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

[JollyGood]

On the surface it does seem a pointless idea that anybody could compile a wish-list and send it off to the core development team and they would contemplate making those changes since the numbers of people sending recommendations or suggestions would be very high. Keeping that aside sometimes it is the little things and efforts that get noticed - who knows what the future will hold and which direction Dash will head towards in a few years from now.

Thank you for the link to the thread in the Dash forum.

Actually pushing through change will be difficult and time consuming, just look at how long these Dash Economics discussions took. Counting from the Dash Open House late last year to the actual voting on the proposed
solution now. But maybe he can bring some fresh ideas in, that nobody thought about.. who knows. It can't hurt to discuss. And since he is in it for the long run, i assume he is also thinking of a long term solution.
Because this blockreward allocation change that takes place over the next 4 1/2 years, pretty much falls under the 'quick win' solutions --> https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/  

Would that be enough to push through any form of changes though? There are so many people with so many ideas for innovations but how many developers (or in this case Dash Core) would even pay attention to any proposals that are put forward? It takes a big shift of consensus to garner momentum and I just cannot see the development team implementing ideas on the basis they are simply put forward - there needs to be more than that.

Thank you for the detailed response. Looking forward to hearing your vision for a solution and its implementation, when you have it finished. And i agree with your thoughts on this being a temporary phase,
and i also think Dash is well-suited for the future. Good to see someone thinking long term like that.

[jdmcg]

Now Dash is in danger of going into a death spiral for bad decisions.

FIFY.

Seems overly dramatic...

Seems to me that since Dash had a stronger increase during the last bull market than the other coins it's now experiencing a stronger correction during this bear market. It also seems to me that this bear market is about over...

Let's see how it behaves now in the coming 3 months to year. I expect a stronger recovery compared to other coins (Jan 2020 we saw a small glimpse).

Anyways, assuming my math is right, this is what the reallocation proposal changes...

Date	Block Reward	Proposal share	Proposal reward	Current reward	7.14% reduction
		Miners/Masternode	Miners/Masternode	Miners/Masternode
Jul-10-2020	2.88	50.0%/50.0%	1.44/1.44	1.44/1.44
Sep-28-2020	2.88	48.7%/51.3%	1.40/1.48	1.44/1.44
Dec-28-2020	2.88	47.4%/52.6%	1.36/1.52	1.44/1.44
Mar-29-2021	2.88	46.7%/53.3%	1.34/1.54	1.44/1.44
May-15-2021	2.67	46.7%/53.3%	1.24/1.43	1.33/1.33	yes
Jun-28-2021	2.67	46.0%/54.0%	1.23/1.44	1.33/1.33
Sep-27-2021	2.67	45.4%/54.6%	1.21/1.46	1.33/1.33
Dec-27-2021	2.67	44.8%/55.2%	1.20/1.47	1.33/1.33
Mar-28-2022	2.67	44.3%/55.7%	1.18/1.49	1.33/1.33
Jun-02-2022	2.48	44.3%/55.7%	1.10/1.38	1.24/1.24	yes
Jun-27-2022	2.48	43.8%/56.2%	1.09/1.39	1.24/1.24
Sep-25-2022	2.48	43.3%/56.7%	1.07/1.41	1.24/1.24
Jun-20-2023	2.30	43.3%/56.7%	1.00/1.30	1.15/1.15	yes

I would think the change to miner rewards is negligible as a pool is likely to find the block anyway and split the reward accordingly. The change for masternodes keeps the reward the same for the next 3 years. Presumably with the release of Dash Platform, masternode costs will increase.

I can't see passing this proposal dooming Dash in any event. I would think it should slightly pressure miners to sell higher and keep masternodes invested.

I would think if toknormal's theory is correct, then Dash is already doomed, regardless of whether this proposal passes or not.

I don't see it though, Dash's future looks bright. It consistently brings new innovation to the space and continually increases in important metrics (transaction counts/exchanges/etc)

[toknormal]

Seems to me that since Dash had a stronger increase during the last bull market than the other coins it's now experiencing a stronger correction during this bear market.

Couldn't you apply that logic to just about any top 20 coin from December 2017 ?

If your protocol gives half the supply away for free while competing ones restrict theirs to competitive mining, expect the market to value it accordingly.

[jdmcg]

Seems to me that since Dash had a stronger increase during the last bull market than the other coins it's now experiencing a stronger correction during this bear market.

