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

[thunderjet]

Miners increasingly signal support for v0.16.0.1

...because they're the largest single group of masternode owners since it allows them to mine at far lower cost than would be possible in other chains ? which would explain why:

1. Dash keeps accumulating hashpower in spite of reduced mining incentive
2. loss of capital/scarcity value from the chain (since only 4 blocks of 10 are effectively exposed to that hashpower)

Even if this weren't the case it would be only a matter of time till it was because it's a business model that Dash protocol supports. This "gaming" of the reward ratio due to the fact that the MN coins emerge into the hands of their holders with a zero cost base and so are able to subsidise uneconomic mining from the capital value of the chain. (Masternodes are just mining with a zero cost base).

The cost is therefore paid by regular holders through capital loss. IMO we need to plug this leakage by radically restoring the (#tightShip) mining reward and eliminating the (#cruiseShip) uneconomic masternode rewards.

So the answer is simple:

#nodesAreNotACharity
#setMarginsAtParity

Then capital is retained, the protocol cannot be gamed and the chain becomes investible again.

Everything is crystal clear,but you cant explain to someone who does not want to see what is really going on. Regular miners would switch off their machines immediatelly if it is not more profitable for them to mine any more. Due to this awfully wrong idea of mining coing redistribution between miners and masternode operators, DASH got very bad union of miners and large masternode operators.They can mine coins by far lesser price than regular miners,pushing them away and taking full control of coin.

[qwizzie]

Great news emerged from the Dash Core Group Q3 Quarterly Call today !! Not only will Dash Platform be released on Dash Testnet end of this year,
DashPay Mobile app / Dapp will also be released on Dash Testnet end of this year.

Here is a screenshot of the updated Dash Roadmap :



Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-core-group-q3-quarterly-call-29-10-2020.50832/#post-223850

This means we will finally get our hands on DashPay (through testnet) very soon.

Not so great news is that Fernando announced his resignation as CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) within Dash Core Group, during the quarterly call. His position will need to be filled by a new CMO.
Fernando will stay involved with Dash and will remain in the board of Dash Core Group, but he will not be CMO anymore for Dash Core Group.
I wish Fernando all the best.

[jdmcg]

For those who are still stressing over the price of DASH and the constant ramblings of toknormal and a few others I offer you the following considerations.

1- This is Dash's first bear market. It was created early 2014, and got to enjoy price discovery as the new shiny coin that it was (think of ATOM, DOT, BNB, etc now)
2- So bad news is we don't know how much lower this can go... however...
3- We can get an idea by looking at LTC which has gone thru a full cycle already
4- Now the crypto market is largely dictated by BTC and its halvening event every 4 years which occurred 2 months earlier in the calendar year of 2020 than it had in 2016...
5- LTC hit an ATL between end of Feb 2017 and beginning of Mar 2017 of roughly 0.003 BTC (hmm... wonder if people thought it was dead then...)
6- Before skyrocketing in price by a factor of 7 with the rest of the alts by mid March 2017
7- So subtract 2 months from LTC's last ATL and apply it to this year and you get end of Dec 2020, beginning of Jan 2021
8- It's only end of October now and LTC is roughly 0.004 BTC... could we see a 25% price decrease vs BTC over the next 2 months?
9- I would not be surprised at all... and so be ready... Dash could easily do the same and see 0.00375 BTC by then... which is roughly a 25% drop vs BTC from where it's at now

At those prices, alts could easily explode at any moment. Honestly, I would be surprised if they don't by Jan/Feb 2021, when at the same time BTC matches its previous ATH or is at least well over $14K but of course I don't know, so we'll see...

Now, the idea that masternode owners are somehow the ones that are mining... any masternode owner that wishes to confess?

No, I didn't think so. You see, there is absolutely no advantage for a masternode owner to mine vs anyone else. In fact the loss from mining Dash is easily covered by the profits of mining XMR... so while there might be a Dash masternode owner who also mines Dash, what's the point? A loss is a loss, no? Why not just buy Dash when it's cheap? And I thought Dash masternode owners were dumping their Dash for cheap so which is it? Are they buying/mining Dash or dumping it for cheap? No, please don't answer by posting the exact same thing again... whatever, if it makes you feel better to believe that then go ahead.

