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

[toknormal]

@toknormal.
1. What do you think about the yearly -7% miner reduction scheme? Bitcoin uses a halving (-50%) scheme every 4 years and there seems to be a general consensus that it creates strong upwards pressure on the price. Some time after the halving, price seems to strongly push higher. It almost confirms that the pure PoW mining model pushes price higher...

I think if we stick to a core principle, this question gets answered quite easily. That core principle is that:

 • Dash needs to be as LIKE bitcoin as humanly possible in store of value and
 • as DIFFERENT from bitcoin as humanly possible for utility

Therefore Dash needs to mine the sh* out of as much of its supply as possible to make it extremely scarce because that's what bitcoin does. At the same time Dash needs to leave just enough blockchain budget to fund its service layer - a dimension of utility that bitcoin does not have. That is very easy for us because it only costs us around 1% of our mining budget to fund the service layer to gain a huge advantage over bitcoin. Ever less as the price rises. (So why do we spend 60% on it ).

The smoother 7% reduction is therefore far more suited to that priority than the disruptive halving IMO because it makes masternode adoption less disruptive and allows investors a more predictable ROI.

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment?

I would not support that. The masternode collateral level should remain high IMO, otherwise we'd just end up as a proof of stake coin which would be disastrous.

Masternode "sharing" should occur in the fintech commercial sector IMO, not at the blockchain protocol level, nor by trying to reduce the collateral to ever smaller amounts. By keeping the collateral threshold high we create a clear market in the fintech sector for security type products that are Dash backed. I've always argued that we should not think of a masternode as a "person". That only happened because when the price was low, a masternode and an individual human were largely synonymous. But the masternode is actually an archetypal element of the protocol and should remain so. It should be investible like an ocean liner is, as an "all or nothing" thing, not an infinitely divisible thing.

It is not a "person". Nor is the masternode vote a "person". Everybody on board the ocean liner can have a vote but it's the role of the fintech retail sector to manage and ultimately direct the course of the one "ocean liner" which they control and that one vote then gets forwarded to the protocol. We need the idea of a masternode to stay with the protocol but the idea of its ownership to be able to float and be marketed by whoever wants to in a free enterprise manner IMO. Keeping the collateral high forces that decoupling at an earlier stage. It was already starting to happen during the last round of revaluation when we started seeing institutionalised investement coming in to the masternode sector.

But we're not going to see that again unless we address the reward ratio so that ROI in Dash can be replaced (mostly) with capital gain ROI. That's why it's important IMO to get Spork 21 reversed ASAP and restore mining across the majority of our blocks to protect their scarcity.

3. What do you think about the previously discussed idea to move the decimal backwards which would lower price per coin with a factor 100 for example? So if 1 Dash equals $100, it would become 100 Dash equals $100 or 1 Dash equals $1. It is not my personal preference, but during the 2017 pump to +$1500 it became quite clear that it provides a psychological barrier for potential investors who really want to own full units and simply don't understand the relation of our price with our extremely scarce supply.

Firstly, our supply isn't "scarce" unless it's made so through mining. Currently we give it away for free in cornflakes packets to masternodes in exchange for providing a service which bitcoin & litecoin get for free. (Dash would still retain all of its functional advantages even if all it did was to make operating a node profitable over operating a bitcoin node).

Re. the decimal point moving, that is another desperation move by people who don't understand where our store-of-value function is. Our store of value dimension comes from mining, not from either of:

 • trying to get the protocol to restrict traffic to order books or
 • playing around with the decimal point

To test the irrelevance of the "decimal point" theory, follow these steps:

1. Go to https://coinmarketcap.com/
2. Click "Filters"
3. Click "Mineable"
4. Click "Circulating supply" to reverse sort

You should now be seeing the most valuable coins at the top if the theory holds.

[Tungi17]

What’s up with Dash ? with Ernesto Contreras / Head of Biz Dev for Dash Core Group

https://youtu.be/mR5JmEPXCvg

[Tungi17]

TREZOR users:
A breach of our competitor’s e-commerce database is now resulting in attempts to scam potential Trezor customers.
We recommend every owner of a HW wallet to read this guide.
Never trust anyone asking for your seed.
Trezor customer data has not been leaked.
We continue to operate on a policy of anonymizing all customer data from e-commerce within 90 days, and will even remove customer data manually if requested before that.
https://blog.trezor.io/phishing-attacks-are-targeting-trezor-users-4edac4cb96fa

[jdmcg]

Bitcoin broke $20,000. Lift off.

