exactly that.

oops...



It's ok. pLaTFoRm won'twill fix it    

Well put.

The original idea of the "masternode" was to nurture and fund innovation.

Instead it got turned into somewhat of a mob rule centrifuge that allowed people with more Dash than sense to bulldoze talent, motivation and creativity out of the community in the name of ejecting contentious players.

The rest of the community went scurrying off into a Discord rabbit hole never to be seen again. So Dash now has no visibility out in "the field" anymore.