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

[Pang.]

Altcoins Season in progress ? Please give your opinion...


Source : tradingview.com

Green shows Altcoins marketcap dominance strengthening
Red (indirectly) shows Bitcoin marketcap dominance strengthening

Basically this is a chart that excludes Bitcoin marketcap dominance, it only shows Altcoins marketcap dominance / Altcoins seasons.
 

Interesting graphics.

I consider that everything in this world is based on cycles ... life, seasons, markets ...

After the latest Theter (USDT) increases in the market, it is not difficult to guess that something fat is being hatched.

What could it be?

I think there will be a big hit on the table, and your USDT will be earmarked to dominate certain crypto currencies by very strong hands, and it will be the last big jump to a new price level.

Which currencies will benefit?

Well, those that have a clear use, or give their holders something that benefits them.

ETH, I think it could benefit, also currencies like Tezos, ATOM, or Dash for its passive returns, but especially Dash for its new model of wealth creation through the Dash Investment Foundation.

Let's think for a moment that Fundación Dash Investment little by little, value backed by Gold ... and it doesn't stop doing it for years.

What could be the fundamental value of Dash in 10 years?

This is practically not offered by anyone in this market.

A decentralized fund, backed in gold, with instant payments, optionally private, with chainlock.

One would have to be an idiot having millions in USDT not to take a large part invested here ... and own a master node or part of it, with returns of more than 6% per year.

I still have it very clear, but of course, I am nobody.

Going back to the question, yes, I think there will be a huge increase in some specific altcoins, but not all, and I dare say that BTC will lose the top spot in dominance in the next two to three years.

Today again new hashrate ATH 6,9 P.hash

A greeting.

[1714517548]

1714517548

[1714517548]

1714517548

[1714517548]

1714517548

[qwizzie]

Regarding DASH being ground down in value because of all the free coins masternodes get, how do you explain LTC, 100% POW, which has a similar (if not more bearish) price chart as DASH?

Because the problem manifests itself primarily in market share rather than marketcap. It's seen in ranking.

To illustrate, the "theory" is that the market acts to push mining margins and masternode margins towards equilibrium. (Competition theory that strips "flab" from excess margins in uncompetitive offerings). In this case we're talking about the competiveness of the primary supply of Dash vs the primary supply of competitors. i.e. how much "coin" does an investor get for their buck when buying from a Dash miner vs a Litecoin or bitcoin miner.

To analyse this illustratively, lets fix a few variables across 3 coins (BTC, LTC & Dash) so we can observe only the ones who's behaviour we're assessing. We analyse what happens to a week's mining supply.

We assume:

 • all circulating supplies are equal and start off at 1000 coins
 • all 3 coin prices/market caps are equal
 • all block rewards are equal
 • all chains generate a primary supply of 1000 coins over a week
 • all mined supply goes to market
 • coin price is $1 for all
 • market demand liquidity is $3000 per week invested evenly across all 3 coins

Now, with all this stuff fixed, we vary ONLY the protocol split reward between miners and masternodes. We keep BTC and LTC the same and vary Dash as follows:

BTC 100%
LTC 100%
Dash 50% / 50% (Miners/Masternodes)

So lets tot up what the market got for its "buck" after this week's supply is sold and all 3 circulating supplies consist of 2000 coins.

1. It got all 1000 new Bitcoins (=50% of the closing supply)
2. It got all 1000 new Litecoin (=50% of the closing supply)
3. It only got 500 new Dash (=25% of the closing supply)

The Dash blockchain does not make a distinction between mining rewards and masternode rewards, they are both treated as newly generated supply and added to the circulating supply.
Which means that the market in your example gets a newly generated supply of 1000 Dash, because masternode payments are considered mined supply to the blockchain
(which is why masternode rewards, just like mining rewards need 101 confirmations before they get spendable).

Both masternode rewards and mining rewards are collected through so called 'Coinbase transactions', which have both a generation and a fees part. I am not even sure with the current blockreward allocation
if masternode rewards received on an exchange address can be differentiated by that exchange (through tracing) from mining rewards. They would be pretty much identical, specially now masternode payments
can be generated in a different payout address (thereby cutting the link between the masternode collateral and the masternode reward).
  
Of course not all mined supply goes to the market. Some miners hoard the received mining reward on their own address and some masternode owners do the same for their masternode reward.

[toknormal]

The Dash blockchain does not make a distinction between mining rewards and masternode rewards

OK, lets look at it your way then. (Example 2).

We'll do the exercise again with different priorities. We'll make the supply to market a constant and allow the mining revenue to vary instead (which was constant and competitive in the last example). This time all 1000 Dash are delivered to the market as you say, from primary holders(Miners and Masternodes).