So, are you going to capitulate? Can you hold on for another month or 2 or more?

Not financial advice but just something else to think about...

[toknormal]

... so while there might be a Dash masternode owner who also mines Dash, what's the point? A loss is a loss, no? Why not just buy Dash when it's cheap?

When there's no net growth in masternode count (equilibrium point), nor any service investment requirement from nodes in exchange for receiving coins, then masternodes become no different from a miner with a zero cost base.

Think about that for a moment.

What do you think would happen to bitcoin's value if the chain suddenly gave half its miners their reward at zero cost ? It would collapse overnight to a new equilibrium value, likely to be well below where it is now.

That is exactly what Dash does - and, exactly as described above, its Satoshi price in particular has done nothing but collapse, more or less in a straight line, since we hit the approximate 5000 node equilibrium level.

Now, a Dash masternode requires an investment of around $66,000. A bitcoin miner can invest in $66,000 worth of mining rig OR bitcoin itself, but they still won't get any coin for free. They need to put that rig to work on the chain and invest capital into the chain by way of raising the difficulty (scarcity value) to a near equivalent amount to the value of the coin they extract. That goes for ALL MINERS. There are none to whom the chain makes coin available at a zero cost base.

So at equilibrium nodecount, Dash is effectively turning half of its mining force into a charity by issuing them coin at a near-zero cost base. It doesn't even require any service provision investment from those "miners" in return for being issued coin.

Therefore, the argument over whether "actual" miners run masternodes or not is moot. The aggregate effect is the same in terms of capital value flows because if you set the difficulty level to zero for half your miners, you'd have effectively a masternode. Having "coins locked up" does not generate any new value. The application of hashrate to newly emerging blocks does. Absorbing service-provision costs in response to service demand also does, but masternodes are not doing that.

The way out of this is to set margins at parity. That way the free market doesn't have to do it for us with recourse to the capital value of the whole chain. (It only has to do that because it can't access masternode margins independently of mining margins. It's fixed by the protocol).

[Tungi17]

The Dash Core Group Q3 2020 Summary Call is live! Tune in to hear the latest from DCG
https://youtu.be/uNkRtaAyjYQ

[jdmcg]

... so while there might be a Dash masternode owner who also mines Dash, what's the point? A loss is a loss, no? Why not just buy Dash when it's cheap?

When there's no net growth in masternode count (equilibrium point), nor any service investment requirement from nodes in exchange for receiving coins, then masternodes become no different from than a miner with a zero cost base.

Except, that's what makes Dash unique. They provide instantsend, privatesend, chainlocks and soon Dash Platform.

Now, what about all the many DPOS cryptos that pay delegaters/stakers/bakers dividends for their votes? I would assume you'd think they have the same problem, wouldn't you?

Think about that for a moment.

What do you think would happen to bitcoin's value if the chain suddenly gave half its miners their reward at zero cost ? It would collapse overnight to a new equilibrium value, likely to be well below where it is now.

That is exactly what Dash does - and, exactly as described above, its Satoshi price in particular has done nothing but collapse, more or less in a straight line, since we hit the approximate 5000 node equilibrium level.

Of course, suddenly would cause a huge dump. Just like if Dash suddenly increased miner rewards to 95%. I would expect Dash to collapse to at least a 3rd of its value from where it is now before having any signs of life.

Thing is, Dash hasn't done anything suddenly. It's been this way for years now and the vote to gradually shift rewards 10% more for masternodes occurs gradually over 5 years from now at the very same time block rewards continue to be reduced by over 7% a year.

What's interesting is how well Dash has not only maintained its masternode count but has continued to even increase to new ATH's in count even despite the brutal bear market.

Now, a Dash masternode requires an investment of around $66,000. A bitcoin miner can invest in $66,000 worth of mining rig OR bitcoin itself, but they still won't get any coin for free. They need to put that rig to work on the chain and invest capital into the chain by way of raising the difficulty (scarcity value) to a near equivalent amount to the value of the coin they extract. That goes for ALL MINERS. There are none to whom the chain makes coin available at a zero cost base.

