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

[toknormal]

- DASH - .....Its Buy orders are on very,very low level,which is even bigger reason to worry than its price.....

I coud not find any coin which exists before bull run in 2017 which such poor performance as DASH.

This is the problem that all the #pumpIsComing people don't realise.

They think that because it's a thinly traded market that the rush will be for sell liquidity. But in fact what we have with Dash is a heterogeneous profitability sector so you have 2 distinct sets of network operators effectively competing with each other for BUY liquidity, one of which is at a massive advantage in being able to stay at a profit while gobbling up those bids almost all the way down to zero.

This coin is effectively eating its own capital in order to pay for masternode margins that do nothing. Meanwhile the rest are all capitalising their chains from external markets by drawing in mining liquidity.

[xkcdd]

This coin is effectively eating its own capital in order to pay for masternode margins that do nothing. Meanwhile the rest are all capitalising their chains from external markets by drawing in mining liquidity.

Says he as DASH blasts into $83 (https://stats.masternode.me/network-report/393075) up from $65 just two weeks ago (https://stats.masternode.me/network-report/389043).

X Greeting.

[toknormal]

This coin is effectively eating its own capital in order to pay for masternode margins that do nothing. Meanwhile the rest are all capitalising their chains from external markets by drawing in mining liquidity.

Says he as DASH blasts into $83 (https://stats.masternode.me/network-report/393075) up from $65 just two weeks ago (https://stats.masternode.me/network-report/389043).

X Greeting.

Proxying for bitcoin gains. The ratio is dire.

A greeting.

[bigrcanada1]

Tok has not proven his premise.

If 100% of the rewards went to miners vs MNO's how would the selling would be any different.  Many of the MNO's I know including myself save our mno rewards....many of the miners i know sell their rewards.  

The A=B because C=D argument.  DASH's value is the lowest price/performance etc in this space must be because DASH values MNO rewards vs mining/miners.  Stating this does not make it true.  

You are engaging in a number of Logical Fallacies here and you should be called out on it.  

Including but not limited to Strawmaning, False Dilemmas Slippery Slope as well as Circular Arguments - Petitio principii....and the Causal Fallacy argument.

You can claim your premise all day...and in your case all year and it still does not make it true.  Causality must be proven.

Many in this community are finding this behavior disingenuous and dishonest.

[toknormal]

If 100% of the rewards went to miners vs MNO's how the selling would be any different.

The selling wouldn't be any different, it's the capital flows that would be = what the blockchain reward was spent on.

Many in this community are finding this behavior disingenuous and dishonest.

I'm quite happy to be "called out" on my assertions as they are easily justified and accounted for. Your accusations however are not.

[bigrcanada1]

The selling wouldn't be any different, it's the capital flows that would be = what the blockchain reward was spent on.

Please provide proof and evidence for this assertion, one and two that this is the reason why DASH's value is where it is.

Your hypothesis must be now supported with direct evidence that the premise is the cause of DASH's value at the moment to be valid.  Asserting it is not proof.

[toknormal]

The selling wouldn't be any different, it's the capital flows that would be = what the blockchain reward was spent on.

Please provide proof and evidence for this assertion.

In Bitcoin, Litecoin et al, 100% of the blockchain reward is "spent" on maintaining the difficulty level across all blocks. (The clue is in the word reward. It's not a gift, it's a receipt for the miner's contribution to increasing the value/opening price of the next block by making it more scarce).

In Dash, only 50% is spent on maintaining the difficulty level and the other 50% is "spent" on masternode rewards (as you will know, being a recipient). That capital does not go back into the chain as it would do with mining rewards. (i.e. it does not get spent on raising the difficulty). Instead it leaves the chain completely and these coins emerge with an opening price of zero. (i.e. they arrive in the hands of the holders at a price of zero).

So the coin flow "out" in a 100% mined coin is:

from blockchain --> miner --> market

and this is balanced by an equal and opposite capital flow in dollars that goes:

from market --> miner --> blockchain....in the form of a difficulty contribution which establishes the opening price of new mined blocks.

Remember, mined crypto is a synthetic asset and this is the mechanism by which capital is stored in the chain in such a synthetic asset. (The other way of doing it is as a bond. But that's not the archetype on which Dash is based).