So now, for its $3000 investment, the market gets:

1. all 1000 new Bitcoins (=50% of the closing supply)
2. all 1000 new Litecoin (=50% of the closing supply)
3. all 1000 new Dash (=50% of the closing supply)

But lets look at the mining revenue:

1. the 1000 new Bitcoins cost $1000 to mine and revenue was $1000
2. the 1000 new Litecoins cost $1000 to mine and revenue was $1000
3. the 1000 new Dash cost $1000 to mine but revenue was only $500

So we now have uncompetitive mining rewards and the model's unstable. Something else would have to give to restore equilibrium.

The "uncompetitive overhead" is still there - it just pops out in a different place.

[qwizzie]

The Dash blockchain does not make a distinction between mining rewards and masternode rewards

OK, lets look at it your way then.

We'll do the exercise again with different priorities. We'll make the supply to market a constant and allow the mining revenue to vary instead (which was constant and competitive in the last example). This time all 1000 Dash are delivered to the market as you say, from primary holders(Miners and Masternodes).

So now, for its $3000 investment, the market gets:

1. all 1000 new Bitcoins (=50% of the closing supply)
2. all 1000 new Litecoin (=50% of the closing supply)
3. all 1000 new Dash (=50% of the closing supply)

But lets look at the mining revenue:

1. the 1000 new Bitcoins cost $1000 to mine and revenue was $1000
2. the 1000 new Litecoins cost $1000 to mine and revenue was $1000
3. the 1000 new Dash cost $1000 to mine but revenue was only $500

So we now have uncompetitive mining rewards and the model's unstable. Something else would have to give to restore equilibrium.

The "uncompetitive overhead" is still there - it just pops out in a different place.

Why uncompetitive and unstable ? Miners may got a lower revenue since 2015 (depending if they were in a position to upgrade their mining equipment or not and depending on their electricity costs),
but they did get a higher market position / price / better reviews with Dash due to all the technological advancements (PrivateSend, InstantSend, ChainLocks, Dash Platform)
which could not be done without incentivized masternodes. These technological advancements are most likely already priced in by the market (Dash Platform the obvious exception).
And the miners survived and even thrived in the period 2015-2020, looking at the explosive growth of the Dash hashrate over the years.

Link : https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/dash-hashrate.html

How high would we rank in a market without having any technological advancements and being basically a clone from Litecoin while having full mining revenue ?
Would people still mine it after 6 years ? Or would they have switched to another PoW network that offered better revenue or better name recognition ?

[AzzAz]

Well I'd like to know who is selling more Dash, miners or MN owners ( or teams that get 10%, they cash it, no? ) .  Who care less and who is to blame the most for DASH marketcap position...

[toknormal]

Why uncompetitive and unstable ? Miners may got a lower revenue since 2015 (depending if they were in a position to upgrade their mining equipment or not and depending on their electricity costs)

Those are all valid points quizzie. Also, XKCD has made valid points in his comments. But they're insufficient to address the issues at hand which are chronic and fundamental in terms of loss of market share. Doing "more of the same" isn't going to fix it IMO. Compared to bitcoin or litecoin we've already got massive reward ratios for nodes which are ridiculous compared to the cost of running them. We've also got far more versatility in the chain functionality, yet w've sunk out of trace on rankings and they are buoyant, including the forks. This isn't a problem of "too much mining reward". All the top coins have nearly twice that of Dash.

It's helpful to see the "economics" of the coin in at least 2 layers of context. At the protocol level there only a few variables which makes it much easier to analyse than the morass of nebulous complexity of the broader market and holder demographics.

We need to "engineer" that inner protocol model so that all the variables are perfectly tuned with each other, work in harmony and it's bullet proof. I've already demonstrated how easy it is in the last 2 posts - it's almost back of the envelope stuff and is only basic due diligence apart from anything else.



IMO, the reason I've been at cross purposes with others in these discussions is because I'm addressing flaws in the core protocol economics and they're countering with anecdotal solutions from the broader market context. Ok - some of those may be valid, but it's again like leaving the brakes on and just fitting a bigger engine instead.

If something is flawed or unstable in that inner protocol economics model then it's going to be felt all the way to the outer layers but it'll be impossible to detect where the problem originates cos it'll be buried in clouds of opinionated ambiguity that's unresolvable.

So returning to your question:

Why is it unstable

, the answer is that the above analysis of core protocol model (whether we take my "500 Dash supply" market perspective or your "1000 Dash supply") requires Dash to lose market share or miners to mine at a 50% loss either of which destabilises the core protocol model.

