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

[xkcdd]

Do you have a position on trustless shared masternodes? This should increase the number of masternodes and therefore decrease the rewards any one masternode owner gets. I would assume that is something that you would have to back, right?

I'm not really a fan of trustless shared nodes. It basically means that any amount of Dash can be staked plus you're going to have collateral fragments coming and going all the time, so getting the node to stay up needs some kind of time lock on funds which means they're no longer instantly liquid like they are now. A nightmare for the protocol to manage plus it has to work out where the rewards go etc.

Trusted is better. I think this kind of pooled investment should be pushed into the financial services commercial sector where it belongs and can be properly administered according to the requirements of the local market and regulators, not in the protocol.

Finally something we agree on!  That minnows can risk small amounts of cash with established third parties, eg crowdnode.io and for a more substantial investment we have the trustless deterministic masternodes, currently selling for $94K USD (hurry up and grab one before you miss out!).

I do disagree with you on the time_lock feature, it is already part of the protocol and has no added overhead, but it could help DASH improve as a store of value if we were to reward mnodes that time_lock over those that remain oncall.  The idea comes from the ground breaking HEX token which has superior tokenomics to DASH in almost every way.

List a few for starters.

• 100% staked, no miner ransom paid whatsoever!
• Inflation rate (StockToFlow) of maximum 3.69%pa
• Entire inflation paid to stakers, by the following schedule, longer stakes get more, larger stakes get more, earlier stakes get more
• Penalties for early stake termination get distributed to remaining good acting stakers
• Almost 400 billion tokens in circulation solving the unit bias issue, I have a million HEX, though each is worth less than a penny, I feel tremendously wealthy

The list is by no means exhaustive, but it goes a long way to show how POW does not create value in the coin, but rather the coin's features do, it's community does, marketing does and the sentiment on the coin itself does add the value.

[Alexey45]

We watch all competitors fly into space and enjoy the stable bottom of DASH.
Woe to me why I contacted this team. Earlier I liked at least a stationary wallet, it was perfect and beautiful.
Now squalor, like the stupid team itself and all their creation. Price and demand confirm the above. Well, the price does not go up and that's it.
Buyers' hopes for a pump. But market players will bring the price down again. The price will be even lower. Wait

[toknormal]

I do disagree with you on the time_lock feature, it is already part of the protocol and has no added overhead

But how do you deal with staggered arrivals ? (like lets say you have 20 contributors to a node. They won't all turn up at the same time - you need some kind of opening and closing gate that ensures that the collateral is fully populated during a continuous period).

The idea comes from the ground breaking HEX token which has superior tokenomics to DASH in almost every way.

Hex token was launched this year and is currently headed straight to zero. "Features" can't keep a monetary token afloat - they need to actually catalyse some economic activity that's of value to the society.

This is where I depart from many crypto-nerds. They seem to believe that simply by owning a holding in something that should entitle you to a dividend. I think this is because they have legacy banking in their heads where you earn an interest on your holding (or dividend on shares). But this is moronic thinking. They don't take it further to consider where that banking interest or dividend originates. It's only available because it was earned from some additional economic work. The equity you invested in Amazon for example was spent on something which generated growth that came from selling books & PCs to customers. If it did nothing there would be no dividend. If the bank just kept our deposit in reserve instead of using it to monetise construction projects, big tech and big pharma, there would be no interest.

The crypto "staking" idea on the other hand is just a numerical mimicking of this. It takes an existing slice of cake and turns it into two slices, then 4 then 8 etc. But you've still got the same amount of cake. That's what staking is and masternode rewards are simply a version of this as long as they are not deployed in service provision that's demanded by the market. (It's not enough for us to just provide it, the market has to demand and use it).

The only place it works is the Ethereum or Tezos type situation where the tokens themselves are consumed by the blockchain as payment for computing services which generates real commercial demand, even if it's some mad "cryptokitties" thing. Or the tokens can actually backed with some kind of bond by way of a smart contract which turns them into a security.