*****************************
However in Dash, the coin/capital flow is split:
*****************************

from blockchain --> miner --> market (these coins have a costbase which equals the mining cost)
from blockchain --> masternode --> market (these coins have a zero costbase)

and this is balanced by 2 equal and opposite capital flows in dollars that go:

from market --> miner --> blockchain....in the form of a difficulty contribution
from market --> masternode --> END....and exits the network here as this is used to fund pure profits which do not benefit the network.

Note that none of this depends on anecdotal appraisals of "who sells how much" or even whether coins are sold or not. The fully mined blockchains charge for ALL their blocks whether the initial holder sells into the secondary market or not. If the miner doesn't sell then the miner IS the market and has effectively sold to themselves. Either way the chain gets its investment in the form of a difficulty contribution.

This is the only fundamental systemic distinction we have with 100% mined competitors and goes a long way to explaining why we suffer a chronic and continuous decline in ranking year after year by comparison, even though we may have far more interesting end user features.

There is a huge cost borne in paying those idle masternode rewards across 5000 nodes. (Currently running at half a million dollars per week). The cost is felt in loss of marketcap from the chain.

[bigrcanada1]

The selling wouldn't be any different, it's the capital flows that would be = what the blockchain reward was spent on.

Please provide proof and evidence for this assertion.

Hypothesis...

Thank you for stating your hypothesis, yet again.

Now please show evidence that this is in fact true, and the reason for the low value of DASH.  

You are again engaging in fallacious reasoning.

Thank  you.

[toknormal]

ok...thank you for stating your hypothesis, yet again.  Now please show evidence that this is in fact true, and the reason for the low value of DASH.

These are aggregate principles. That the Dash protocol is as described above as academic. The theory above predicts that we should fall behind on marketcap over the years and we have.

I'd say it more behoves anyone who predicts otherwise to present their case because the only one that's been presented so far is that we haven't "gamed our supply growth" well enough. That to me is a paultry case when we have a great big elephant in the room staring us in the face like how to fund a $27 million per year bill for masternode margins which doesn't get invested back in the chain. That's 27$ million per year that our competitors spend directly on securing ALL their blocks opening prices at high difficulty levels.

Remember also, that bill grows with price because masternodes have fixed costs, mining costs are variable. So as Litecoin etc prices rise, so does their mining budget. Nearly ALL the fiat they draw from markets goes towards raising the difficulty level across all blocks in the chain and keeping the new block price in sync with the rising market price.

However with Dash, as the market price rises, the opening price of HALF its blocks stays at zero. Worse than that, any of these blocks that DO hit the market don't draw any fiat into the chain in the form of difficulty contributions. The fiat raised bypasses the Dash ecosystem completely.

You may argue that they have a positive marketing effect by creating demand for masternodes. But I would argue that the market simply prices in the capital loss on the collateral required against the reward and in the long run concludes that it cancels it. Moreover, as I've stated before, we need to consider the equilibrium condition anyway. You can't base the viability of the coin on masternode growth because it's limited and we're probably at saturation right now.

The way out of this problem IMO is to set margins at parity because that way we get competitive again with the other mined assets like Litecoin, Monero, et al and we can sustain price rises. It means swinging right around and making a massive restoration to the mining reward but still make masternodes profitable to run which gives us a big competitive distinction over bitcoin. Masternodes can then restore their rewards in dollar value and sustain growth. (Remember there are plenty multi-milllion dollar mining operations that run on a 10% profit margin over cost and they keep getting bigger).

[bigrcanada1]

ok...thank you for stating your hypothesis, yet again.  Now please show evidence that this is in fact true, and the reason for the low value of DASH.

Again...Hypothesis.  A "theory"

You sir are being a very dishonest interlocutor.  in the minable coins on the Market...DASH is ranked #9.  

1. Bitcoin
2. Ethereum
3. LTC
4. Bitcoin Cash
5. Cardano
6. Bitcoin SV
7. Monero
8. Filecoin
9. Dash

BTC, BCH and BSV are  what they are 3 coins from one, Monero is a centralized manipulated sess pool, Cardano is also highly manipulated and centralized...don't know anything about Filecoin.  

Your dishonesty is becoming toxic.

You have spent months...months stating your "theory" with no evidence of this correlation.  We have a situation where the valuation is low, in your opinion, for DASH, you have presented a "theory" of why this MAY be.  

Now...please provide evidence!  I'm not the one making the claims.  There are dozens of other possible reasons for DASHs current situation.  Have you exhausted all of them?

Please provide evidence.

We are all very well informed of your theory, stating your Hypothesis as evidence is NOT evidence.