I guess you are only concerned with mining coins of which only a small percentage actually have a higher marketcap than Dash... what about all the other coins which are higher than Dash in CMC rankings yet makes coin available at a zero cost base with absolutely no mining? Why should Dash only compete and be concerned with 100% mined coins? What's so special with them? All 100% mined coins that are higher than Dash in CMC rankings are first movers, entrenched to certain degrees from previous market cycles. Why is there no new 100% mined competitor? I don't want Dash just to be another 100% mined coin. I already can buy one that's readily available and the market doesn't seem willing to include any new ones either.

So at equilibrium nodecount, Dash is effectively turning half of its mining force into a charity by issuing them coin at a near-zero cost base. It doesn't even require any service provision investment from those "miners" in return for being issued coin.

Hmm... equilibrium? Didn't we just hit a new ATH a week ago? And it looks like November it will continue to climb... sure not as fast as maybe you think it should but it still seems to be increasing to me.

I would assume Dash Platform will require masternode owners to increase costs somewhat although I haven't looked into it yet. I would also think the services of Dash Platform will be unique enough to offer services no other competitor can. But can it be marketed properly?

Therefore, the argument over whether "actual" miners run masternodes or not is moot. The aggregate effect is the same in terms of capital value flows because if you set the difficulty level to zero for half your miners, you'd have effectively a masternode. Having "coins locked up" does not generate any new value. The application of hashrate to newly emerging blocks does. Absorbing service-provision costs in response to service demand also does, but masternodes are not doing that.

Wait a minute... I made this argument? No, I merely stated that it makes no sense. You were arguing that the protocol allows masternode owners to become miners. And of course, it doesn't. Masternode owners have no more advantage nor incentive to mine Dash than anyone else.

The way out of this is to set margins at parity. That way the free market doesn't have to do it for us with recourse to the capital value of the whole chain. (It only has to do that because it can't access masternode margins independently of mining margins. It's fixed by the protocol).

Ok, so I looked into a bit and it seems to me the cost/price to run a masternode is about $25 USD a month. Sure you can do it cheaper if you manage everything yourself but this seems to be at least what 3rd party services would charge. Some charge even more. A masternode owner makes about 5 Dash a month and this will decrease each year (despite the gradual shift of increased rewards compared to miners).

If masternode rewards were reduced to 5% as you've previously proposed, that would mean a masternode owner would get 0.5 Dash a month. Still a very small profit but how many years would you take to transition this in? Certainly you can see if it was anything less than what, a decade maybe, the price would bleed as masternodes shut down and dump there collateral on the market. You might have a chance if you only reduced it to 30% and did it in the middle of a full on bull market. But even that is risky.

I don't know how you could make such a fundamental change for a coin that's been out there for 6+ years now. Maybe if you started that way from scratch... maybe.

So, I think you need to come up with a counter proposal that actually might work with where Dash is right now and not something that would all but destroy it.

[toknormal]

Except, that's what makes Dash unique. They provide instantsend, privatesend, chainlocks and soon Dash Platform.

That isn't what makes crypto "valuable" (as in "store of value"). Mining is what makes it fundamentally valuable because it implements a competitive restriction to the supply which is quantifiable in monetary units. That then sets a base price for secondary markets (where previously mined coins change hands).

Utility features can make it a great means of exchange, but unless you have a monopoly on them they're useless as a store of value. Where Dash DID have a monopoly was in inheriting bitcoin's store of value mechanism (a fully mined crypto) but making it far more versatile as a means of exchange. I'm suggesting we revert to that market where we belong and compete with bitcoin, not Visa.

I guess you are only concerned with mining coins of which only a small percentage actually have a higher marketcap than Dash... what about all the other coins which are higher than Dash in CMC rankings yet makes coin available at a zero cost base with absolutely no mining?

You can only get away with that if you have massive amounts of utility, because it's the utility that's being tokenised, not the capital that went into creating the token in the first place. That's the difference between mined currencies and tokenised ICOs. Look at this chart and compare it with the marketcap rankings. The only reason that anything gets away with existing in the top-20 marketcap with a low activity level....is if it's mined.

Dash has BOTH a low activity level and now its ditching its mined blocks as well: double negative and the market is sinking us for it.