Couldn't you apply that logic to just about any top 20 coin from December 2017 ?

If your protocol gives half the supply away for free while competing ones restrict theirs to competitive mining, expect the market to value it accordingly.

No, not all of them. Maybe XRP.

Ok, so would you agree then that the proposal neither makes things better or worse?

What would your proposal look like?

Also you keep saying half the supply is given away for free without mentioning that masternodes need some kind of incentive to exist. How is Dash not a Bitcoin clone without masternodes?

[toknormal]

What would your proposal look like?

It would look as described in the closing remarks of this post.

Justified by the observations made in this one.

Also you keep saying half the supply is given away for free without mentioning that masternodes need some kind of incentive to exist. How is Dash not a Bitcoin clone without masternodes?

The DCG proposal isn't concerned with the existence or non-existence of masternodes, it's concerned with changing the reward ratio away from miners and towards masternodes. I would not get rid of masternodes and have never argued for that. I've only argued that if the masternode reward goes beyond a measurable added value to the coin from a new invstor's perspective, then capital will move away from Dash to its fully-mined competitors.

I've also argued that for Dash to be to be investible, the masternode operating margin and mining operating margins need to be congruent, otherwise the market will simply revalue the coin until they are. This is what's been happening over the last few years when you compare Dash's relative value with its (former) competitors.

I say "former" because they no longer need to regard Dash as a competitor. They've remained in the top 20 by marketcap while we have not so it's us that have the re-examining to do, not them. We've had a 40%+ deficit on mining reward during that time. Increasing it to a 50% deficit as a solution doesn't exactly strike me as a "re-examination" of priorities and I don't think the wider market will see it as one either.

[jdmcg]

What would your proposal look like?

It would look as described in the closing remarks of this post.

Justified by the observations made in this one.

Also you keep saying half the supply is given away for free without mentioning that masternodes need some kind of incentive to exist. How is Dash not a Bitcoin clone without masternodes?

The DCG proposal isn't concerned with the existence or non-existence of masternodes, it's concerned with changing the reward ratio away from miners and towards masternodes. I would not get rid of masternodes and have never argued for that. I've only argued that if the masternode reward goes beyond a measurable added value to the coin from a new invstor's perspective, then capital will move away from Dash to its fully-mined competitors.

I've also argued that for Dash to be to be investible, the masternode operating margin and mining operating margins need to be congruent, otherwise the market will simply revalue the coin until they are. This is what's been happening over the last few years when you compare Dash's relative value with its (former) competitors.

I say "former" because they no longer need to regard Dash as a competitor. They've remained in the top 20 by marketcap while we have not so it's us that have the re-examining to do, not them. We've had a 40%+ deficit on mining reward during that time. Increasing it to a 50% deficit as a solution doesn't exactly strike me as a "re-examination" of priorities and I don't think the wider market will see it as one either.

Ok, so your proposal is to give more to miners, less to masternodes. Specifically then, what is the right number?

And you are arguing that something needs to be done more than just voting no for this proposal.

Does it matter to your conclusions whether or not masternodes hold most of their earnings?

[toknormal]

Does it matter to your conclusions whether or not masternodes hold most of their earnings?

No. Because masternodes are no different from any other part of the supply. They might hold under one set of circumstances and sell under another. Dash supply is not "locked up in masternodes", it never was because no-one in their right mind would hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market, while in a bull market the principal attraction is capital gain, not fixed income so entire nodes will get dumped at the top of a rally. The only people that hold through both are Dash tribalists who do not represent the wider economic landscape.

Masternodes as an asset are threatening to move towards a POS type model which would be a disaster IMO. It is toxic for us.

Imagine there's a sandpile that weighs 1 tonne and you own 1000 sandgrains of it which weigh together 1 Kg. So you own 1 kilo of sand.

But you're only interested in how many sand grains you have, not what their weight is. Meanwhile, non-holders are only interested in the weight, not the number of sandgrains.

So, since you value only the sand-grain count, the sandpile offers to pay you an additional 100 smaller sand grains every year in exchange for not selling your sand. But at the same time, it makes all the sand grains you already owned smaller as well, not just the new ones. So at the end of the year you have 1100 sand grains.

But you still only own 1 Kilo of sand.

This is how proof of stake chains work. Cutting the same cake into ever smaller pieces hoping that their holders will value their holding higher.