[toknormal]

Please provide evidence.

We are all very well informed of your theory, the fact that you keep making these claims does NOT make it true.

Indeed.

And if one side of a shopping street charges $5 for soap powder while the other side charges $2 for exactly the same brand, it doesn't necessarily mean that that's the reason why the former side is losing business. But to ignore it would be stupid all the same. So I cannot give you "anecdotal evidence" other than to say that if we keep doing what we're doing, we're likely to keep going where we're going which is now a 3-year near-permanent trajectory to the bottom of the mined marketcap rankings in terms of our early contemporaries.

While I don't dismiss your basis for asking for "evidence" you must realise that we're dealing with aggregate principles here so evidence doesn't turn up in nice neat anecdotal packages where a specific traders say they didn't invest in Dash because they wanted to invest in coin, not masternode profits.

The theory is that Dash has only half the mining budget that our competitors do and therefore can store far less capital in its chain. The empirical evidence for that is that we've lost our lead and competitiveness in marketcap.

The "supply gaming" theories that have been presented to support increasing the masternode reward even further do not adequately account for this since we've always had a reward split. The idea that the competitive deficit was for want of an additional 10% is ludicrous IMO - not least for the reasons that I presented previously that the market simply sets the reward ratio in dollar terms anyway.

****************
A question for you:
****************

The masternode network costs around $100,000 per month to run. So why are we paying $2.1million per month for it ? The wasted $2 million could be spent on attracting competition for the primary supply which would support its price directly and put us back on a near-level playing field with our mined competitors in this respect. Then our "feature advantages" might actually start to matter.

Not only that, it would work EVEN when the masternode count reaches equilibrium whereas the "supply gaming" tactic depends on a growing masternode count.

[bigrcanada1]

Please provide evidence.

We are all very well informed of your theory, the fact that you keep making these claims does NOT make it true.

1) "...I cannot give you "anecdotal evidence" other than to say that if we keep doing what we're doing, we're likely to keep going where we're going which is now a 3-year near-permanent trajectory to the bottom of the mined marketcap rankings in terms of our early contemporaries."

2) "...evidence doesn't turn up in nice neat anecdotal packages where a specific traders say they didn't invest in Dash because they wanted to invest in coin, not masternode profits."

3) The theory is that Dash has only half the mining budget that our competitors do and therefore can store far less capital in its chain. The empirical evidence for that is that we've lost our lead and competitiveness in marketcap.

4) "The idea that the competitive deficit was for want of an additional 10% is ludicrous IMO -

5) " not least for the reasons that I presented previously that the market simply sets the reward ratio in dollar terms anyway."

Thank you for at least attempting now to being more honest about your position.

In item 1) above...you still can not bring yourself to being honest about our true rankings.  Fact, DASH is in the top 10 of minable coins in the marketcap. Further, based on my comments  above regarding minable coins, we should be placed in the top 5.  Thats extraordinary...yet you diminish this fact because it does not fit your narrative.  Thats being manipulative.  The vast majority of these coins have mountains of more brand awareness and out reach then DASH has.

On point 2)...exactly because no evidence exists and where no evidence exists, we throw that out as bad reasoning.

3)...being dishonest at best.  I addressed this in item 1).

4) Ones opinion is not facts and not evidence...thus irrelevant

5) Opinion? Fact? Hypothesis.

A lot of pontification....ZERO EVIDENCE, and a lot of half truths.


Tok...many of us in this community valued your insight into this space...and not always did we agree, but it was valued all the same.  This narrative and opinion you have been building over the last several months has been disheartening.  You have back yourself into a corner and that you now believe you need to die on that hill.  

I'm very disappointed that you have now gone on the attack...with not a shred of evidence and alienated members of this community in the pursuit of your hypothesis.

There is a difference saying that one has a hypothesis regarding something to stating unequivocally that your hypothesis is the only valid one and that the opinions and thoughts and consideration of hundreds of members of this community must all be wrong,

A shame.

*** Dash has many other reasons as why in the general non minable coin community has done poorly.  It has spent millions of dollars on useless marketing gimmicks, scammed and showed complete incompetence in its outreach efforts.  If suffered prolonged attacks from other coin projects in individuals over the years like Charlie Lee and coindesk and numerous other venues where DASH was completed shut out.

Looking for a red-herring or an exotic reason for our performance other then the very simple realty of our communities poor performance in reaching out...shows a kind of desperation.