Hmm... equilibrium? Didn't we just hit a new ATH a week ago? And it looks like November it will continue to climb... sure not as fast as maybe you think it should but it still seems to be increasing to me.

We're at exactly the nodecount we were 2 years ago with half the marketcap.

If masternode rewards were reduced to 5% as you've previously proposed, that would mean a masternode owner would get 0.5 Dash a month. Still a very small profit but how many years would you take to transition this in? Certainly you can see if it was anything less than what, a decade maybe, the price would bleed as masternodes shut down and dump there collateral on the market. You might have a chance if you only reduced it to 30% and did it in the middle of a full on bull market. But even that is risky.

I'd do it instantly. Like right now. I think it would be bullish. There are plenty of takers for nodes and the price would take an instant boost from the sudden restriction in supply & hike in scarcity value. Ok, miners get the supply instead of masternodes but that would be a GOOD thing because it would inject a sudden shock of profitability to mining which would immediately raise the competitiveness for the primary supply (and thereby the price of new blocks - ones that were previously given to masternodes for free). Masternodes wouldn't feel any hit in that event because the market has been so volatile in the last few years that their main ROI comes from the capital gain or loss of their collateral, not from the reward itself.

You'll have takers for masternodes at any price (as long as the reward is positive in terms of margin over hosting cost).
Stabilising the capital growth is what matters IMO.

[jdmcg]

Except, that's what makes Dash unique. They provide instantsend, privatesend, chainlocks and soon Dash Platform.

That isn't what makes crypto "valuable" (as in "store of value"). Mining is what makes it fundamentally valuable because it implements a competitive restriction to the supply which is quantifiable in monetary units. That then sets a base price for secondary markets (where previously mined coins change hands).

Utility features can make it a great means of exchange, but unless you have a monopoly on them they're useless as a store of value. Where Dash DID have a monopoly was in inheriting bitcoin's store of value mechanism (a fully mined crypto) but making it far more versatile as a means of exchange. I'm suggesting we revert to that market where we belong and compete with bitcoin, not Visa.

Wait, so you're talking about the first year and a half of Dash's existence before it had masternodes? Dash has had masternodes I think since 2015 so most of it's price growth was with masternodes. And masternodes and miners have shared block rewards 50/50 for years now and still do.

I don't accept your premise that mining is the only way for crypto to be valuable. So you're building a whole theory on a dubious foundation.

There's something innately valuable about a trustless network of exchange of value and unique services.

I guess you are only concerned with mining coins of which only a small percentage actually have a higher marketcap than Dash... what about all the other coins which are higher than Dash in CMC rankings yet makes coin available at a zero cost base with absolutely no mining?

You can only get away with that if you have massive amounts of utility, because it's the utility that's being tokenised, not the capital that went into creating the token in the first place. That's the difference between mined currencies and tokenised ICOs. Look at this chart and compare it with the marketcap rankings. The only reason that anything gets away with existing in the top-20 marketcap with a low activity level....is if it's mined.

Dash has BOTH a low activity level and now its ditching its mined blocks as well: double negative and the market is sinking us for it.

I would think Dash Platform will help correct some of those metrics.

Also, if your position is so strong you needn't overstate anything. Dash is not ditching its mined blocks, it's still a POW chain and I don't think there are any plans to change that. There was talk at one time to go POS but I believe it was decided that this was the wrong direction.

5 years from now when rewards are split 60/40 to masternodes... I wouldn't expect a masternode owner getting much more than 2 or 3 Dash per month.

Hmm... equilibrium? Didn't we just hit a new ATH a week ago? And it looks like November it will continue to climb... sure not as fast as maybe you think it should but it still seems to be increasing to me.

We're at exactly the nodecount we were 2 years ago with half the marketcap.

It seems you picked the previous ATH which is still less than what we have today. The fact that the count only took a bit of a dip since that time which was the heart of the bear market is quite impressive. It seems we've had increased masternode interest since Mar/Apr this year and it looks like we will continue hitting new ATH's for the next year ahead.

Also, interesting that you point out that the marketcap was twice as high then as it is now. So that means we have half the sell pressure from masternode owners today, no?
 
2 years ago, roughly 57% of Dash was tied up as masternode collateral. Today it's 51%, so seems we have runway for another 500 to 600 new masternodes before reaching the same percentage.