It's the same principle by which fiat money works - re-denomination of the same asset base. It's also the principle that informs the current proposal to change Dash's monetary protocol: less scarcity at a high cost base, more free money at a low cost base. Always the "trained economist's" reflex response to a crisis. Taken to its logical conclusion, eventually ends up in a stablecoin. (Bitcoin/POW does not work like this. You want another block ? Mine it and compete with everyone else that wants it).

The only way that this kind of asset is investible is if the non-mined element contributes equivalent measurable added value in some way.

But Dash does not fulfill that requirement. How could it when all of the staking revenue - already representing half the supply - has a zero cost base ? Now it seems Dash is also on the verge of declaring it doesn't even want to protect the scarcity of its primary supply with competitive mining any more.

What is there left for an outsider to invest in ?

So capital therefore moves to these 100% competitively mined chains if it wants scarcity...

...and these arbitrarily spawned tokens if it wants to invest in decentralised utility.



          |
          |
          V

Same sandpile. Smaller sandgrains. More of them.



This wasn't the original founder's idea of Dash's monetary model.

[Tungi17]

Dash now available for Margin trading at HitBTC! Get 5x leverage with Dash by visiting HITBTC and signing up today
https://hitbtc.com/

[JollyGood]

Why are some members here in this thread showing either such disdain or interested in down-talking Dash with criticism or innuendo?

Let us all enjoy the ride and see where the project goes instead of talking about hypothetical what 'ifs' and 'buts'

[qwizzie]

Does it matter to your conclusions whether or not masternodes hold most of their earnings?

No. Because masternodes are no different from any other part of the supply. They might hold under one set of circumstances and sell under another. Dash supply is not "locked up in masternodes", it never was because no-one in their right mind would hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market, while in a bull market the principal attraction is capital gain, not fixed income so entire nodes will get dumped at the top of a rally. The only people that hold through both are Dash tribalists who do not represent the wider economic landscape.

Yet we currently have 4914 masternode operators that did exactly that (hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market). Those 4914 are also pretty close to our ATH (4969), and Dash is not even in a bull market.
Number of masternodes never reached lower then 4500 (discounting network updates causing large fluctuations) throughout this bear market. That is a lot of 'Dash tribalists'
I would dare say 4,5 million Dash (46,9% of Dash circulating supply) staying long term invested despite a rampaging bearmarket, does represent a large portion of the economic landscape.
Only having a (temp) -9,44% decline in number of masternodes during a very long and heavy bear market, indicates to me that there are other factors driving masternode operators.
Factors that are getting overlooked or ignored in your theory.

Maybe just maybe your all explaining theory has holes.
Holes you are never ever willing to admit exists.

[afbitcoins]

There may be those, like me, who were saving during the bear market, believing Dash was at a bargain price. In fact I was saving and also buying on the market too, until Ryans proposal to move the block reward allocation. In my case I feel that the investment I was making is not the same investment anymore. Rug pulled out from under my feet. Now I feel overinvested in an asset that is changing to something else. I have been through similar experiences with another investment (Byteball now OByte) and can see all the warning signs again. I rode byteball down out of the top 100, I don't plan to do that with Dash. You don't think marketcap is important? That is a bit of a losing mentality to be blunt. Dash should be top5, firmly established. The Dash should have value, not be cheap.

Anyway, Just as you can argue that we (ie Dash) pay too much for hashrate you can argue we pay too much for masternodes. How many nodes do we need in order to run the layer two stuff? Have we got too many miners or too many masternodes?   Or too many of both What does having 5000 nodes give you extra compared to 4000 nodes? What does more hashrate give you than less hashrate ? All the same arguments against hashrate can be turned around to the masternodes just as easily. The only thing Ryan is trying to achive is to make a price pump if he can entice a few more masternodes to come on line and hodl the collatoral. That is not long term thinking

Does it matter to your conclusions whether or not masternodes hold most of their earnings?

No. Because masternodes are no different from any other part of the supply. They might hold under one set of circumstances and sell under another. Dash supply is not "locked up in masternodes", it never was because no-one in their right mind would hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market, while in a bull market the principal attraction is capital gain, not fixed income so entire nodes will get dumped at the top of a rally. The only people that hold through both are Dash tribalists who do not represent the wider economic landscape.