The only way that model comes back into stability IMO is:

1. ramp the mining reward back up significantly. This would restore the lost competitively described in Example 1 previously. It will also solve the conflict of priorities between that and mining viability described in Example 2

2. continue to evolve the service provision layer to "mop up" the asymmetric margin over cost in the part of the primary supply that's "gifted" to masternodes. (Because if we don't, the market will do it for us by devaluing the coin further)

3. between 1 and 2 we will then have a more "measurable" value added provision by masternodes and this will feed positively back to both the supply deficit challenge (Example 1) and the mining sustainability challenge (Example 2) to mitigate them

We will then have a sustainable, competitive protocol economics model that isn't in conflict with itself, can market the primary supply competitively and sustains mining. With all that in place the price can rise and masternodes will start to benefit as well with dollar-valued rewards that are more in line with original expectations.

[bigrcanada1]

Well...I think it's time for Tok to fork DASH and make his own vision come true.   I and many others do not agree with ur assessment and I'm very certain will vote for the changes advocated for by dcg.  Good luck with your new project....I will be firmly voting for RTs proposal.  Cheers.

[tbct_mt2]

Altcoins Season in progress ? Please give your opinion...

~ snip ~

Green shows Altcoins marketcap dominance strengthening
Red (indirectly) shows Bitcoin marketcap dominance strengthening

Basically this is a chart that excludes Bitcoin marketcap dominance, it only shows Altcoins marketcap dominance / Altcoins seasons.

Next 6 to 9 months will be a very interesting period for altcoins. Altcoin season is here and it has still been expanded for longer months. Some people fear that the market gives altcoins very good rises recent months and when price drops back, they fear of another long down trend. They fear too much about it.

The downtrend is over and now we have been in an uptrend. During uptrend, price will be dumped back a little bit but such dump is for correction. After correction, price will rise again and hits higher peaks.

[qwizzie]

Well I'd like to know who is selling more Dash, miners or MN owners ( or teams that get 10%, they cash it, no? ) .  Who care less and who is to blame the most for DASH marketcap position...

Difficult to gather from statistics. All i can tell is that Dash has more spending then generating. Looking at the MRI (Miners Rolling Inventory) percentage for some specific PoW cryptocurrencies over a time period of 5 weeks and taking into account that MRI above 100% means more sold and MRI below 100% means more hoarded and also taking into account that (unlike other cryptocurrencies) Dash has newly generated supply split between miners and masternodes :

Bitcoin : 99,35% (slightly more newly generated supply hoarded then sold)
Bitcoin Cash : 82,91% (more newly generated supply hoarded then sold)
Bitcoin SV : 512,63% (far more newly generated supply sold then hoarded)
Dash : 112,10% (more newly generated supply sold then hoarded)
Litecoin : 96,93% (slightly more newly generated supply hoarded then sold)

Source : https://terminal.bytetree.com/ (see on-chain --> supply with each cryptocurrency)

Goal should be to bring Dash MRI down to below 100%

[JollyGood]

I would go a step further, things are not good because of the coronavirus pandemic and there is no clarity about what the next 6-9 months might bring.

It is too difficult to ascertain exactly what constitutes an upward or downward trend because of the complications that have arisen affecting the whole social economical climate on a global stage. If we can get some sort of normality back (as was with pre-coronavirus times) then we might see things becoming clearer.

Altcoins Season in progress ? Please give your opinion...

~ snip ~

Green shows Altcoins marketcap dominance strengthening
Red (indirectly) shows Bitcoin marketcap dominance strengthening

Basically this is a chart that excludes Bitcoin marketcap dominance, it only shows Altcoins marketcap dominance / Altcoins seasons.

Next 6 to 9 months will be a very interesting period for altcoins. Altcoin season is here and it has still been expanded for longer months. Some people fear that the market gives altcoins very good rises recent months and when price drops back, they fear of another long down trend. They fear too much about it.

The downtrend is over and now we have been in an uptrend. During uptrend, price will be dumped back a little bit but such dump is for correction. After correction, price will rise again and hits higher peaks.

[Pang.]

upload of more than 150 master nodes in hours.



Have those nodes been accumulated by the same group of people?

Any ideas on this huge increase?

could be by it?

https://www.binance.com/en/support/articles/af64a497b040498f85c573baf4f24fcb

a greeting

[qwizzie]

upload of more than 150 master nodes in hours.



Have those nodes been accumulated by the same group of people?