Cake-slicing dividends = worthless because coin value = fixed marketcap/supply = ever decreasing. Mining on the other hand grows the marketcap simply by increasing competition for the primary supply. Hashrate mediates that competition, it isn't about "securing the network" technologically as much as securing it monetarily. It's the basics and it works.

[xkcdd]

But how do you deal with staggered arrivals ? (like lets say you have 20 contributors to a node. They won't all turn up at the same time - you need some kind of opening and closing gate that ensures that the collateral is fully populated during a continuous period).

I wouldn't. As I said shared MNs service on the protocol level is stupid, let crowdnode manage that.  The time_locking I was referring to was the individually run masternodes, at the time we are filling out the protx ... RPC call, there should be another parameter for the duration of the stake, 0,1,2,3 in years default 0 where if you commit to a length of time the network pays you a small bonus over and above your usual reward and thus improving DASH as a SOV.  Don't worry, this idea is hated by all including the devs and will never come to DASH.  Good news is other tokens have built in and we can diversify into them for SOV and keep DASH for the payments.

[xkcdd]

Hex token was launched this year and is currently headed straight to zero. "Features" can't keep a monetary token afloat - they need to actually catalyse some economic activity that's of value to the society.

This is where I depart from many crypto-nerds. They seem to believe that simply by owning a holding in something that should entitle you to a dividend. I think this is because they have legacy banking in their heads where you earn an interest on your holding (or dividend on shares). But this is moronic thinking. They don't take it further to consider where that banking interest or dividend originates. It's only available because it was earned from some additional economic work. The equity you invested in Amazon for example was spent on something which generated growth that came from selling books & PCs to customers. If it did nothing there would be no dividend. If the bank just kept our deposit in reserve instead of using it to monetise construction projects, big tech and big pharma, there would be no interest.

The crypto "staking" idea on the other hand is just a numerical mimicking of this. It takes an existing slice of cake and turns it into two slices, then 4 then 8 etc. But you've still got the same amount of cake. That's what staking is and masternode rewards are simply a version of this as long as they are not deployed in service provision that's demanded by the market. (It's not enough for us to just provide it, the market has to demand and use it).

The only place it works is the Ethereum or Tezos type situation where the tokens themselves are consumed by the blockchain as payment for computing services which generates real commercial demand, even if it's some mad "cryptokitties" thing. Or the tokens can actually backed with some kind of bond by way of a smart contract which turns them into a security.

Cake-slicing dividends = worthless because coin value = fixed marketcap/supply = ever decreasing. Mining on the other hand grows the marketcap simply by increasing competition for the primary supply. Hashrate mediates that competition, it isn't about "securing the network" technologically as much as securing it monetarily. It's the basics and it works.

Actually, I agree with this too!  We are making progress here.  However, the same can be said of BTC, we buy and hold it and more speculators come for no reason it seems?  So, it is seems to work, you don't need to put that coin to work elswhere, although now with wrapped coins we can.  We can loan them out and get cash for them, so that kind of does work like the bank too.  But I would also caution that when a bank makes a new loan that money is minted on the spot at the branch.  So, we should not imply that there is some kind of balance between creditors and debtors cause there isn't.  I stick to what I said on HEX, there is a time value of money and HEX embraces that, many have been calling for a collapse since the launch in Nov 2019, it hasn't happened yet to their dismay and I look forward to mentioning from time to time as we try to figure out the impact of tokenomics on various means of generating new supply has on the price.

[birdonthewire]

Finally something we agree on!  That minnows can risk small amounts of cash with established third parties, eg crowdnode.io and for a more substantial investment we have the trustless deterministic masternodes, currently selling for $94K USD (hurry up and grab one before you miss out!).

This is really perfect : the stupid perspective, in its pure essence, of how greed corrupted and assaulted DASH by signing its own destructive spiral and the kind of wretched blinds and motivation that have promoted it:

I repeat: Financial return is NOT the most important thing in Shared Mnodes ... and money is not a goal, but the natural consequence of sustained prosperous management (Optimize that structure ... and money will rain. Take care of it ... and seas of money and forever). In fact, DASH already has been from years ago a lot more profitable at that codicious level WITHOUT BLOCKING TOKENS, you idiot! Shared Mnodes optimize DECENTRALIZATION and decisions to improve the general interest of the project. Not the private benefit of ALL its members, that, strategically, is a trifle ... but the collective structure as such, which makes that organization powerful. The one you have poisoned drops dozens of places per year in the ranking.