[toknormal]

A shame.

LoL.

It's not a shame at all. We're not a church and I think I've presented my points in good faith and with plenty of technical background to support them. It's no different from the case I've always made for Dash going back years. I've also not been personal in any posts or "anti-community" or troll-like. Meanwhile I'm not aware that you've made any contributions to this exchange other than complain that I'm off-message and toxic and throw the word "evidence" around in an arbitrary manner.

I put a specific question to you in the previous post. Perhaps you could start by addressing that.

[xkcdd]

****************
A question for you:
****************

The masternode network costs around $100,000 per month to run. So why are we paying $2.1million per month for it ? The wasted $2 million could be spent on attracting competition for the primary supply which would support its price directly and put us back on a near-level playing field with our mined competitors in this respect. Then our "feature advantages" might actually start to matter.

Not only that, it would work EVEN when the masternode count reaches equilibrium whereas the "supply gaming" tactic depends on a growing masternode count.

You are playing a fool here.  Going from 2.1 million to 0.1 million is a reduction of approximately 95% in the pay of the masternodes.  The current ROI for running a DASH masternode in terms of DASH is 5.65% pa.  Under your correction it would become 0.28% all of which would be consumed in hosting fees, would not cover the currency risk a MNO is exposed to, would not cover the oppurtuniy risk, would not cover the cuck risk, the risk of the devs screwing something up etc etc.  The net effect of this would be for masternodes to be sold en masse as the network optimises the reward higher to attract/sustain investment.  Selling off millions of DASH onto an illiquid market would drop the price into the single digits.  You are well aware of this, and your posts hence forth should be considered as trolling since you are an intelligent man and know better.

[toknormal]

You are playing a fool here...The net effect of this would be for masternodes to be sold en masse

And now you're the one making blind assumptions with no evidence. In fact the evidence is to the contrary.

Bitcoin has over 10,000 nodes and not one of them gets a satoshi from the block reward. You quote an ROI in Dash which you must know is meaningless because it doesn't account for the capital gain or loss on the collateral.

If the network can sustain 5000 nodes with a net negative ROI in dollars then we can easily have 5000 nodes with a net positive one even if it means a revision of the block reward back in miner's favour. There are always takers for nodes at any price as long as they're the least bit profitable, same as mining. The difference is that miners invest more into the network as price rises (they have to) while masternodes drain more from it as price rises (proportionally). Their costs are fixed.

If reward ratio was shifted back, nodes would still be profitable. Sure there may be a shakeup but there's always takers for a profitable operation. You may ditch your node because you wouldn't be happy with the new high-mining protocol but someone would come along and buy it from you that was and they would be a far leaner and more efficient operator for the network.

Under your correction it would become 0.28% all of which would be consumed in hosting fees

Even a masternode reward ratio of 20% and Dash at HALF these prices, they would still be profitable. It would represent around $104 per month and would not be consumed in hosting fees which are around $20 per month. More to the point it would allow the currently wasted reward to be redirected into mining and start to address the issue of stabilising the capital value.

The risks you cite have already been taken - we've had the 3 year selloff, way beyond LTC, XMR et al. They hit rockbottom and bounced, even in satoshi price. We hit rockbottom and are still digging because we have this enormous deadweight to support in non-performing masternode margins, paid out of the part of the supply which our competitors have made available for mining budget. That's why they beat us on store-of-value even though we may beat them on "features".

[xkcdd]

Bitcoin has over 10,000 nodes and not one of them gets a satoshi from the block reward.

Here you go again, willfully, misrepresenting what DASH is when you know oh so well what a masternode is and you know it is not the same as the Bitcoin node where I can run one without having to cough up 1000 DASH currently worth about $83K USD.  Tying up that amount of capital needs some kind of reward or tangible benefit for doing so otherwise people won't do it.  The reward comes from the block.  Masternodes are bought and sold such that the network optimises the reward to balance the supply and demand.

The risks you cite have already been taken - we've had the 3 year selloff, way beyond LTC, XMR et al. They hit rockbottom and bounced. We hit rockbottom and are still digging because we have this enormous deadweight to support in masternode margins which they have available for mining budget.

Let's address this, because I feel I have yet to put forward the reasons for DASH's meteroric pump and subsequent collosal dump.  DASH pumped through 2016 and 2017 for the following reasons.

