[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[qwizzie]

Although circulating supply inflation has been going down for Dash over the years (from 22,2% to our current 7,7%), it is nowhere near the level of any of our competitors (who are mostly below 3%)

That doesn't quite explain our problems IMO.



Try:

"If your protocol requires you to under-supply the market that pays the mining cost by 40% then you may find yourself losing marketcap share - even to "dumb" coins that don't do half the development you do".

Actually it does. What is Monero's current circulating supply inflation and how much percentage of Monero has been mined already ?
And then compare that to Dash and Bitcoin. Only then you will really see Dash problem disadvantage and Monero's and Bitcoin's advantage.

Emission rate / circulating supply growth, circulating supply inflation and how much have been mined already with proof of work crypto projects are all important factors on both price support / price volatility
and also (i suspect) on how marketcap is calculated on coinmarketcap.

[toknormal]

Actually it does. What is Monero's current circulating supply inflation and how much percentage of Monero has been mined already ?
And then compare that to Dash.

You keep finding excuses and ways to avoid the elephant in the room.

One of the highest emission coins of any over the last 5 years gets well above us in ranking during that same period despite having nothing like our functional versatility nor promotional activity, yet you manage to turn that into "it's our emission rate that's the problem".

Bitcoin forks not once but twice (3 times if we include Litecoin) thereby increasing its effective circulating supply by multiples, yet you manage to characterise this as an "advantage" over Dash just because no single one of them exceeds our emission rate.

Nothing to do with the fact that the ONLY consistent distinguishing economic factor between all of these coins and Dash is that they return 100% of mined supply to the people that paid for it and we do not.

Congratulations !

I sure hope the wider non Dash-holding market is more convinced by your logic than I am

[qwizzie]

Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.
- Ambrose Bierce

[AzzAz]

Actually it does. What is Monero's current circulating supply inflation and how much percentage of Monero has been mined already ?
And then compare that to Dash.

You keep finding excuses and ways to avoid the elephant in the room.

One of the highest emission coins of any over the last 5 years gets well above us in ranking during that same period despite having nothing like our functional versatility nor promotional activity, yet you manage to turn that into "it's our emission rate that's the problem".

Bitcoin forks not once but twice (3 times if we include Litecoin) thereby increasing its effective circulating supply by multiples, yet you manage to characterise this as an "advantage" over Dash just because no single one of them exceeds our emission rate.

Nothing to do with the fact that the ONLY consistent distinguishing economic factor between all of these coins and Dash is that they return 100% of mined supply to the people that paid for it and we do not.

Congratulations !

I sure hope the wider non Dash-holding market is more convinced by your logic than I am

This is so clear to me. And all integrations that DASH gets are not DASH only. Competition gets them too. Not enough that DASH is better, their marketing might be stronger. For newcomers, it is who gets to them first. And bottom line for newcomers is VALUE of their INVESTMENT

[toknormal]

And bottom line for newcomers is VALUE of their INVESTMENT

True and the worst of it is that prospective investors don't even need to consciously think about this stuff for us to feel the negative effect.

The Dash ecosystem does it for them simply by needing to draw far more fiat liquidity from markets than our competitors do. We require to draw both the block mining cost PLUS the masternode revenues on top which our competitors don't. Reducing the mining reward doesn't reduce that mining cost. Only a reduction in mining competitiveness can do that which is something we do *not* want since it would indicate a decline in demand for the primary supply in general.

[JollyGood]

All investments are a risk and there is no logic at all to suggest newcomers investing in DASH would be somehow better than investing elsewhere - that is the way I read your post. Please correct me if I am wrong.

This is so clear to me. And all integrations that DASH gets are not DASH only. Competition gets them too. Not enough that DASH is better, their marketing might be stronger. For newcomers, it is who gets to them first. And bottom line for newcomers is VALUE of their INVESTMENT

[bigrcanada1]

And bottom line for newcomers is VALUE of their INVESTMENT

True and the worst of it is that prospective investors don't even need to consciously think about this stuff for us to feel the negative effect.

The Dash ecosystem does it for them simply by needing to draw far more fiat liquidity from markets than our competitors do. We require to draw both the block mining cost PLUS the masternode revenues on top which our competitors don't. Reducing the mining reward doesn't reduce that mining cost. Only a reduction in mining competitiveness can do that which is something we do *not* want since it would indicate a decline in demand for the primary supply in general.