Yet we currently have 4914 masternode operators that did exactly that (hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market). Those 4914 are also pretty close to our ATH (4969), and Dash is not even in a bull market.
Number of masternodes never reached lower then 4500 (discounting network updates causing large fluctuations) throughout this bear market. That is a lot of 'Dash tribalists'
I would dare say 4,5 million Dash (46,9% of Dash circulating supply) staying long term invested despite a rampaging bearmarket, does represent a large portion of the economic landscape.
To me it indicates that there are other factors driving masternode operators. Factors that are getting overlooked or ignored in your theory.

Maybe just maybe your all-explaining theory has holes.
Holes you are never ever willing to admit exists.

[Pang.]

Does it matter to your conclusions whether or not masternodes hold most of their earnings?

No. Because masternodes are no different from any other part of the supply. They might hold under one set of circumstances and sell under another. Dash supply is not "locked up in masternodes", it never was because no-one in their right mind would hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market, while in a bull market the principal attraction is capital gain, not fixed income so entire nodes will get dumped at the top of a rally. The only people that hold through both are Dash tribalists who do not represent the wider economic landscape.

Yet we currently have 4914 masternode operators that did exactly that (hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market). Those 4914 are also pretty close to our ATH (4969), and Dash is not even in a bull market.
Number of masternodes never reached lower then 4500 (discounting network updates causing large fluctuations) throughout this bear market. That is a lot of 'Dash tribalists'
I would dare say 4,5 million Dash (46,9% of Dash circulating supply) staying long term invested despite a rampaging bearmarket, does represent a large portion of the economic landscape.
To me it indicates that there are other factors driving masternode operators. Factors that are getting overlooked or ignored in your theory.

Maybe just maybe your all-explaining theory has holes.
Holes you are never ever willing to admit exists.

Right now, this one that you present is the most important argument that Dash maintains with enormous potential.

Knowing that there are strong hands holding such a large investment, suggests that there may be interests that we do not know behind those master nodes.

When investing in venture capital years ago, one of the parameters that were very important when making decisions was knowing who the institutional ownership was, when there was a company that controlled more than 50% by renowned institutions, the investment had more sense, and if the percentage on the free float approached 80% the tranquility increased.

Knowing that more than 50% of Dash remains in the hands of people or institutions that trust the currency gives great peace of mind.

I reiterate what I always say, it is necessary to focus the budget on increasing the value of Dash, not on absurd projects without repercussion.

If someday we accept that there could be a stock of master nodes, the best thing would be for DIF to take as much control of the budget as possible.

Imagine for a moment that the distribution between nodes, miners and projects, for example, turned over 25% for the DIF, and that DIF intelligently invested those funds ... that would give Dash value!

It is a ball on the roof that is waiting to fall, but we do not know if it will fall on the court again, or if it will stay up there leaving everyone watching without being able to do anything about it.

Greetings

[toknormal]

Yet we currently have 4914 masternode operators that did exactly that (hold onto such a huge capital loss in a bear market).

Is this a joke quizzie ?

Dash could hit page 3 on CMC at 10k sats and still have 5000 masternodes, just not with the same owners as when they cost $1 million a pop.

Nor is nodecount a guide to effectiveness as a store of value. Ranking is because it measures Dash's performance relative to similar assets with a different monetary protocol.

[qwizzie]

The only thing Ryan is trying to achive is to make a price pump if he can entice a few more masternodes to come on line and hodl the collatoral. That is not long term thinking

This is not about achieving a price pump, this is about keeping our circulating supply growth under control.
Which will give less circulating supply inflation to users, improves Dash store of value and hopefully make Dash more competitive.

Side note : i wonder if i should just change my name to quizzie, what do you think afbitcoins ? I think toknormal already approves  

I understand the feeling of perhaps being over invested in a cryptocurrency, specially in times of uncertainty / bear market.
I think most investors will experience that feeling one time or another. You are certainly not alone in that area.

Just try to avoid making a decision based on emotions, which are perhaps heightened in a bear market where there is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of doomsday predictions
floating around.

[toknormal]

Imagine bitcoin hits $200,000.

That would value a Dash masternode at a $1.5 million at the current ratio. Masternode revenue for a single node at $2200 per week and for the whole network at $10 million per WEEK.

In macro bookkeeping terms, one entity's income is another's expense. Doesn't matter if they sell or not.

