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

[qwizzie]

In case you have stash on exchanges...

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

This could be the reason why :

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

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

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

[1713896232]

1713896232

[1713896232]

1713896232

[1713896232]

1713896232

[1713896232]

1713896232

[1713896232]

1713896232

[1713896232]

1713896232

[toknormal]

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

Coinbase, Kraken et al.

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

[qwizzie]

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

Coinbase, Kraken et al.

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

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

[toknormal]

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

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

[qwizzie]

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

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

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



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

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

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

[Nthelight]

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least that is how i read it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your input though.

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



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

[qwizzie]

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

[jdmcg]

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin broke $20,000. Lift off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[toknormal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jdmcg]

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

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

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

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

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

The rewards are only paid out in DASH and it has nothing to with whether DASH is a stablecoin or not. So the roughly 6% a year in DASH is what you get based on your 1000 DASH collateral. You are not answering my questions or concerns but instead arguing about something that I never suggested. If masternode rewards were reduced to 20% of the block reward while maintaining the same collateral requirement like you proposed, you don't think it would be an issue to only have 1600 masternodes? That's not too centralized?

Doesn't it seem that even with the incentives as high as you think they are (60%), that it's not enough to increase the masternode count?

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

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

So, we've already achieved the ideal equilibrium condition (masternode count saturation) way before mass adoption? If the whole world is to use DASH, 5000 masternodes is enough? That's decentralized? I think DASH should still be looking at growing its network if it wants to be around 10 years from now... only once everyone has DASH on the phone should we think about some kind of equilibrium.

[toknormal]

The rewards are only paid out in DASH and it has nothing to with whether DASH is a stablecoin or not.

What are you talking about ? It has everything to do with it.

The "I" in ROI stands for investment. Return on investment, not Ratio Of Initial Collateral. The two are only equivalent in a stable coin.

So, we've already achieved the ideal equilibrium condition (masternode count saturation) way before mass adoption? If the whole world is to use DASH, 5000 masternodes is enough? That's decentralized?

I think 5000 nodes is enough and there seems to be consensus about that if you go back a few posts it was discussed.

Re. "centralised", I think that's a completely different discussion and I don't think it has anything to do with this - I described my vision in a previous post. 1 person can own 10 masternodes or 10 people can own 1 masternode. The collateral threshold doesn't have much to say about centralisation of ownership, it's to do with trustlessnes or otherwise. I said I thought it would benefit Dash economics and the ecosystem if masternode ownership was pushed into the fintech retail tier. The asset would still be "trustless" because the contracts behind the securities would be between the operator and the investors, but not the operator and the blockchain. That's going to happen anyway if price continues to rise as we would hope, doesn't matter what you set the collateral level to.

I don't think the nodecount would reduce anyway. I don't see why you assume that. How many masternodes do you think got sold off in the calamateous crash from $1500 to $60 ? It will have been thousands, all with ROI in the negative. Yet the nodecount remained steady.

Masternodes churn and change hands all the time.

[jdmcg]

The rewards are only paid out in DASH and it has nothing to with whether DASH is a stablecoin or not.

What are you talking about ? It has everything to do with it.

The "I" in ROI stands for investment. Return on investment, not Ratio Of Initial Collateral. The two are only equivalent in a stable coin.

Ok, whatever, you seem intent on arguing about something that is at best tangential. It's irrelevant to the points I brought up. It's especially curious as I don't think I ever brought up or used the term ROI.

Anyways, it seems clear to me that where once you would consider lowering the collateral required to gain support for reducing the block reward share given to masternodes, you no longer hold that position. That's fine, everyone is allowed to consider and reconsider things.

So, we've already achieved the ideal equilibrium condition (masternode count saturation) way before mass adoption? If the whole world is to use DASH, 5000 masternodes is enough? That's decentralized?

I think 5000 nodes is enough and there seems to be consensus about that if you go back a few posts it was discussed.

Re. "centralised", I think that's a completely different discussion and I don't think it has anything to do with this - I described my vision in a previous post. 1 person can own 10 masternodes or 10 people can own 1 masternode. The collateral threshold doesn't have much to say about centralisation of ownership, it's to do with trustlessnes or otherwise. I said I thought it would benefit Dash economics and the ecosystem if masternode ownership was pushed into the fintech retail tier. The asset would still be "trustless" because the contracts behind the securities would be between the operator and the investors, but not the operator and the blockchain. That's going to happen anyway if price continues to rise as we would hope, doesn't matter what you set the collateral level to.