The marginalization of Shared Mnodes, on the contrary, optimizes CENTRALIZATION AND CONCENTRATES POWER in a structure that , stunted as today , already does it per se progressively. INFINITE power over the entire system if the approach possible through the amount of tokens that support it is FREE and can subject ANY scenario, ANY ASPECT OF GOVERNANCE to majority ownership of tokens - not of their members - . It is necessary to be moneuronal not to see it : Sacrificing decentralization, you sell the car to buy gas.

The distortion that you make of DASH does not favor the expansion and distribution of the currency ... but its concentration. Clear Example: If you stop ALL activity in DASH DAO ... in 6 months, not only will it not be distributed to every corner of the world, but it will all belong to 4 who will do with the project whatever they want.

Today it is questioned that miners are marginalized. Tomorrow, that the corrupt censor "two showers less" cut its verge into slices. Tell me, sweetheart, if there are enough supports (in a system that concentrates tokens like the "game of chairs") ... what will you eat? I already told you to watch your diet!   And if any decision seems immoral to you ... ask humble buyers of tokens in 4 figures how "incredible" they find your UNILATERAL whims about the ENTIRE project and a change of rules in the middle of the game. And yet it happens, inexorable ... because you have not "made a little cheat" ... you have corrupted the system that made you powerful. Tomorrow, they decide to limit returns and votes to the five thousand richest Mnodes - and with the most votes - and take out a stable coin with transmission costs ten times more expensive - but still very cheap - to finance THEIR active Mnodes ... and yours, you can put them up your ass - really, deliver them to the whales at a given price -. As invalid bearish tokens as those who wanted to integrate their 4 Dash in Shared Mnodes. Automatically and in one fell swoop, ZAS! The bearish pennies reeling in crypto are the daily bizz, financial genius!...and whales can afford it a lot of time : Especially when the prize is the WHOLE ecosystem.

Beyond the obscene of a deceptive commitment as an element of recruitment and / or loyalty and how it logically contributes to a disgusting and cheating image of DASH (I insist: Shared Mnodes are still exposed in official DASH communication channels, or they continue to slip "involuntarily "in 2020 in the DCG Quarterly Calls ... to later be withdrawn also without explanation) the Shared Mnodes guarantee votes that can only aspire to the general interest. That creates a DASH like an unstoppable tsunami of modular capital , meritocracy and talent. Your delusions, the business model of a redneck neighborhood drug dealer getting financed untill 4 more doses more. ( And they're free !... Free vice! ... Buddys, join the party!)
It can be explained twice and two hundred ... or you can activate your stopwatch in the game of the chairs and keep heating the heads of the greedy modest Mnodes so that they create gods and sign their own death with examples and impossible juggling of fifth shitcoins class that does not reach the original jewel that was DASH at the ankle. And inconsistent in terms of robustness and long-term in a fledgling industry we were in a position to take by storm - Top 3 and nearly 13 billion, don't forget, podium-worthy quack idiot.

Another thing is that you and the rest of the parasites of the intoxicated hierarchy do not give a shit about giving fire to DASH from all four sides (a gem at the initial design level for its resources to decentralize and amplify power that it already shows, due to your distortion , serious survival problems) and what you carry in your pockets while you make your jump on time.

But that is also another story. Remember though: You are setting fire to DASH just like global political garbage is setting fire to its fiat currencies. Without guaranteeing a decentralized and robust organization that strengthens the currency and its global distribution, the trend is there: negative ... until even smaller and smaller pumps are profitable. Until the dry tit does not give juice even with a thousand rockets colorful Mason.

DASH falls like lead in the dumps and disguises it with a thousand excuses ... and when a lot of coins do a x4, it goes up a shit of 20% and disguises it as "serene stability". Keep injecting wet dreams of cheap shitcoins into the greed of DASH, keep...you irresponsible poisonous fool.