Careful... if BTC and the alts follow the previous pattern from early 2017 then we might see Bitcoin crater by 30%+ before finding support at the 21 weekly moving average. This could be anywhere between $15K and $17K I'd guess.

With this dump we could see DASH easily form a double bottom around 420000 sats or even form a new bottom as low as 380000 sats or so... (about $60 or so)

And if then DASH follows LTC's previous script from 2017 we might see DASH and other alts rocket up 7x or so as BTC recovers and re-passes the $20K mark and beyond. The bull run will have officially started for alts. This could all play out by mid Jan to early Feb.

Of course, who knows, just because the crypto market has followed much of the previous 4 year cycle, doesn't mean it won't deviate in the next 2 months...

[Nthelight]

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.

With regards to point 2 : having too many masternodes will slow the masternode network. If the collateral of 1000 Dash would be cut to 500 Dash
and our current masternode operators double their masternodes because of this, we could be looking at close to 10.000 masternodes. That would be too much for our network.

I am not sure how exactly or where exactly it slows down, maybe in the block propagation area or in the quorum area or with Chainlocks perhaps?
Also the time between MN payments would double (from 8,5 days to roughly 16 days).

I know another Dash Community member in here was also entertaining that thought, and i did not respond to that. But now that its getting raised again, i seem to recall that there are technical limitations
to our number of masternodes and the network still running efficient and fast. Get too many masternodes active on the network and it will negatively effect the network .. somehow.  

Edit : found the post in question, where this was asked and answerred.
Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/#post-219044

So a very large increase in number of masternodes (double number of masternodes for example), could have an negative effect on Dash scalability and speed.
While a slow and limited increase in number of masternode (as is currently foreseen) is much less of a problem.    

At least that is how i read it.

Ok, thanks for digging up Ryan's (or DCG's) point of view on it. Appreciate it. He does say 'slightly' which is subjective, but indicates minimal effect. Important point is that he assessed the effect to be logarithmic and not linear. It would be good to have a deeper (technical) analysis on it, like you say, in what sense it affects block propagation, quorum management and so on. This could be used to counter anyone asking to lower the capital requirement for masternodes, because today I presumed that there was no longer any reason to not do this.

I wonder if he took into consideration the point that this creates a barrier to entry. With Dash price rising it will become even more so.

If DCG's argument is convincing, then the only option left to have more people enter the masternode network is by implementing shared masternodes on protocol level (at least without having them take on risk).

As Ryan states, I'm fully aware that we have more than enough masternodes already giving our actual usage, but if we really want people to buy more dash for masternodes, then we don't have many options.

Do we know how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services? (Crowdnode has 25).

I also think the masternode collateral serves as protection against sybil attacks. Maybe you remember this one ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOE
I have no idea how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services.

Ok, good refresh on that angle. I also checked the deeper analysis referred to by Mastermined. The presented layman's explanation by Amanda explains that Dash was already very resistant to sybil attacks with a price of $13 per coin. It was already very cost prohibitive to buy up enough Dash to have a very very small chance at performing a successful deanonymization of a single transaction.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg16106256#msg16106256

Today's price is over $100, even with real support around $40-$60 it has become several hundreds of percent more expensive to own 1 node (compared to 2016). In that sense I presume we could still have more than adequate protection against this form of attack compared to 2016, if we were to lower the collateral requirement for a masternode. I honestly think that sybil attacks are not realistic anymore in Dash.

Plus, we now have the possibility to increase rounds of mixing to 16, instead of the applicable maximum 8 rounds back in 2016.

An important element to keep in mind no doubt, but likely not thé argument to not consider lowering the masternode collateral.

It likely comes down to network efficiency, which surely was the case before DIP003, but I imagined this was now no longer the case.

Thanks for your input though.

[Nthelight]

@toknormal.
1. What do you think about the yearly -7% miner reduction scheme? Bitcoin uses a halving (-50%) scheme every 4 years and there seems to be a general consensus that it creates strong upwards pressure on the price. Some time after the halving, price seems to strongly push higher. It almost confirms that the pure PoW mining model pushes price higher...

