Pointing to DASH's market cap is disingenuous, misleading and down right opportunistic
Really ? I think I'll just leave that assertion to stand on its own merits (or otherwise
).
You ACTUALLY believe that investors in crypto are investing on fundamentals at this time?....Fact. Majority of this trading is wash trading.
Dash has been around for nearly 6 years and I do think its characteristics are quite widely understood. I also think they're well researched by any serious investors that plan to acquire large amounts, as say, fund managers might. While "wash trading" does go on it affects volume more directly over marketcap and occurs across all markets. It isn't the reason for Dash's loss of ranking.
Most of all, I don't think we're at liberty to cite "market ignorance" as a justification for our lack of competitiveness when there are much more obvious causes to which this can be attributed.
I'm not sure what you think this article demonstrates, but it's a commentary on dip buying. It shows how hashrate/difficulty cycles can be used to identify optimal entry points to the bitcoin market and that maximum gain is made over periods of highest hashrate growth.
Nowhere does it allude to the idea that cheaply secured networks attract more value than blockchains which subject all of their blocks to competitive mining.
For a more instructive example of how these price dynamics work, I suggest you take a look at the
fine art market. The fine art market works EXACTLY like mined cryptocurrencies in certain key respects. In particular, with regard to establishing a "starting price" for the block. As the secondary market grows, it also feeds back to the primary except the artist will put their prices UP, not down for new works. If the artist decides to give half their supply of new works away for free, the secondary market isn't going to save them. Investors will simply pick artists who don't do that over ones that do.
Moreover, cryptocurrency mining establishes the "starting price" for the next block with even more authority than the fine art market does since no single person sets it, rather it's set competitively by the consensus of many participants.
Masternode revenues are not subject to competitive mining and therefore emerge with a zero cost base (and consequently zero opening price to the recipient who's then at liberty to profit-take all the way to zero. There's no penalty for selling since no loss to take for liquidating below market value). Alternatively you can take the approach that their "cost' is covered by mining cost in which case
this analysis applies.
Either way the margins are a
free lunch which is not sustainable in dollar terms and sets up unfavourable capital flows away from us towards competing, 100% mined coins. We can retain the best of both words by rethinking things but as they say, "beatings will continue" in terms of our competitiveness until we acknowledge this IMO.