Really: What does a gang of morons like you need to identify a WILDLY destructive trend of capital and resources that comes from converting a creative structure, from expanding wealth (Duffield's) ... to a destructive one of internal predation because capital from outside does not arrive? Maybe go down from $ 13 billion to $ 100,000? Do you put a red line somewhere ... or do you have a rigmarole of crap and idiocies to infinity and beyond?

[dafdaf]

I stick to what I said on HEX, there is a time value of money

There was a time when Tok actually used to say something around that lines (I think). Something like “there is some value in older coins just because they've been around for a longer time”.

[toknormal]

I stick to what I said on HEX, there is a time value of money

There was a time when Tok actually used to say something around that lines (I think). Something like “there is some value in older coins just because they've been around for a longer time”.

Like UNO par example.

Ancient. 100% mined. No cake-slicing funny business. Rising bottoms against BTC.

[dumpida]

I stick to what I said on HEX, there is a time value of money

There was a time when Tok actually used to say something around that lines (I think). Something like “there is some value in older coins just because they've been around for a longer time”.

Like UNO par example.

Ancient. 100% mined. No cake-slicing funny business. Rising bottoms against BTC.

it seems to me that old coins have no advantages over new ones, the same Name coin and Prime coin are practically the oldest ones and then they were still with some kind of innovations, but they simply slipped into almost zero

[toknormal]

the same Name coin and Prime coin are practically the oldest ones and then they were still with some kind of innovations, but they simply slipped into almost zero

The problem with coins with "features" is that they are so exposed to obsolescence.

The more "innovative features" you have, the less store of value. The less features, the more store of value.

Store of value is also a "feature" but it's a monetary feature, not a technical one.

[jdmcg]

Do you have a position on trustless shared masternodes? This should increase the number of masternodes and therefore decrease the rewards any one masternode owner gets. I would assume that is something that you would have to back, right?

I'm not really a fan of trustless shared nodes. It basically means that any amount of Dash can be staked plus you're going to have collateral fragments coming and going all the time, so getting the node to stay up needs some kind of time lock on funds which means they're no longer instantly liquid like they are now. A nightmare for the protocol to manage plus it has to work out where the rewards go etc.

Trusted is better. I think this kind of pooled investment should be pushed into the financial services commercial sector where it belongs and can be properly administered according to the requirements of the local market and regulators, not in the protocol.

Trusted services have a place I suppose, but many get into crypto to have more freedom with their money. Plus I imagine most trusted services essentially don't vote.

I think the benefits of trustless shared masternodes would outweigh the downside.

Possible solution:

In the DashPay wallet, it could be presented as a savings account where you have to lock up your DASH for a term based on the masternode payment schedule. You could lock it up for 1 or more payments and once those are complete you'd get your initial locked amount back.
 
All DASH locked in the savings account would be pooled together, allowing for individual terms to end at the same time as taking down the least amount of masternodes due to the reduction of pooled collateral. People who want to run masternodes but don't have the 1000 DASH, could subscribe to running one with a minimum of 200 DASH or so with the remaining 800 or so required counted from the savings pool of all locked DASH. Instead of getting the full ROI of a full masternode maybe you'd get a bit less based on the reality that there might be an excess amount of DASH (not divisible by 1000) in the pool or not enough people to run masternodes to cover the DASH in the pool. The people willing to host shared masternodes naturally should get a bigger reward than those who just lock their DASH in the savings account. Longer terms should get higher rewards too. On the voting side, anyone who locks their DASH during the entirety of a voting cycle, should be able to vote with their vote weighted based on the percentage out of 1000 DASH they've locked up.

I'm sure there are ways to improve this as I've done almost no brainstorming to come up with this. So, the nightmare you talk about shouldn't be so difficult to code.

A major upside to this set up would I think be decentralization, getting more people involved and invested. You might also get higher voter participation.

Now, what is the downside?

[toknormal]

I think the benefits of trustless shared masternodes would outweigh the downside...All DASH locked in the savings account would be pooled together, allowing for individual terms to end at the same time as taking down the least amount of masternodes due to the reduction of pooled collateral. People who want to run masternodes but don't have the 1000 DASH, could subscribe to running one with a minimum of 200 DASH or so with the remaining 800 or so required counted from the savings pool of all locked DASH.