I think if we stick to a core principle, this question gets answered quite easily. That core principle is that:

 • Dash needs to be as LIKE bitcoin as humanly possible in store of value and
 • as DIFFERENT from bitcoin as humanly possible for utility

Therefore Dash needs to mine the sh* out of as much of its supply as possible to make it extremely scarce because that's what bitcoin does. At the same time Dash needs to leave just enough blockchain budget to fund its service layer - a dimension of utility that bitcoin does not have. That is very easy for us because it only costs us around 1% of our mining budget to fund the service layer to gain a huge advantage over bitcoin. Ever less as the price rises. (So why do we spend 60% on it ).

The smoother 7% reduction is therefore far more suited to that priority than the disruptive halving IMO because it makes masternode adoption less disruptive and allows investors a more predictable ROI.

Yes I tend to agree on that point that it creates a smoother more linear push upwards. At least it should.

As you imply it likely gets distorted by the split ratio.

I don't know why we spend 60% on it and I don't agree at all with it.

You have addressed this matter multiple times with Ryan Taylor.

Could you even synthesize what his point of view is? I honestly can't. Can anyone?

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment?

I would not support that. The masternode collateral level should remain high IMO, otherwise we'd just end up as a proof of stake coin which would be disastrous.

Masternode "sharing" should occur in the fintech commercial sector IMO, not at the blockchain protocol level, nor by trying to reduce the collateral to ever smaller amounts. By keeping the collateral threshold high we create a clear market in the fintech sector for security type products that are Dash backed. I've always argued that we should not think of a masternode as a "person". That only happened because when the price was low, a masternode and an individual human were largely synonymous. But the masternode is actually an archetypal element of the protocol and should remain so. It should be investible like an ocean liner is, as an "all or nothing" thing, not an infinitely divisible thing.

It is not a "person". Nor is the masternode vote a "person". Everybody on board the ocean liner can have a vote but it's the role of the fintech retail sector to manage and ultimately direct the course of the one "ocean liner" which they control and that one vote then gets forwarded to the protocol. We need the idea of a masternode to stay with the protocol but the idea of its ownership to be able to float and be marketed by whoever wants to in a free enterprise manner IMO. Keeping the collateral high forces that decoupling at an earlier stage. It was already starting to happen during the last round of revaluation when we started seeing institutionalised investement coming in to the masternode sector.

But we're not going to see that again unless we address the reward ratio so that ROI in Dash can be replaced (mostly) with capital gain ROI. That's why it's important IMO to get Spork 21 reversed ASAP and restore mining across the majority of our blocks to protect their scarcity.

3. What do you think about the previously discussed idea to move the decimal backwards which would lower price per coin with a factor 100 for example? So if 1 Dash equals $100, it would become 100 Dash equals $100 or 1 Dash equals $1. It is not my personal preference, but during the 2017 pump to +$1500 it became quite clear that it provides a psychological barrier for potential investors who really want to own full units and simply don't understand the relation of our price with our extremely scarce supply.

Firstly, our supply isn't "scarce" unless it's made so through mining. Currently we give it away for free in cornflakes packets to masternodes in exchange for providing a service which bitcoin & litecoin get for free. (Dash would still retain all of its functional advantages even if all it did was to make operating a node profitable over operating a bitcoin node).

Re. the decimal point moving, that is another desperation move by people who don't understand where our store-of-value function is. Our store of value dimension comes from mining, not from either of:

 • trying to get the protocol to restrict traffic to order books or
 • playing around with the decimal point

To test the irrelevance of the "decimal point" theory, follow these steps:

1. Go to https://coinmarketcap.com/
2. Click "Filters"
3. Click "Mineable"
4. Click "Circulating supply" to reverse sort

You should now be seeing the most valuable coins at the top if the theory holds.

Ok, well, just trying to think out of the box, since I don't see the reallocation hard fork being reversed. The cognitive dissonance is too strong.

Like qwizzie said "that ship has sailed", I just hope it doesn't sink ...

[Nthelight]

Bitcoin broke $20,000. Lift off.

Careful... if BTC and the alts follow the previous pattern from early 2017 then we might see Bitcoin crater by 30%+ before finding support at the 21 weekly moving average. This could be anywhere between $15K and $17K I'd guess.

With this dump we could see DASH easily form a double bottom around 420000 sats or even form a new bottom as low as 380000 sats or so... (about $60 or so)

And if then DASH follows LTC's previous script from 2017 we might see DASH and other alts rocket up 7x or so as BTC recovers and re-passes the $20K mark and beyond. The bull run will have officially started for alts. This could all play out by mid Jan to early Feb.