Any ideas on this huge increase?

could be by it?

https://www.binance.com/en/support/articles/af64a497b040498f85c573baf4f24fcb

a greeting

For now i consider this just a signal that new long term investors got interested in Dash. It could have to do with investors that watched the DashPay demo and observed all the progress on Dash Platform
and wanting to have a position for themselves in Dash, before Dash Platform and the DashPay Dapp gets released to Dash mainnet.

It could also have to do with investors anticipation on the Dash Economics discussion outcome and how that could strengthen their Dash Masternodes ROI in the next 5 years. It could even be dormant
long term Dash investors that did not setup masternodes before, that are setting up  masternodes now in order to use the voting power of those masternodes in the upcoming Dash Economics network polls.
Or it could simply be large whales diversifying into Altcoins (which in Dash case means having their long term investment collect some interest, by setting up masternodes).

I am not convinced right now that this large increase in active masternodes is related to the Dash staking option on Binance, that got announced recently.

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Dash and Liquid Partner on Enhanced User Experience

Exciting news for users of both Dash and Liquid exchange today! Liquid (a top 5 volume cryptocurrency exchange) has enabled a full-featured Dash experience on their platform. InstantSend deposits and withdrawals, DASH/BTC and DASH/USDT trading pairs, and an enhanced user experience await users of Dash on Liquid exchange. Tao covers the integration on this episode of CATV.



Thanks for watching!

[Tungi17]

On today's episode Amanda speaks with Veronica Andrino, Dash Philippines Head Ambassador. The Philippines shows great potential for Dash, especially in terms of remittances and business.

https://youtu.be/JCexpiFFpdM

[JollyGood]

Do you think mining rewards will increase? And why are masternodes being mentioned all over the place in recent weeks so much so than ever before?

Those are all valid points quizzie. Also, XKCD has made valid points in his comments. But they're insufficient to address the issues at hand which are chronic and fundamental in terms of loss of market share. Doing "more of the same" isn't going to fix it IMO. Compared to bitcoin or litecoin we've already got massive reward ratios for nodes which are ridiculous compared to the cost of running them. We've also got far more versatility in the chain functionality, yet w've sunk out of trace on rankings and they are buoyant, including the forks. This isn't a problem of "too much mining reward". All the top coins have nearly twice that of Dash.

It's helpful to see the "economics" of the coin in at least 2 layers of context. At the protocol level there only a few variables which makes it much easier to analyse than the morass of nebulous complexity of the broader market and holder demographics.

We need to "engineer" that inner protocol model so that all the variables are perfectly tuned with each other, work in harmony and it's bullet proof. I've already demonstrated how easy it is in the last 2 posts - it's almost back of the envelope stuff and is only basic due diligence apart from anything else.



IMO, the reason I've been at cross purposes with others in these discussions is because I'm addressing flaws in the core protocol economics and they're countering with anecdotal solutions from the broader market context. Ok - some of those may be valid, but it's again like leaving the brakes on and just fitting a bigger engine instead.

If something is flawed or unstable in that inner protocol economics model then it's going to be felt all the way to the outer layers but it'll be impossible to detect where the problem originates cos it'll be buried in clouds of opinionated ambiguity that's unresolvable.

So returning to your question:

Why is it unstable

, the answer is that the above analysis of core protocol model (whether we take my "500 Dash supply" market perspective or your "1000 Dash supply") requires Dash to lose market share or miners to mine at a 50% loss either of which destabilises the core protocol model.

The only way that model comes back into stability IMO is:

1. ramp the mining reward back up significantly. This would restore the lost competitively described in Example 1 previously. It will also solve the conflict of priorities between that and mining viability described in Example 2

2. continue to evolve the service provision layer to "mop up" the asymmetric margin over cost in the part of the primary supply that's "gifted" to masternodes. (Because if we don't, the market will do it for us by devaluing the coin further)

3. between 1 and 2 we will then have a more "measurable" value added provision by masternodes and this will feed positively back to both the supply deficit challenge (Example 1) and the mining sustainability challenge (Example 2) to mitigate them

We will then have a sustainable, competitive protocol economics model that isn't in conflict with itself, can market the primary supply competitively and sustains mining. With all that in place the price can rise and masternodes will start to benefit as well with dollar-valued rewards that are more in line with original expectations.

[qwizzie]

Mining rewards will not increase, they never have. Mining rewards were originally scheduled to be reduced to 40% in a time period of 2 years (2014-2016).
Just like the masternode rewards were originally scheduled to be increased to 60% in that same time period.
That scheduled mining reward reduction stopped at 45% with the introduction of our decentralized budget in 2015.