• A bullish crypto environment where Bitcoin and other alts were all the rage.
• Good coverage from influencers like ABJ driving interest into DASH from her Daily Decrypt days especially.
• Jerry Banfield jumping on the DASH train and discussing how masternodes generate an ever increasing revenue stream
• The Pokemon effect for Masternode ownership, if one is good, two is better and so on
• The very high at the time MN reward as high as 12% in DASH terms initially, drove investment into the coin
• Fast development, novel features, and promise of a game changer product just around the corner

Causes of the collapse are as follows.

By the way, neither list is exhaustive, but I have captured the most important elements.

• A bearish turn in Bitcoin causing a collapse in the entire ecosystem, DASH was not immune.
• Failure to deliver Evolution in what has been a shambles and disgrace in DCG and continues to be so.
• A very bottom heavy coin distribution that created an oligarchy of super rich OGs such as yourself that when they decided to take profit the cycle never ended because their cost of aquisition was nill.
• a higher emission rate than our competitors
• A no longer favourable ROI for running a masternode due to massive swell in the population size of nodes and yearly emissions reductions.

Interestingly, the plight of Ethereum was very much the same, you see Ethereum pumped to an ungodly high based on the ICO locking up ETH which was never going to be used for anything other than enriching the founders.  As this insatiable demand for ETH took hold the price sky rocketed according to the law of supply & demand.  During the bear market of 2018 the ICOs started their exit scamming, unlocking all that ETH and selling it at market and never delivering on their promises.  This drove the price of ETH under a hundred dollars and I predict ETH will go there again, you see right now we are in another mania, this time it is called DeFi, and while the scam is a little more sophisticated this time, the basics remain the same.  ETH is locked up in 100s of DeFi scams, take your pick, SUSHI, YAM, YF*, ... and this has created an ungodly demand for ETH causing the price to pop almost as high as $500.  However, the fundamentals underpinning DeFi are weak and we continue to see exit scams left, right and centre.  When all is said and done, this bubble will also unwind and return ETH back to $100 or below.  So, we have two well documented cases of how contrary to Duffield's orginal paper, Masternodes actually increase price volaility, not decrease it.  ETH was the same, Masternode, ICO, DeFi are interchangable.

As noted ETH is already on it's second run, a leader if you will and DASH has its first capital reallocation in just 8 days, care to guess at where the price will go as more and more of the network reward is shunted into operating Masternodes? 

[toknormal]

Here you go again, willfully, misrepresenting what DASH is when you know oh so well what a masternode is and you know it is not the same as the Bitcoin node where I can run one without having to cough up 1000 DASH currently worth about $83K USD.

There are plenty of holders of $83k worth of bitcoin who do so without requiring an "uneconomic profit" to be paid to them out of the blockchain. Nor would they want to if it came at the cost of devaluation of their capital. Dash has no advantage there from simply having coins held in wallets. Its advantage is in being as good a store of value as bitcoin but with an on-chain service layer.

But that service layer should be valued appropriately. If it isn't then the advantage is lost and we simply use the blockchain to pretend that "something is happening" which warrants payment to masternodes.

You are the one who is mis-representing Dash by pretending that capital costs alone represent a basis for masternode revenues and absolve them from generating any economic benefit for the chain. I can understand how masternodes themselves can be deluded by this logic (turkeys/christmas) but outside investors are not.

[bigrcanada1]

Here you go again, willfully, misrepresenting what DASH is when you know oh so well what a masternode is and you know it is not the same as the Bitcoin node where I can run one without having to cough up 1000 DASH currently worth about $83K USD.

There are plenty of holders of $83k worth of bitcoin who do so without requiring an "uneconomic profit" to be paid to them out of the blockchain. Nor would they want to if it came at the cost of devaluation of their capital. Dash has no advantage there from simply having coins held in wallets. Its advantage is in being as good a store of value as bitcoin but with an on-chain service layer.

But that service layer should be valued appropriately. If it isn't then the advantage is lost and we simply use the blockchain to pretend that "something is happening" which warrants payment to masternodes.

You are the one who is mis-representing Dash by pretending that capital costs alone represent a basis for masternode revenues and absolve them from generating any economic benefit for the chain. I can understand how masternodes themselves can be deluded by this logic (turkeys/christmas) but outside investors are not.

This is incredible and fascinating...I'm going to prepare long form document on the sheer volume of fallacious claims and proposition's you have continued to make with out evidence.  

You have now certainly taken the seat of the most dishonest interlocuter I have ever had the misfortune of interacting with.  