It sounds neat.

But the main problem is, nodes simply aren't a significant economic hub in crypto networks in the first place. They're not money-making commercial enterprises but rather a very cheap to maintain component of the network. So the issue of whether they're shared or not is irrelevant IMO compared with the viability of the reward they receive in the first place.

The use they have in Dash's case isn't as a revenue-earning business (at least not primarily) but to boost the capital value of the mined currency by decoupling its mining from the services layer and make it more attractive for payments use without any significant loss in mined value. A bit like how a steering wheel is an extremely cheap component of a motor car - maybe only $100 in a $20,000 vehicle - but without it the car's value would be nothing. You wouldn't be able to drive it.

All the same, pretending that the steering wheel should be valued at $20,000 as well would put the car's value at $40,000. So out of whack with any competitors that you wouldn't get any customers.

So it is with masternodes. They are an extremely cheap component that requires us to compromise very little in comparison to bitcoin to gain a huge advantage. If we pretend however that they are so expensive to run that it requires half the entire coin supply to support, then we'll lose all our customers. (As we have done). Whether they're shared or not is an irrelevance.

[jdmcg]

I think the benefits of trustless shared masternodes would outweigh the downside...All DASH locked in the savings account would be pooled together, allowing for individual terms to end at the same time as taking down the least amount of masternodes due to the reduction of pooled collateral. People who want to run masternodes but don't have the 1000 DASH, could subscribe to running one with a minimum of 200 DASH or so with the remaining 800 or so required counted from the savings pool of all locked DASH.

It sounds neat.

But the main problem is, nodes simply aren't a significant economic hub in crypto networks in the first place. They're not money-making commercial enterprises but rather a very cheap to maintain component of the network. So the issue of whether they're shared or not is irrelevant IMO compared with the viability of the reward they receive in the first place.

The use they have in Dash's case isn't as a revenue-earning business (at least not primarily) but to boost the capital value of the mined currency by decoupling its mining from the services layer and make it more attractive for payments use without any significant loss in mined value. A bit like how a steering wheel is an extremely cheap component of a motor car - maybe only $100 in a $20,000 vehicle - but without it the car's value would be nothing. You wouldn't be able to drive it.

All the same, pretending that the steering wheel should be valued at $20,000 as well would put the car's value at $40,000. So out of whack with any competitors that you wouldn't get any customers.

So it is with masternodes. They are an extremely cheap component that requires us to compromise very little in comparison to bitcoin to gain a huge advantage. If we pretend however that they are so expensive to run that it requires half the entire coin supply to support, then we'll lose all our customers. (As we have done). Whether they're shared or not is an irrelevance.

So no improvements until you get your 80/20 miner/masternode owner reward ratio?

Why not start a new project or fork then? I can't imagine there'd be more than 10% that support your position. And even those that might have considered it are tired of discussing something that has already been discussed to death and decided on. We can't keep changing our minds. Once a decision is made it should be given time to play out.

To me you have four productive choices, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although some are:

1) Continue gathering evidence for your position and quietly work on a comprehensive presentation that can be revealed in 2-3 years from now when people will be more receptive of it. Of course we'd expect that Dash has completely fallen out of competition among alts as you predicted and not rallied to new ATH's with the rest of the good alts this coming bull market as I've predicted.

2) Gather a team and all the support you can to either start a new coin from scratch or fork Dash with the ideal reward ratio you envision. Then we can see how it fairs.

3) Accept that you aren't able to garner enough support at this time but that Dash is a good enough alt that it should still do well enough for you in the upcoming years to hold your position

4) Sell all or some of your Dash and diversify into other projects. Polkadot and Cosmos for example will likely do rather well this next year.

Of course you can continue fighting like you are but it's likely only to give you heartburn.

[Tungi17]

ReadyRaider eSports Gaming Platform Launches Shop with 10,000+ Products with 5% DASH Discount!
https://youtu.be/Clnh502JvnQ

[toknormal]

To me you have four productive choices

I should employ you as my personal policy and finance manager. You spend more time on it than me !