The reason masternodes are being discussed so much lately is the Dash Economics discussions which will lead to Dash Core Group introducing several network polling proposals,
to see if there is concensus among masternode owners to change our current blockreward allocation from 45% (miners) / 45% (masternodes) / 10% (budget)
to 38% (miners) / 54% (masternodes) / 10% (budget) over a time period of 5 years & to see if there is concensus among masternode owners to introduce a more flexible budget system
(one that is not limited to 10%).

There are several reasons behind these proposed changes, which will be described in detail in those upcoming network poll proposals and can also be found here :

Dash Core Group Presentation on Dash Economics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUf76R2V3pY

At this point it is a bit unrealistic to exspect an increase in mining rewards, it is not what this cryptocurrency drives (it never has). But discussing it on the other hand is fine with me.
We can exspect a lot more heated discussions about mining and masternodes rewards the coming weeks, as we are getting closer to those network polls.
We are witnessing Dash governance in action : Discussions --> Polling Proposals --> More Discussions --> MN voting --> Clearity --> Network as a whole moves on.

[JollyGood]

Thank you for the detailed reply.

Going by what you said it is clear mining rewards will not be increasing any time in the near future (and probably will never) the rationale for that is clear now. Regarding the buzz around masternodes, any discussion to ascertain consensus in a potential change in the budget system should probably be discussed over a long period of time just to ensure they get it right.

With so much activity around various DASH community groups and their active Core Group hopefully things will go from strength to strength.

Mining rewards will not increase, they never have. Mining rewards were originally scheduled to be reduced from 100% to 40% in a time period of 2 years (2014-2016).

That scheduled mining reward reduction stopped at 45% with the introduction of our decentralized budget in 2015. Mining rewards will most likely continue to get reduced over time,
depending on the outcome of the Dash Economics discussions.

The reason masternodes are being discussed so much lately is the Dash Economics discussions which will lead to Dash Core Group introducing several network polling proposals,
to see if there is concensus among masternode owners to change our current blockreward allocation from 45% (miners) / 45% (masternodes) / 10% (budget)
to 38% (miners) / 54% (masternodes) / 10% (budget) over a time period of 5 years & to see if there is concensus among masternode owners to introduce a more flexible budget system
(one that is not limited to 10%).

There are several reasons behind these proposed changes, which will be described in detail in those upcoming network poll proposals and can also be found here :

Dash Core Group Presentation on Dash Economics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUf76R2V3pY

At this point it is a bit unrealistic to exspect an increase in mining rewards, it is not what this cryptocurrency drives (it never has). But discussing it on the other hand is fine with me.
You can exspect a lot more heated discussions about mining and masternodes rewards the coming weeks, as we are getting closer to those network polls.

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Wirecard Aftermath, Buy Your Crypto on PayPal?, Dash Integration Bonanza...and more! | CATV LIVE

As I predicted last week, the Wirecard insolvency fiasco dominoes are starting to fall, affecting Crypto.com debit cards. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, as PayPal is reportedly going to offer digital currency buying and selling. The Dash ecosystem is growing by leaps and bounds lately, offering more choices to buy, store, and spend the best digital cash. All this and way more on this weekend's CATV LIVE.



Today at 4PM UTC. Thanks for watching!

[AzzAz]

Well I'd like to know who is selling more Dash, miners or MN owners ( or teams that get 10%, they cash it, no? ) .  Who care less and who is to blame the most for DASH marketcap position...

Difficult to gather from statistics. All i can tell is that Dash has more spending then generating. Looking at the MRI (Miners Rolling Inventory) percentage for some specific PoW cryptocurrencies over a time period of 5 weeks and taking into account that MRI above 100% means more sold and MRI below 100% means more hoarded and also taking into account that (unlike other cryptocurrencies) Dash has newly generated supply split between miners and masternodes :

Bitcoin : 99,35% (slightly more newly generated supply hoarded then sold)
Bitcoin Cash : 82,91% (more newly generated supply hoarded then sold)
Bitcoin SV : 512,63% (far more newly generated supply sold then hoarded)
Dash : 112,10% (more newly generated supply sold then hoarded)
Litecoin : 96,93% (slightly more newly generated supply hoarded then sold)

Source : https://terminal.bytetree.com/ (see on-chain --> supply with each cryptocurrency)

Goal should be to bring Dash MRI down to below 100%

...And where Monero stands? Marketcap side it fares much better than Dash.

[Tungi17]

Another Successful Dash Budget Cycle passed, 5024.98 Dash will be paid out across all voted in DAO projects in the next 24h
 (see u next month)
https://www.dashcentral.org/budget
https://app.dashnexus.org/proposals/active