Every time I've asked for proof of correlation  to you hypothesis you have deflected.  

DASH is in the 10 of minable coins and in fact is more realistically in the top 5 of minable coins.  You are purposefully misrepresenting facts and contorting them to feed your narrative.  You have not shown 1 piece of evidence to proof you position.  

I dismiss you premise in its entirety.

Please provide evidence...yet again.  Your question to me can in no way be construed as evidence of you claims.  Its irrelevant...

For transparency, are you a masternode owner?

[bigrcanada1]

I think this community has spent far to much energy in entertaining you hypothesis on this matter.  It is now clear that you have an agenda in the community. What this could possibly be will certainly be revealed over the next several months if not sooner.

I, like many others are very confident in our investment in DASH and continue to up our stake.

 It may seem to me that your ire and anger with DASH may stem from heavy loses you may have had to endure, if so, this is most unfortunate.  If you find that trolling this community and its devs and team leaders therapeutic then continue as there can be no other possible reason to you berating this community for the last several months with baseless claims.

I've polled dozens of investors, large and small, not 1 single crypto investor gave their main consideration investing in crypto to masternodes, second lay or mining rewards as an important part of their investment decision, not 1.

And these individuals are invested in the 100's of thousands of dollars.  

Only 3 have ever mentioned that they heard of masternodes..

Yet you are claiming that crypto investors are heavily considering this in their investment strategies.  Prove it.

    

[toknormal]

I dismiss you premise in its entirety.

Well you occasionally pop your head up to do that. But more in a sense of faux outrage than technical debate. (Not to mention the fact that you're highly conflicted anyway).

This isn't my "premise" and it isn't dismissible. It belongs to the Dash community. We're not in 2014 anymore where a bitcointalk fan-narrative is enough to sustain a coin. We're now in an era of genuine institutional investment where every last aspect of a coin's store-of-value mechanics will be scrutinised.

If and when Dash gets to $1000, half the blockchain supply will be issued to network operators who at that point will be receiving a reward of $5460 per month for a service which costs them $20 to provide. Questions will therefore be asked as to why fixed-cost network operators need to have a 99.7% profit margin supported when the other half of reward recipients operates at a commercially competitive margin. Questions will also be asked as to how that excessive margin benefits new investors and protects their capital.

Satisfactory answers to those questions will not be forthcoming because there aren't any.

Mining protects the capital value of new blocks because most of the mining reward attracts fiat revenue which contributes to increased network difficulty. That is the mechanics by which fiat gets transmuted into cryptocurrency mined value. Masternodes on the other hand drain it in a reverse process because most of that block reward has to support pure profit that contributes to masternode holiday cruises. Those margins are therefore a toxic timebomb the bigger they get. (And the higher the price goes, the bigger they get).

Dash has a huge advantage - owing to its innovative decoupled protocol - in that it only takes a tiny amount of the blockchain reward to make us unassailably competitive in service features. But we're not availing ourselves of that advantage. We're paying masternodes a massive margin anyway straight out of the blockchain reward that should be allocated to mining. That's why the markets are crucifying us.

b.t.w. regarding this point:

I've polled dozens of investors, large and small, not 1 single crypto investor gave their main consideration investing in crypto to masternodes, second lay or mining rewards as an important part of their investment decision, not 1.

Anecdotal opinion polls are not a substitute for a viable economic model. Your polled investors don't need to be "aware of masternodes" for them to lose their shirts on an investment. Miner's and masternode's interests are miss-aligned by the protocol. They need to be aligned for the coin to be successful. Masternodes can drive down the price at a profit in terms of their rewards. Miners can only drive down the price at a loss.

When you have half the coin-holding community sitting at a permanent profit-taking position while the rest are all at speculative margins, the outcome is inevitable. It's what we've seen during the last 3 years and why we're the only one of the top 10 mineables now below support in satoshi price. In fact we've given up all satoshi gains since 2 months after the birth of this coin despite being the most feature-rich.

A fundamental rethink is required for us to become aggressively competitive again. The answer is staring us in the face. We have the dry powder available and the protocol control to direct it where it matters - making the primary supply more expensive and thereby attracting mining competition away from our competitors. We won't even lose any of our "feature" advantages in doing so.  It just needs a few turkeys to vote for an "alternative" christmas that will benefit them far more sustainably then the current one

margins insane
are not capital gain
you think the explain
means even more pain

but margins well spent
are capital kent
internals may vent
but investors relent