Tok...I'm not sure what your agenda is.  This is absolute rubbish.  You have been making these claims for months now...and your proof is ..."well look at our Market cap, it proves my theory"  Your ideology on this has be debunked by many members of this community.  There a bunch of centralized shit coins and pure POS coins above us...that completely refutes your theory.  Your argument that if coin emission is split between miners and MNO's that the MNO's spend all their rewards vs the miners.  RUBBISH!  I've not spent at least 90% of my rewards and I know many others like me.  if the reward block emits 100DASH/month...regardless if it goes to miners or mno's or both it most certainly gets spent...miners on paying their bills by converting their DASH to fiat or mno's possibly converting it to what ever they wish.  god its frustrating watching you go on about this.  The reward system is GOING to get changed...DEAL WITH IT.  

[qwizzie]

It is a bit weird to see Toknormal describe those masternode operators that are saving up their masternode rewards in low market conditions (low price) as just 'Dash fans', who are supposedly
not acting like a 'Dash business'. All the while ignoring how this affects his own theory that all masternode rewards are getting spent immediately in the open market (talking about ignoring the elephant in the room...).
Having a theory is fine, but treating a theory as a definitive absolute while ignoring the holes in that very same theory is not.

Of course Toknormal is welcome to bring his own polling proposal to the network, if he is really interested in some solid feedback on his theory.
A polling proposal with a focus on distributing more of the blockrewards to miners and describing the specifics of his theory.

[qwizzie]

And now for something totally different : Hello Altcoins Season ?

Bitcoin & Altcoins Selective Overview

Source : Messari.io

Altcoins Marketcap Dominance

Source : Tradingview.com

This will be an interesting year for Altcoins after all.

[toknormal]

Tok...I'm not sure what your agenda is.

My "agenda" is to point out that the reasoning behind the lowering of the mining block reward is faulty because it targets the wrong priority - i.e. tries to limit the amount of "Dash" that miners send to market rather than trying to limit the amount of dollar-denominated fiat we draw from the market as a whole.

They aren't the same thing because while Dash protocol can control the former, the market has control of the latter.

and your proof is ..."well look at our Market cap

The marketcap ranking is just evidence that a lowered mining reward hasn't done anything for our ranking in 5 years compared to our mined competitors so there's no reason to expect that lowering it even further will do so.

As for my "theory", there's no "proof" needed other than a calculator and half a brain. Masternode revenues have to be included in the overall accounting equation. Anecdotal testimony such as "I never sell my rewards and neither does quizzie" aren't a substitute for this if that's what you mean by "debunking".

god its frustrating watching you go on about this.

Well it shouldn't be if you're so confident the market will take your view and not mine. It doesn't exactly look like brimming with enthusiasm to me. In December when this proposal was first presented value got priced out, not in. Since then we've lost about 4 ranking places and today are on the verge of losing another.

Masternodes convincing themselves of their own case is one thing - the words "turkey" and "christmas" spring to mind. But dangling carrots that you value in front of the market hoping it'll re-float your bag may not work as well as simply giving it value for its money on its own terms.

[qwizzie]

Dash price on the rise  



This is only a 4,8% increase in Dash price. I expect a much higher Dash price over the next few weeks. If Dogecoin can do a 52% increase today, then Dash can do something spectacular as well,
once it breaks through its resistance level.

Dash number of active masternodes also on the rise



We are creeping closer to a new ATH with our number of active masternodes.

[toknormal]

@bigrcanada - Here's another way of looking at it that may help you to see the point.

Try ditching the obsession with trying to limit the amount of Dash that finds its way to market. We have no control over it regardless of reward ratio. Instead focus on maximising the value for money that the coins that DO get sold provide to that market.

When I talk about the "primary supply" I'm referring to the "mined" supply - i.e. the very first time a block is bought. (It's also what Ryan's proposal is concerned with because it ring-fences mining rewards as the target for limiting supply to markets).

Where I differ from Ryan is that he sees only the mining reward portion of the block as the problem. i.e. his thesis is that the need to cover mining cost drives that reward to market, so if there's less reward less Dash will go to market (and we don't have to worry about masternodes because they apparently hodler for the most part).

All I've done differently is ditch the suppositions and look at it from an accounting perspective. The starting constraints are slightly different but just as relevant. (They are also "known" as opposed to speculated). Those are:

1. a block has a mining cost. The cost covers the mining of the WHOLE block, not part of it

2. that ENTIRE mining cost is borne by the miner (if they hodl) or the investor (if the miner continuously sells)

Analytically therefore miners that hodl can be considered as the "market". (The miner in that case has dual roles - a mining role and an investor role. They buy their own rewards).