If masternode rewards were reduced to 5% as you've previously proposed, that would mean a masternode owner would get 0.5 Dash a month. Still a very small profit but how many years would you take to transition this in? Certainly you can see if it was anything less than what, a decade maybe, the price would bleed as masternodes shut down and dump there collateral on the market. You might have a chance if you only reduced it to 30% and did it in the middle of a full on bull market. But even that is risky.

I'd do it instantly. Like right now. I think it would be bullish. There are plenty of takers for nodes and the price would take an instant boost from the sudden restriction in supply & hike in scarcity value. Ok, miners get the supply instead of masternodes but that would be a GOOD thing because it would inject a sudden shock of profitability to mining which would immediately raise the competitiveness for the primary supply (and thereby the price of new blocks - ones that were previously given to masternodes for free). Masternodes wouldn't feel any hit in that event because the market has been so volatile in the last few years that their main ROI comes from the capital gain or loss of their collateral, not from the reward itself.

You'll have takers for masternodes at any price (as long as the reward is positive in terms of margin over hosting cost).
Stabilising the capital growth is what matters IMO.

I have a hard time imagining how the market could absorb the selling off from hundreds if not a thousand or two of masternode collateral in a relatively short time. Miners wouldn't rush in to compete because the price would fall so fast not only from ex-masternode owners but existing miners who would be quick to take their share before it's too late. This would create a cascading effect that could only reach a conclusion when capitulation was over. You want to add another capitulation force on top of the one that's playing out now?

Sure, an exaggerated bounce will occur once that's over and then some kind of equilibrium maybe by mid-end of 2021. In the meantime every other alt will be reaching previous ATH and surpassing them. No thanks, let's not do something so drastic.

[toknormal]

Wait, so you're talking about the first year and a half of Dash's existence before it had masternodes? Dash has had masternodes I think since 2015 so most of it's price growth was with masternodes. And masternodes and miners have shared block rewards 50/50 for years now and still do.

I'm not saying do away with masternodes. By "revert to that market where we belong" I was referring to store-of-value market that can compete ahead of bitcoin on utility. But if store-of-value does not perform as well as bitcoin, you have to accept we won't be as investable as bitcoin no matter how many functional features we have. Maybe more useable, that's all.

I don't accept your premise that mining is the only way for crypto to be valuable. So you're building a whole theory on a dubious foundation.

I didn't say it was the only way, I said it was the only way if you don't have extremely high utility, like in the 6 or 7 figures of transactions per day or if your blockchain model involves consumption of its own tokens for services. Those blockchains are not based on commodity store-of-value type archetypes. They're more of an equity type investment where service activity is everything. Gold sits in vaults and does nothing to store value. Kodak was investible while emulsion film was in fashion. As soon as it wasn't it ceased to store value as an equity investment.

There's something innately valuable about a trustless network of exchange of value and unique services.

There isn't if you keep on drawing that value down. That's what a non-performing profit margin is - a drawdown on capital.

I have a hard time imagining how the market could absorb the selling off from hundreds if not a thousand or two of masternode collateral in a relatively short time. Miners wouldn't rush in to compete

I don't really get this line that high volume trading equals lower price. Litecoin has had an extremely high liquidity market since the dawn of time - when Bobby Lee listed his brother's coin on BTC China. The idea would be that price rises, not falls. It doesn't matter how many masternodes change hands.

Non-performing masternode margins are a slow-rot on the capital value of the chain. Anybody who receives a weekly payment notice from Dashcentral knows that that is un-earned income and it grows larger as the price rises. At the height of the market I was receiving $1820 per week in Dash and making no greater contribution to the network than I was at $60. I had to pay tax on the near full amount as if I had received it in fiat because I had no costs, which means that you need to constantly keep selling. How do you expect investors to buy into that kind of economic bloatedness ? It isn't scaleable while mining is. Mining margin does not increase with price in this way. (As a percentage of turnover. Of course it can do as an absolute amount which is why it can support enormous multi-million pound businesses now while masternodes can't).

Nor is running a node like renting an apartment where that income is sourced externally and the free market can set your margin at a competitive level without devaluing the capital value of all property in the town. Dash market DOES have to do that because masternodes cannot compete with each other on margin - there's no significant cost base there for any of them to do so.