Of course, who knows, just because the crypto market has followed much of the previous 4 year cycle, doesn't mean it won't deviate in the next 2 months...

Bitcoin is in full bull trend now without any sign that a serious correction will happen. Too many huge investment funds involved and they are all betting on the one and only. They are simply buying up every attempt to correct and they continue pumping. FOMO building in small investors.

Consequently as previously discussed, DASH/BTC is in complete reset mode. No hard support whatsoever. There is no floor at 380000 sats.

We may see 1 BTC = 1MN. :'-//



DASH/BTC entering the zone of Dash's first four months after inception. Surprised. Not surprised.

[qwizzie]

I suspect we are in for a large rise in the Dash price. Hold unto your hats ladies and gentlemen, this could be a bumpy ride.

1 Dash = $109
1 Dash = 0.004757

XRP (+18.15%) & Litecoin (+16.72%) already fired up their engine it seems. Could be another Altcoins rally.
Dash currently at +7.46%


Source : messari.io

Listing mostly based on : https://coinmarketcap.com/coins/  (which excludes tokens projects)
Listing for tokens projects can be viewed here : https://coinmarketcap.com/tokens/ (i don't monitor those)

[Nthelight]

Percentage from ATH -- cryptocurrency competitors:



Percentage from ATH -- general top 30 list:

[qwizzie]

Dash chart with 1 month time interval



Source : https://www.tradingview.com/chart/z3IO0qvH/

I am still waiting for Dash to pass the $200 mark, as that will confirm a longterm bullish trend to me.  

[toknormal]

In case you have stash on exchanges...



See also: https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/1339314427607322624

[qwizzie]

In case you have stash on exchanges...

Isn't this more applicable to those somewhat 'shady' exchanges where no KYC rules are in place ?
It does show the US (as this seems to mainly come from the US treasury) has taken a much harder stance on crypto, then other countries.

This could be the reason why :

“So the U.S. establishment is very nervous about encouraging any cryptocurrencies that could threaten the dollar’s dominant position in global finance. The U.S. enjoys what’s long been called
the ‘exorbitant privilege’ of being able to print seemingly endless dollars and borrow unprecedented amounts without causing a collapse in the dollar. This is all because nearly every other country
uses dollars as the standard for international trade and finance. As long as everyone needs dollars, the U.S. prints and borrows freely without crashing their currency.”

The article (link below) shows the difference between the US stance on crypto and the EU stance on crypto.
 
Source : https://cointelegraph.com/news/how-the-us-and-europe-are-regulating-crypto-in-2020

I suspect more strict regulation is also the reason why there is a Binance International and a Binance.US
Same with other large exchanges who have a seperate exchange, specifically for US customers.
Also explains why some exchanges are not active in the US at all.

[toknormal]

Isn't this more applicable to those somewhat 'shady' exchanges where no KYC rules are in place ?
It does show the US has taken a much harder stance on crypto, then other countries.

Coinbase, Kraken et al.

At the moment you don't need to KYC specific blockchain addresses, even on those exchanges but that's what this is about.

[qwizzie]

Isn't this more applicable to those somewhat 'shady' exchanges where no KYC rules are in place ?
It does show the US has taken a much harder stance on crypto, then other countries.

Coinbase, Kraken et al.

At the moment you don't need to KYC specific blockchain addresses, even on those exchanges but that's what this is about.

If this gets passed, then i think Kraken will start excluding US customers completely and just focus on the European market.
The US regulating on specific blockchain addresses sounds like something doomed to fail anyways. Totally unrealistic.

[toknormal]

The US regulating on specific blockchain addresses sounds like something doomed to fail anyways. Totally unrealistic.

It might not be as bad as it sounds and has some benefits for users. The main one is that if you can verify ownership of a specific withdrawal address then the withdrawal can be identified as a non-taxable movement. On the other hand if they don't know the identity of the withdrawal address then it can be assumed as a de-facto disposal which means the IRS or whoever could potentially slap a capital gains liability on the value of the entire withdrawal amount and you'd then have to prove the address was yours (or provide them with a cost base to offset the taxable amount). Having KYCd withdrawal addresses mitigates that.

[qwizzie]

The US regulating on specific blockchain addresses sounds like something doomed to fail anyways. Totally unrealistic.