[jdmcg]

To me you have four productive choices

I should employ you as my personal policy and finance manager. You spend more time on it than me !

I'm genuinely concerned, that's all. You do seem troubled.

[xkcdd]

....then we'll lose all our customers. (As we have done).

DASH is currently at $100 (with no customers) up an astounding 50% in the last 16 days !

[qwizzie]

Nice, first $100 in the bag. Now we can start thinking about $200
So far Dash has been doing its price recovery at a relatively slow and steady pace, i have a feeling that could change soon.

Some Altcoins (XRP and Stellar for example) are already showing clear signs of FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) impacting their price recovery, this could spread to other Altcoins as well.


Source : Messari.io

Be prepared for price volatile times. Also it looks like Dash has rejoined the 'Billion dollar and more' marketcap club. Dash increased its marketcap from $687 Million earlier this month, to $1.02 Billion marketcap now.

''Dash price is in a death spiral''
''Dash price will be dumped into oblivion''
''Dash will not be able to attract large investors''
''Dash price will not be able to climb out of its downward channel''
''Dash will not be able to handle a large price increase with its masternodes model''

All dust in the wind --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2w6Oxx0kQ

great  project

Thank you and welcome to our Dash project.

[xkcdd]

Quick update on this evolving market.  DASH is up 20% on the day posting a price of $114 still 10x less than where it is headed.  The chain is just 4 days out from moving capital from wasteful mining into fruitful staking/service helping green DASH and reward diligent investors.  Hopefully Jerry BANFIELD does an updated video for us on how to run a masternode to get the FOMO going.  ETH is up 2% and Bitcoin is up 1%.  Fully mined coins BCH up 14% and LTC up 5%.  I guess every dog has it's day, eh? 

[birdonthewire]

Trusted services have a place I suppose, but many get into crypto to have more freedom with their money. Plus I imagine most trusted services essentially don't vote.

I think the benefits of trustless shared masternodes would outweigh the downside.

Possible solution:

In the DashPay wallet, it could be presented as a savings account where you have to lock up your DASH for a term based on the masternode payment schedule. You could lock it up for 1 or more payments and once those are complete you'd get your initial locked amount back.
 
All DASH locked in the savings account would be pooled together, allowing for individual terms to end at the same time as taking down the least amount of masternodes due to the reduction of pooled collateral. People who want to run masternodes but don't have the 1000 DASH, could subscribe to running one with a minimum of 200 DASH or so with the remaining 800 or so required counted from the savings pool of all locked DASH. Instead of getting the full ROI of a full masternode maybe you'd get a bit less based on the reality that there might be an excess amount of DASH (not divisible by 1000) in the pool or not enough people to run masternodes to cover the DASH in the pool. The people willing to host shared masternodes naturally should get a bigger reward than those who just lock their DASH in the savings account. Longer terms should get higher rewards too. On the voting side, anyone who locks their DASH during the entirety of a voting cycle, should be able to vote with their vote weighted based on the percentage out of 1000 DASH they've locked up.

I'm sure there are ways to improve this as I've done almost no brainstorming to come up with this. So, the nightmare you talk about shouldn't be so difficult to code.

A major upside to this set up would I think be decentralization, getting more people involved and invested. You might also get higher voter participation.

Now, what is the downside?

Good post, thanks.
   The approach that you expose, do you do it from a technical perspective? Is it technically feasible / affordable?
Because personally I do not agree with a fork to increase mining returns, imo, it is not important to improve the project (or not to the extent that Toknormal defends) ... but with expanding the universe of voters and beneficiaries, without a doubt.

That this right is currently executed by less than a million tokens on average in each vote of almost ten ... beyond being a shame and a robbery in the face of Common Funds, it is not representative of those who have been supporting DASH for years - and have been wiped off the map -.

If those who have raided the Common Treasury deny that right, exposed a thousand times in DASH starting with the founder himself, that advantage would deserve a fork.

I would appreciate an assessment on the viability of this change. Thank you.