You have to remember that by reversing the current policy we'd be immediately choking off rewards to masternodes and that would stop some portion of that 6500 coin-per-week supply being dumped on order books at a zero cost base. These coins are profitable at about any price above zero. You can crash the market cap with the exchange of just 1 coin at a low price if it's the last trade to occur so you don't need anything like all of those 6500 coins to hit the market, only a minority proportion of them being continually sold at market price (instead of being bid for) to be chronically corrosive. Like I say, the same does not go for mining revenue. The fiat that it raises goes straight back into the chain by way of raising the opening price of the next block. The lost capital is recycled.

The scarcity value in the NEXT BLOCK is everything in a mined coin. If the price of that one block can be raised and sustained then you've broken the cycle of capital rot and a virtuous cycle can start to be established instead of the viscous one we currently have.

That's my view of the situation.

[qwizzie]

That is a fast increase from miners signalling readiness for v0.16


Source : http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html (V16.0 Adoption)

Even faster then masternode operators updating to latest version. Although not faster by a whole lot, as masternodes are at 77.1%.
Maybe just maybe this will all be activated (both spork 21 & the blockreward allocation change) end of November after all, fingers crossed.

Note : miners signaling readiness for v0.16 in their mined blocks, is still subject to heavy fluctuations.

[Tungi17]

Release Announcement: Dash Platform v0.16 on Evonet

https://blog.dash.org/release-announcement-dash-platform-v0-16-on-evonet-a8772bdefdd9

[jdmcg]

I have a hard time imagining how the market could absorb the selling off from hundreds if not a thousand or two of masternode collateral in a relatively short time. Miners wouldn't rush in to compete

I don't really get this line that high volume trading equals lower price. Litecoin has had an extremely high liquidity market since the dawn of time - when Bobby Lee listed his brother's coin on BTC China. The idea would be that price rises, not falls. It doesn't matter how many masternodes change hands.

That's not my argument at all. Liquidity is good and I think something like the deal with StakeHound could help a lot on not only liquidity but increasing the masternode count and lowering the reward any single masternode owner would receive.

What I actually said was that I don't think the market could absorb the massive onslaught of sell pressure from all the masternode owners who became masternode owners largely in part because of the 5-6% ROI in DASH. The books are thin as it is... if 1 to 2 thousand masternode owners decided to sell within a short span who would step up to buy that supply? Like I said this would create a cascading effect and miners would join in the selling in addition to more masternode owners and so on. I can't see how changing masternode rewards from 50% to 5% in a single day wouldn't result in massive sell pressure the market can't support.

Anyway, as previously identified, Dash is actually set up quite well for when alt season finally arrives.
1- It has just recently hit an ATH in masternode count and there's indications this will continue to grow
2- StakeHound will enable shared masternodes at the same time allowing those shared masternode owners to still be able to provide liquidity in a new hot market Dash hasn't had access to before
3- The sell pressure on Dash from masternode owners is less than half the sell pressure from 2 years ago as the price is half as it was and the emission rate is less by 15%
4- The release of Dash Platform and DashPay is almost perfectly timed based on BTC's own 4 year cycle
5- It's still in the top 30 even when including many stable coins and WBTC (which is wrapped BTC)
6- Bigger players including exchanges taking an interest in investing themselves and setting up masternodes
7- Venezuela and much of Latin America
8- Most charts suggest a very bullish set up (even if you don't believe in technical analysis)

[toknormal]

I don't think the market could absorb the massive onslaught of sell pressure from all the masternode owners who became masternode owners largely in part because of the 5-6% ROI in DASH.

Indeed.

Those masternode owners have kept Dash's capital value alive. They are the the reason that new investors buy Dash because they want to keep those masternode profits populated with dollars, even though the new investors will never see any capital gain return on their own investment because it all goes towards funding masternode returns.

But we would of course still not want to see those masternodes go.

[qwizzie]

I don't think the market could absorb the massive onslaught of sell pressure from all the masternode owners who became masternode owners largely in part because of the 5-6% ROI in DASH.

Indeed.