It might not be as bad as it sounds and has some benefits for users. The main one is that if you can verify ownership of a specific withdrawal address then the withdrawal can be identified as a non-taxable movement. On the other hand if they don't know the identity of the withdrawal address then it can be assumed as a de-facto disposal which means the IRS or whoever could potentially slap a capital gains liability on the value of the entire withdrawal amount. Having KYCd withdrawal addresses mitigates that.

I think this will go against the privacy laws from the EU, which prohibits information about the privacy of EU citizens flowing from the EU to the US.
Which means exchanges operating in Europe are not allowed to comply. The EU Court of Justice already killed the Travel Rule in Europe and invalidated the privacy agreement between the US and Europe (Privacy Shield)



Source : https://twitter.com/finhstamsterdam/status/1288490297689878528

Also see this : https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-eu-u-s-privacy-shield-invalidated-74627/

If i was a masternode operator, i would make sure to get an European VPS provider and operate my masternode at an European location, much better laws on personal data & privacy protection in Europe.

[Nthelight]

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment? Seems like a no brainer to be honest if we want to see more "investment" into masternodes. With people like birdonthewire going mental about not being able to enter the 'centralized scam' masternode network, I think it would be time to consider it. I believe there is also no longer any technical constraint to manage a much larger masternode list (since DIP003), but the devs would need to confirm that again.

With regards to point 2 : having too many masternodes will slow the masternode network. If the collateral of 1000 Dash would be cut to 500 Dash
and our current masternode operators double their masternodes because of this, we could be looking at close to 10.000 masternodes. That would be too much for our network.

I am not sure how exactly or where exactly it slows down, maybe in the block propagation area or in the quorum area or with Chainlocks perhaps?
Also the time between MN payments would double (from 8,5 days to roughly 16 days).

I know another Dash Community member in here was also entertaining that thought, and i did not respond to that. But now that its getting raised again, i seem to recall that there are technical limitations
to our number of masternodes and the network still running efficient and fast. Get too many masternodes active on the network and it will negatively effect the network .. somehow.  

Edit : found the post in question, where this was asked and answerred.
Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/#post-219044

So a very large increase in number of masternodes (double number of masternodes for example), could have an negative effect on Dash scalability and speed.
While a slow and limited increase in number of masternode (as is currently foreseen) is much less of a problem.    

At least that is how i read it.

Ok, thanks for digging up Ryan's (or DCG's) point of view on it. Appreciate it. He does say 'slightly' which is subjective, but indicates minimal effect. Important point is that he assessed the effect to be logarithmic and not linear. It would be good to have a deeper (technical) analysis on it, like you say, in what sense it affects block propagation, quorum management and so on. This could be used to counter anyone asking to lower the capital requirement for masternodes, because today I presumed that there was no longer any reason to not do this.

I wonder if he took into consideration the point that this creates a barrier to entry. With Dash price rising it will become even more so.

If DCG's argument is convincing, then the only option left to have more people enter the masternode network is by implementing shared masternodes on protocol level (at least without having them take on risk).

As Ryan states, I'm fully aware that we have more than enough masternodes already giving our actual usage, but if we really want people to buy more dash for masternodes, then we don't have many options.

Do we know how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services? (Crowdnode has 25).

I also think the masternode collateral serves as protection against sybil attacks. Maybe you remember this one ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOE
I have no idea how many masternodes are already running in 3rd party shared masternode services.

Ok, good refresh on that angle. I also checked the deeper analysis referred to by Mastermined. The presented layman's explanation by Amanda explains that Dash was already very resistant to sybil attacks with a price of $13 per coin. It was already very cost prohibitive to buy up enough Dash to have a very very small chance at performing a successful deanonymization of a single transaction.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg16106256#msg16106256

Today's price is over $100, even with real support around $40-$60 it has become several hundreds of percent more expensive to own 1 node (compared to 2016). In that sense I presume we could still have more than adequate protection against this form of attack compared to 2016, if we were to lower the collateral requirement for a masternode. I honestly think that sybil attacks are not realistic anymore in Dash.

Plus, we now have the possibility to increase rounds of mixing to 16, instead of the applicable maximum 8 rounds back in 2016.

An important element to keep in mind no doubt, but likely not thé argument to not consider lowering the masternode collateral.

It likely comes down to network efficiency, which surely was the case before DIP003, but I imagined this was now no longer the case.