I don't think the nodecount would reduce anyway. I don't see why you assume that. How many masternodes do you think got sold off in the calamateous crash from $1500 to $60 ? It will have been thousands, all with ROI in the negative. Yet the nodecount remained steady.

Masternodes churn and change hands all the time.

5000 nodes is enough and there's a consensus? What I do know is that there's a consensus regarding the current block reward split.

Anyways, you're right, I don't know for sure but I just have a hard time imagining DASH would be able to maintain 5000 masternodes as it does now if each masternode were to receive 1/3 the rewards they do now. If so, then I would think that the masternode count could just as easily go up to 15000 to get to that same reward level. No?

Rather I think during the upcoming bull run, DASH might get as high as 6000, maybe even 7000 but not much higher.

Now let's say collateral was reduced to 500 DASH. The masternode owner who previously had 5 masternodes, now has enough collateral to set up 10 masternodes but at twice the cost (using your mining analogy, doesn't that mean the difficulty just doubled?). I also would conjecture that this same owner would have an increased inclination to sell off at least one masternode in order to diversify or take profit. Also, someone new to DASH who was interested in masternodes before but couldn't afford/justify 1000 DASH, now has the ability to get in and set up one for the first time. I would think these scenarios are good for the DASH network. I also conjecture that masternode owners would be satisfied with a smaller number than 6%, as the collateral risk is reduced, which would in turn put upwards pressure on masternode count.

Btw, I would never propose a massive move from 1000 to 500 in a single shot. These type of things need to be gradual as to not cause any shock to the network.

[toknormal]

Ok, whatever, you seem intent on arguing about something that is at best tangential.

It's not "tangential" to make a distinction between ROI based on the invested capital and ROI based on the number of Dash you hold. From a store of value point of view, one is meaningful and the other is meaningless.

This is a very fundamental point and I'd like to stress it.

If you have a cake cut into 10 slices, and you then you make further cuts in it so that there are now 12 slices, then in terms of "slices" as your measure you've increased the size of the cake. But no self respecting customer would pay twice the amount for a cake that's sliced in 20 pieces as for one that's sliced in 10, so good luck in finding a market for such a business model.

That's what Dash is trying to do with masternode rewards and expressing "returns" as a ratio between the reward and the collateral. It's also the criteria that you're using to inform much of your argument and why they're leading you to false conclusions. You say you never mentioned "ROI" but you keep bringing up a figure of 6% without specifying what that is so I'm assuming you're alluding to the annual masternode reward as a ratio of collateral, promoted on Dash websites as "ROI" (which it isn't because the invested capital is dollars or some other currency, not Dash).

Now let's say collateral was reduced to 500 DASH. The masternode owner who previously had 5 masternodes, now has enough collateral to set up 10 masternodes but at twice the cost (using your mining analogy, doesn't that mean the difficulty just doubled?).

No, because "difficulty" is a metric that measures competition for the new supply. In mining, if the "difficulty" doubles it generally means you've managed to attract twice the size of your original market for the new supply. (i.e. there are twice as many people chasing new blocks as there were before). Hosting cost of a node has nothing to do with this. It just means that operating a node goes from being, say 97% profitable to 94% profitable.

I also would conjecture that this same owner would have an increased inclination to sell off at least one masternode in order to diversify or take profit. Also, someone new to DASH who was interested in masternodes before but couldn't afford/justify 1000 DASH, now has the ability to get in and set up one for the first time. I would think these scenarios are good for the DASH network. I also conjecture that masternode owners would be satisfied with a smaller number than 6%, as the collateral risk is reduced, which would in turn put upwards pressure on masternode count

I don't think this kind of headf* second guessing of people's psychology and trying to predict their behaviour is any substitute for a sound economic model. This kind of thinking seems to permeate the original "tokenomics" analysis as well. It's more sociology than economics and I think it's almost irrelevant because it requires so many assumptions that are impossible to verify.

For  start, I've already said that I don't think a masternode should be considered as synomymous with a "person". It's a node, not a person. An artefact of the protocol. It can therefore be "owned" by 1 or more people just as any asset can, operated by the same of different people and any combination in between. What's relevant is the sheer amount of blockchain revenue that 1 node drains for doing almost zero-cost work.

It's enormous at half the supply. My point is that this makes the coin almost un-investible for new investors. The fact that nodes receive a "reward" is insignificant if that reward is wiped out because of capital loss on the collateral which brings me full circle to the "cake" analogy above.

I'm not suggesting that masternodes should be less profitable than they are now. I'm saying we need to give masternodes less cake slices and more cake weight.