Those masternode owners have kept Dash's capital value alive. They are the the reason that new investors buy Dash because they want to keep those masternode profits populated with dollars, even though the new investors will never see any capital gain return on their own investment because it all goes towards funding masternode returns.

But we would of course still not want to see those masternodes go.

Lets say new investors buy 500 Dash for $70 at the open market and put those 500 Dash on Binance long term (for at least three months), to collect 7.12% Dash revenue.


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

Lets assume that those new investors don't have a need to sell that 7.1% Dash revenue (which they only receive after three full months of staking) at current low price and lets assume
that Binance is putting that 500 Dash and other people's Dash into a combined pool, dedicated on setting up new Dash Masternodes.

Now lets say the price goes up to $75, how does this not lead to a situation of those new investors seeing a capital gain return on their own investment ? Price could even stay at $70 and those
new investors will still see a capital gain return on their own investment after three months, due to the 7.12% revenue in Dash increasing their capital.

Same situation described above can also be applied to StakeHound, who actually confirmed to setup masternodes with the staked Dash (for Binance that is only our assumption, we don't know for sure).
Only difference between Binance method and StakeHound method, is that Binance offers higher revenue and has perhaps a better reputation as being such a large international well-known exchange
to new investors.

I think it somehow still comes down to taxes, which is setup differently in every country. You seem to only focus on those countries that need to deal with cryptocurrency as subject to
income tax (US / others) and neglect those countries that deal with cryptocurrency as subject to property tax or private money (Europe / others).

When looking at capital gain return from a property tax perspective / private money perspective, it seems very clear to me how new investors can see capital gain return on their own investment.
Even from an income tax perspective, i have difficulty grasping why new investors would not see capital gain return on their own investment, in above described situation.

[thunderjet]

I don't think the market could absorb the massive onslaught of sell pressure from all the masternode owners who became masternode owners largely in part because of the 5-6% ROI in DASH.

Indeed.

Those masternode owners have kept Dash's capital value alive. They are the the reason that new investors buy Dash because they want to keep those masternode profits populated with dollars, even though the new investors will never see any capital gain return on their own investment because it all goes towards funding masternode returns.

But we would of course still not want to see those masternodes go.

Lets say new investors buy 500 Dash for $70 at the open market and put those 500 Dash on Binance to collect 7% revenue. Lets also assume that those investors don't have a need to sell that 7% revenue
at Dash current very low price. Lets also assume Binance is putting that 500 Dash and other people's Dash into setting up new masternodes.

Now lets assume the price goes up to $75, how does this lead to a situation of that new investor not seeing a capital gain return on their own investment ? Price could even stay at $70 and those new investors
will still see a capital gain return on their own investment, due to the revenue increasing their capital. Both calculated in FIAT and in DASH, there would be a capital gain return.

In the situation when Dash price is constantly declining for 3 consecutive years it is extremely unlikely that it will attracts any serious investors.Especially for collecting 4.19% interest on Binance( Binance gives now just 7 days option),when they can get 6.2% for USDT,USDC or BUSD without thinking will further decline in Dash price will generate significant loss for them.

Dash price is not so big problem as it is empty Buy orders,15-20x lesser than for coins DASH compares.Size of Buy orders best refelcts coin true strength.Buy orders for DASH are on so low level,that it seems that nobody wants to buy it. In the case of pure price manipulation,big players dumping coins on higher prices,making at the same time Buy orders on lower ,but Buy orders size remain more or less at a same level. In the case of DASH, just selling coins of few masternode owners will collapse price completely. Such very low liquidity will scary as hell every serious investor,not because that they can lose money due to price declining,but that they cant sell its investment without huge slippage and driving price almost to 0. It is unacceptable risk.

Look on time chart of masternodes,reveals that 4500 masternodes(or 90% of it) were established BEFORE 2017 rally.Cost of masternode then was $12-16.000.They are already in such huge profit that even with so low price ,its ROI today is 25-33% ! They have no any interest to save coins they get with such huge ROI,but to dump them immediately and reinvest money in BTC,ETH and earn even more.That constant and massive influx of free coins ruins DASH market.Giving more free coins to masternodes will just make things even worse.