3. the mining cost doesn't just cover the cost of the mining rewards, but the masternode rewards also (because there's a cost of mining through the chain to invoke the block rewards that are sent to masternodes)

CONCLUSIONS

Some significant conclusions emerge from these observations:

A. the entire primary supply is always bought. Either by the hodling miner (in investor role) or the exchange markets (in investor role). (Conversely, this means that the entire primary supply is always sold)

B. Point "A" remains true independently of the mining/masternode reward ratio

C. the entire primary supply is not returned to the investors covering the costs at point 1 above

The implications of points "2" and "C" are that investors in the primary supply only receive half the coin they pay for relative to other chains. This sets up a marketcap pressure gradient away from us. (Or put another way, Dash has to recover twice the amount of fiat from a finite market liquidity than our competitors do to cover mining costs).

This is what makes us different from the other clones. We've given ourselves a huge overhead to deal with that acts as an insurmountable headwind to all the technical innovations that are delivered.

The original basis for the split reward was that the utility value added by the masternode network would more than offset the diminished returns made to investors covering the mining costs. That can still be the case but not with such a ridiculously high margin as we have at the moment. Perhaps with a 10% or 20% masternode reward ratio. Even that is a challenge - to convince the market to take 20% less Dash in exchange for the added features and utility. The market wants coin for its buck, not jam tomorrow features which get instantly priced out on a "sell the news" basis.

It becomes more of a challenge every time we lose a ranking place because Dash is seen as less of a "premium" coin.

IMHO the situation's recoverable by following the steps I outlined at the end of this post.

[xkcdd]

1. a block has a mining cost. The cost covers the mining of the WHOLE block, not part of it

Thanks Tok for your ramblings and I see now where you have gone astray.  You assume there is some fixed 'cost' for producing a block in POW system, this is false.  Rather a miner will simply take the gamble of expending energy now (costs) on the chance of finding a block and being able to sell it for a profit later.  No one cares how much it costs them, no one cares how much they can sell it for, there is nothing in a POW coin that even says mining has to be profitable, it could just as easily be a loss maker.  The DASH coin itself changes the likelihood of a miner finding a coin dynamically by adjusting the difficultly, this flexibility should tell you there is no fixed cost for minting a block.  Your model is wrong, based on bad assumptions born out of frustration in the coin's performance you went on a search to find a reason for this and given your accounting background found the most obvious one to you.

The reality is, all we need to do is make sure there is enough money in mining such that DASH commands the majority of that hashrate, what it costs, how profitable it is or even what the raw number of hashes are is not important.  Ryan's proposal is bullish for DASH because it reallocates coins from something we have plenty of to something we would like more of (masternodes).

In fact, just from Ryan's jawboning, the masternode count has increased by over 300 nodes, as everyone with any loose DASH has scrambled to put them into working masternodes for the hope that the proposal passes and soon the additional coins will flow into it.  This has already greatly reduced sell side liquidity in the order books (Binance/Polo/Coinbase) and created an asymmetic upside risk for DASH.

Many MNOs such as myself are of the opinion the sentiment is starting to change and bull market is starting and we are heistant to sell coins, since the cost of running a MN is less than mining, MNOs can hoard coins more easily than miners.  Ryan's proposal aims to give MNs more of the share of the same block reward.  If the MNOs are feeling bullish and hold coins, the price will surely go up.  If the price goes up, it will attract the attention of the Crypto press and social media and momentum traders will jump aboard the moving gravy train.  Price will go up.

I think it is clear to everyone with money that this is bullish and that is all that matters, because so long as people believe the story they will get behind it with their hard eanered and price will improve.

At the end of the day, your issue with Ryan's proposal is that it is a pure capitalisitic move.  He is simply suggesting we better allocate capital (DASH) to align it with the goals of the network.  I am encouraged to see it is well supported and expect some version of it to pass where indeed we spend less on mining and more on Layer2 which is where the future is headed.

[toknormal]

You assume there is some fixed 'cost' for producing a block in POW system, this is false.

I'm not doing that.

I'm pointing out that the masternode rewards have to be SOLD to the investors (who pay their mining costs) at the point of mining, even though those investors never receive them and that leaving this issue unaddressed will continue to lose us marketcap share & ranking. (Despite the fact we may accrue some value with the rest of the market).