Thanks for your input though.

An update to the referred calculation (see bitcointalk link) in above comment.



Some info on how to use PrivateSend can be found at : https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/wallets/dashcore/privatesend-instantsend.html

[qwizzie]

Bookmarked it in case i ever need to reference it... thanks Nthelight.

[jdmcg]

2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment?

I would not support that. The masternode collateral level should remain high IMO, otherwise we'd just end up as a proof of stake coin which would be disastrous.

I thought you said you would support reducing the collateral if it got you the support to reduce the share of new supply that went to masternodes.

1000 DASH for collateral is extremely high. The current 6% reward is barely enough of an incentive IMO. So if you want to decrease what masternodes get you have to lower the collateral. Otherwise you will end up with far less masternodes and a far more centralized network. To me the right direction would be to make changes to double the masternode count, thus encouraging new growth and further decentralization.

The opportunity to make a lot more than 6% exists for many people who have access to 1000 DASH.

Bitcoin broke $20,000. Lift off.

Careful... if BTC and the alts follow the previous pattern from early 2017 then we might see Bitcoin crater by 30%+ before finding support at the 21 weekly moving average. This could be anywhere between $15K and $17K I'd guess.

With this dump we could see DASH easily form a double bottom around 420000 sats or even form a new bottom as low as 380000 sats or so... (about $60 or so)

And if then DASH follows LTC's previous script from 2017 we might see DASH and other alts rocket up 7x or so as BTC recovers and re-passes the $20K mark and beyond. The bull run will have officially started for alts. This could all play out by mid Jan to early Feb.

Of course, who knows, just because the crypto market has followed much of the previous 4 year cycle, doesn't mean it won't deviate in the next 2 months...

Bitcoin is in full bull trend now without any sign that a serious correction will happen. Too many huge investment funds involved and they are all betting on the one and only. They are simply buying up every attempt to correct and they continue pumping. FOMO building in small investors.

Consequently as previously discussed, DASH/BTC is in complete reset mode. No hard support whatsoever. There is no floor at 380000 sats.

We may see 1 BTC = 1MN. :'-//

Well the reasons are always different, but the price funnily enough seems to follow very similar patterns. Relatively speaking, if BTC mimics early 2017 action, we should see BTC top out around $24K before the 30% pull back to $17Kish... And BTC almost got there, $23.8K on many exchanges and now sits back at under $23K... half decent chance it makes another run at $24K before much more pullback... I have less confidence it will succeed so soon and would not be surprised to see a double top.

Regarding DASH, very strong support at 420000 sats as DASH rebounding strongly from that level as soon as it was hit... however it remains to be seen if that can be held as support again once BTC tests the 21 weekly moving average.

I'm getting more and more convinced that human emotions are so predictable, buying high and selling low, every single time. I have a number of staking shitcoins and without fail, every time BTC pumps, I go from staking maybe once a week to multiple times a day, as it seems altcoin holders rush to dump their alts for dirt cheap to FOMO into BTC while it's clearly in need of a correction. This is not the time to buy BTC with alts but sure go ahead and do so, I'm not anyone's financial advisor.

[toknormal]

1000 DASH for collateral is extremely high. The current 6% reward is barely enough of an incentive IMO.

It isn't 6% reward it's 45% and 50%-60% after Spork 21.

You must be thinking of ROI but you've even got that wrong because you've denominated it in Dash which is incorrect. ROI is denominated in the currency invested, so if you invest dollars in a masternode you measure your ROI as the value of your investment at the end of the year minus the value at the start all divided by the value at the start (and all measured n dollars).

That means you have to take into account the capital gain or loss of the collateral. The 6% would only apply if we were a stable coin.

If the masternode (~60%) reward, coming straight out of the blockchain, causes the whole chain to devalue then masternodes will have a NEGATIVE ROI. Your 6% will get wiped out in an instant. So it's important to optimise the reward ratio for maximum capital gain, not for maximum Dash-denominated income. That's just the way to make everybody poor.

To me the right direction would be to make changes to double the masternode count, thus encouraging new growth and further decentralization.

You can't base the viability of the coin on masternode growth. It needs to work for the equilibrium condition, where the network is stable otherwise when it hits that condition the price will just crash (like it did the last time. Now we're struggling to even reach escape velocity because we're already at 5k nodes and all the block rewards are being pocketed instead of going towards upwards difficulty adjustments).