There is not a snowball's hope in hell of that ever happening. The market will simply drastically discount Dash's capital value compared with full mining reward counterparts. There are only 2 ways to avoid this:

1. if the most of the masternode revenues were somehow ploughed back into the network in a way that added equivalent value to the coin over competitors

2. if the masternode margins were cut by way of restoring mining reward ratio

As things currently stand we're on a slow bleed of capital from Dash to competing mined assets and that's only going to be doubled down on with the current proposal. We'll be at 760 sats, not 7600.

[jdmcg]

Consider the following...

Current marketcap in millions USD
BTC: 170449, ETH: 26846, LTC: 2881, DASH: 687, PPC: 6.2, NMC: 5.7

Marketcap 4 years ago in millions USD
BTC: 10228, ETH: 896, LTC: 191, DASH: 48, PPC: 9, NMC: 5.5

Marketcap increase in 4 years
BTC: 16.5x, ETH: 30x, LTC: 15x, DASH: 14.3x, PPC: 0.7x, NMC: 1x

So ETH is the clear winner here but based on the pushed theories (presented as obvious facts) ETH should plummet in value like PPC when it finally goes POS.

DASH seems to be pretty much in line with BTC and LTC gains over the last 4 years. Note that BTC and LTC are the 2 main POW coins with first mover advantage. 

Not sure why anyone is trying to compare DASH's marketcap increase with PPC or other forgotten POS coins.

And who knows, PPC has some active development over the last year... maybe it makes a bit of a come back. NMC is a POW coin, developed by Satoshi himself, and what happened to it?

Again if the proposal passes, then in 3 years masternodes will get 1.30 DASH instead of 1.15 and miners will share 1 DASH instead of 1.15... In the meantime the difference will be even less. I'm not sure this change is as drastic as some people seem to make it...

[qwizzie]

To jdmcg :

What are your thoughts on the proposed changes on Dash budget system ? (to be presented and voted upon in a later cycle, if the blockreward allocation decision proposal passes)
Making the treasury allocation possibly flex higher then the current 10% ?


Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUf76R2V3pY&feature=emb_logo
Timestamp 1:16:15

[toknormal]

based on the pushed theories (presented as obvious facts) ETH should plummet in value like PPC when it finally goes POS.

Not necessarily. "Pushed theories" account for 2 categories of asset as described at the end of this post: Ether is a computing platform and has a different monetary basis from Dash or PPC.

The only thing Ryan is trying to achive is to make a price pump if he can entice a few more masternodes to come on line and hodl the collatoral. That is not long term thinking

That's the only explanation I can see for this craziness, why everybody is voting for it and why nobody can adequately defend the logic behind it.

They all want out on the next pump.

No worries. I'll be joining them.

[qwizzie]

I guess it is the 'lets make some wild accusations' time again for toknormal.

To be honest toknormal always did give me the impression of being more of an opportunistic trader, then anything else.
So i am not totally surprised by these kind of posts.
Nothing wrong with opportunistic traders by the way, the market has all kind of traders / investors short term and long term, each with their own strategy.

[Pang.]

Imagine bitcoin hits $200,000.

That would value a Dash masternode at a $150,000 at the current ratio. Masternode revenue for a single node at $2200 per week and for the whole network at $10 million per WEEK.

In macro bookkeeping terms, one entitie's income is another's expense. Doesn't matter if they sell or not.

There is not a snowball's hope in hell of that ever happening. The market will simply drastically discount Dash's capital value compared with full mining reward counterparts. There are only 2 ways to avoid this:


1. if the most of the masternode revenues were somehow ploughed back into the network in a way that added equivalent value to the coin over competitors

2. if the masternode margins were cut by way of restoring mining reward ratio

As things currently stand we're on a slow bleed of capital from Dash to competing mined assets and that's only going to be doubled down on with thhe current proposal. We'll be at 760 sats, not 7600.

That part of your text is for me the great key to this coin.

We are already digital cash, we are instantaneous, we can be private ...
But what can make us superior?

Possess intrinsic value beyond self-confidence or a decentralized payment network.

Let's think about the money from 100 years ago backed by gold, silver and let's think about the current fiat money.

Do we want Dash to be fiat money, or do we want that apart from being fiat it has something else?

Imagine that a Dash holder can say ... behind a Dash there is trust, but there is also gold, silver, google shares, amazon shares, a percentage of a building in los angeles, a golf course in florida, a race track in germany ...

If we go in that direction, DIF is the answer, and then, only then, Dash will have no limits either as a method of payment or as an intrinsic value.