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Whale Hunting: LGO to Provide OTC Liquidity for the Dash Network

Remittances is a huge business. Digital currency is well-positioned to take advantage of further growth in this industry with its permissionless and borderless nature. Dash in particular is very likely to succeed in this sector due to its secure, instant transactions, with upcoming super ease of use. The partnership between OTC liquidity provider LGO and the Dash network makes so much sense. Find out how Dash went whale hunting in this episode of CATV!



Thanks for watching!

[qwizzie]

You assume there is some fixed 'cost' for producing a block in POW system, this is false.

No, I'm not doing that.

I'm pointing out that the masternode rewards have to be SOLD to the investors (who pay their mining costs) at the point of mining, even though those investors never receive them and that leaving this issue unaddressed will continue to lose us marketcap share & ranking. (Despite the fact we may accrue some value with the rest of the market).

That is a strange point to make.

Masternode rewards and mining rewards are split during generation and do not interact with each other.
Miners do not expect to receive more them 1,44 Dash and their reward is generated through a coinjoin transaction (Generation + Fees).
Masternode operators do not expect to receive more then 1,44 Dash and their reward is also generated through a coinjoin transaction (Generation + Fees).
Both can be sold to the market or hoarded.
Both are considered as newly generated supply.
Market would not even know if it is circulating a mining reward or a masternode reward, as they are identical to each other.

Miners are doing the exact amount of work (finding a block) in a Dash miners /masternodes model, as the amount of work they would need to do in a Dash miners-only model.
Only difference between a miners /masternodes model and a miners-only model, is that miners receive less of the blockrewards in a miners/masternodes model and more of the blockrewards
in a miners-only model. That is literally the only difference.

With Dash, the miners know exactly how much Dash they receive for their mining activities and have calculated for themselves if that is profitable or not.

Some of us suspect miners have difficulty staying profitable with their old mining equipement and that they are therefore doing more selling then hoarding.
Some of us also suspect masternode operators have far less difficulty staying profitable and that they are therefore doing more hoarding then selling.  

[toknormal]

Only difference between a miners /masternodes model and a miners-only model, is that miners receive less of the blockrewards

Indeed. That's the point I'm making. The proportion of the block reward received is the ONLY difference.

The proportion of the block mining cost PAID (all blocks & rewards) is the same.

Also, miners are irrelevant in this - it's investors that pay that mining cost. They pay the mining cost of BOTH mining and masternode rewards but only receive the mining reward. The miners-only model is therefore more competitive in this respect.

[aleix]

https://twitter.com/Codiox/status/1279215463243939845




Venezuela.

[qwizzie]

Only difference between a miners /masternodes model and a miners-only model, is that miners receive less of the blockrewards

Indeed. That's the point I'm making. The proportion of the block reward RECEIVED is the only difference.

The proportion of mining cost PAID for mining the chain (all rewards) is the same.

Also, miners are irrelevant in this - it's investors that pay that mining cost. They pay the mining cost of BOTH mining and masternode rewards but only receive the mining reward. The miners-only model is therefore more competitive in this respect.

Investors pay for obtaining a (small) portion of the circulating supply. Miners and masternode operators bring Dash tokens into that circulating supply, through their newly generated coins.
Investors either buy a portion of the circulating supply from newly generated masternode rewards or they buy it from newly generated miners rewards, it does not really matter as it is
just circulating supply to them and to the market / exchanges.

Investors don't pay for mining cost, just like investors don't pay for masternode server renting costs. That should be completely left out of the picture as that has nothing to do with the circulating supply
itself. It plays a factor in profitability calculations for miners and for masternode operators, but not for the market. The market just looks at circulating supply and newly generated supply
(and other marked-related factors, price for example).

 

[toknormal]

Investors pay for obtaining a (small) part of the circulating supply. Miners and masternode operators bring Dash tokens into that circulating supply...Investors don't pay for mining cost, just like investors don't pay for masternode server renting costs

You can describe it this way - it's an anecdotal way of looking at it. But it's not remotely instructive in modelling the aggregate impact of reward ratio on the competitiveness of Dash in the market (i.e. how little investment we need for maximum price support).

I'd say you have 2 choices - go back and read this post again or wait for a certain well known "joke coin" to acquire our ranking which it's now only 25 Sats away from doing. (The "For Dummies" version)