[toknormal]

They have no any interest to save coins they get with such huge ROI,but to dump them immediately and reinvest money in BTC,ETH

Long story short = it's a self-cannibalising ponzi scheme while these masternode margins are so huge and so idle. It can't grow. Anyone with a calculator & half a brain can see that. If we get shot of them we will have a lean store of value that we can start to get behind again and that is genuinely competitive.

Bitcoin's probably heading to $100k over the next 2-3 years. That will have Dash/BTC at 0.001 unless we do something now. Does anyone seriously think you can pull a $4 million per week profit out of a finite digital commodity for doing absolutely nothing while other coins have to at least hash that value into their chain ?

#nodesAreNotACharity
#setMarginsAtParity

[qwizzie]

I don't think the market could absorb the massive onslaught of sell pressure from all the masternode owners who became masternode owners largely in part because of the 5-6% ROI in DASH.

Indeed.

Those masternode owners have kept Dash's capital value alive. They are the the reason that new investors buy Dash because they want to keep those masternode profits populated with dollars, even though the new investors will never see any capital gain return on their own investment because it all goes towards funding masternode returns.

But we would of course still not want to see those masternodes go.

Lets say new investors buy 500 Dash for $70 at the open market and put those 500 Dash on Binance to collect 7% revenue. Lets also assume that those investors don't have a need to sell that 7% revenue
at Dash current very low price. Lets also assume Binance is putting that 500 Dash and other people's Dash into setting up new masternodes.

Now lets assume the price goes up to $75, how does this lead to a situation of that new investor not seeing a capital gain return on their own investment ? Price could even stay at $70 and those new investors
will still see a capital gain return on their own investment, due to the revenue increasing their capital. Both calculated in FIAT and in DASH, there would be a capital gain return.

In the situation when Dash price is constantly declining for 3 consecutive years it is extremely unlikely that it will attracts any serious investors.Especially for collecting 4.19% interest on Binance( Binance gives now just 7 days option)

Even though i find it difficult to take you seriously after you posted that 'total Dash on Binance is between 8,000-10,000 Dash' and admitted to using the sum all of sell market orders on Binance to estimate that
(see : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg55105180#msg55105180), i will give it a shot nonetheless :

Binance has both Locked Savings and Locked Staking :


Source : Binance

Currently limited indeed for 7 days only. Hopefully Binance will make the other duration options available again over time.


Source : Binance

Currently 17.67% for 10 Days / 7.39% for 30 days / 9.11% for 60 days / 11.03% for 90 days.
Personally i know nothing about Locked Staking on Binance, i just know about Locked Savings. Either option will need to be carefully researched by those interested.
I would not surprise me if both options turns out to be a form of locked staking in essence, just defined a bit differently and one having more flexibility.
Also locked staking seems limited to 50 Dash, locked savings has a much higher limit. 

With regards to market performance, pretty much every altcoin out there has been declining over the last three years, that is why you see so many altcoins currently
between 90% & 96% down from ATH price.

Link : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg55468898#msg55468898

I don't even think you are invested in Dash anymore, as you mentioned in your earlier posts. Why stay invested in something, you don't think will attract any serious investors ?

Looks like toknormal does not have an answer for why new investors would not see a capital gain return on their own investment, as described in my previous post.
It is difficult to respond to, i understand.  

[toknormal]

Looks like toknormal does not have an answer for why new investors would not see a capital gain return on their own investment, as described in my previous post.

Because pulling numbers and assumptions out of your a**...."lets imagine, lats assume" is not something that's investible. Seeing what the market is actually doing, how it prioritises store of value and responding to it constructively instead of dogmatically....is.

[qwizzie]

Looks like toknormal does not have an answer for why new investors would not see a capital gain return on their own investment, as described in my previous post.

Because pulling numbers and assumptions out of your a**...."lets imagine, lats assume" is not something that's investible. Seeing what the market is actually doing, how it prioritises store of value and responding to it constructively instead of dogmatically....is.

Thank you for confirming you have no answer to that. So much for that particular assumption of yours.
Next assumption please, i may as well shoot holes in them while i am still online.

[qwizzie]

Bitcoin price hit $14,100 today and is currently correcting at $13,863
This could get volatile again for Altcoins & Bitcoin, if Bitcoin manage to flip the $14,000 range into support.