[qwizzie]

You say you never mentioned "ROI" but you keep bringing up a figure of 6% without specifying what that is so I'm assuming you're alluding to the annual masternode reward as a ratio of collateral, promoted on Dash websites as "ROI" (which it isn't because the invested capital is dollars or some other currency, not Dash).

Lets take a look at this site : https://dash-news.de/dashtv/#curr=USD&value=1000



Focus only on three things in this picture :

1000 Dash
4.73 Dash per month
Annual Revenue percentage in Dash : 5.68%

The FIAT info is just additional info, ignore it

1000 Dash
4.73 Dash per month x 12 months = 56,76 Dash
Percentage increase from 1000 Dash to 1056,76 Dash = 5.68 %
Annual Revenue percentage in Dash = 5.68%

Lets take a look at another site that shows a bit higher annual revenue (its is actually named ROI there)

http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html (ROI)



Focus only on the Return On Investment (ROI), ignore everything else.
Here the ROI is provided (5.99%), but not explained. To explain it we need to know the masternode rewards, which we gather from the payments per day : http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Dash_Info.html (Payments per Day)



Dash per masternode per day : 0.163939 Dash
Dash per masternode per year = 0.163939 Dash x 365 days = 59,837735 Dash
Percentage increase from 1000 Dash to 1059,837735 Dash = 5.98%
Annual Revenue / ROI in Dash = 5.98%

[toknormal]

Lets take a look at this site : https://dash-news.de/dashtv/#curr=USD&value=1000

That's all based on a fairytale world of a fixed Dash/USD exchange rate.

Again, Dash is not a stablecoin so the USD projections are irrelevant. Imaginary. The ROI figures are also therefore also irrelevant because it's the Dash/USD exchange rate that dominates ROI, not masternode reward.

[qwizzie]

Lets take a look at this site : https://dash-news.de/dashtv/#curr=USD&value=1000

That's all based on a fairytale world of a fixed Dash/USD exchange rate.

Again, Dash is not a stablecoin so the USD projections are irrelevant. The ROI figures are also therefore irrelevant because it's the Dash/USD exchange rate that dominates ROI, not masternode reward.

I said ignore any FIAT information there. Please re-read my post. None of the FIAT information there is used to calculate the Dash annual revenue percentage. None !!
It is all calculated over Dash figures. You are getting distracted by all the FIAT information, that you should actually be ignoring for the calculation of the Dash ROI / Dash annual revenue percentage.

It is only about 1000 Dash & the masternode rewards in Dash and converting those MN rewards (in Dash) to a yearly figure in Dash. Then you simply check the increase in percentage :

1000 Dash to 1056,76 Dash = 5.68 % (https://dash-news.de/dashtv / pille)
56,76 dash / 365 days = 0,1555068493150685 Dash per day

1000 Dash to 1059,837735 Dash = 5.98% (crowning site)
59,837735 / 365 days = 0,163939 Dash per day

I suspect the 5.98% annual revenue through crowning's site is more correct, simply because the masternode payments (in Dash) are better calculated there.
https://dash-news.de/dashtv (leading to 5.68 %) seems to be more on the conservative side. It uses an API from moocowmoo that seems to use lower MN rewards (in Dash)

See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dashtv-the-easy-way-to-keep-an-eye-on-your-investment.7373/page-7#post-224553

[toknormal]

I said ignore any FIAT information there.

Did you actually read anything I wrote in this post ?

It's the FIAT gain that's relevant, not the Dash. Who cares that you start the year with 1000 Dash and end it with 1060 if your entire holding didn't accrue value over that period ? From an investor's perspective, the ROI is measured in $USD, not Dash. So you must take capital gain/loss on the collateral into account. By those measurements you posted, investing in bitcoin would have yielded zero ROI even if you held from $100 to $20k.

The problem we have in Dash is sustaining high prices because we don't benefit from the increased scarcity that high prices bring to a fully mined coin. As our price increases, the new supply is delivered to masternode holders with an in-built capital gain. That puts enormous pressure on markets which is asymmetric. Masternode rewards disproportionately pulling the roof down on marketcap with every $100 of price increase because they're at a far higher gain than anyone else and therefore have more to lose by holding their rewards.

Mining rewards do not have this corrosive effect. Even if they're sold, they're spent on attracting more competition for the supply, not wasted like masternode rewards are. That targets capital gain growth and wealth preservation.

[qwizzie]

I said ignore any FIAT information there.

Did you actually read anything I wrote in this post ?

It's the FIAT gain that's relevant, not the Dash.

No, not when we are talking about the Dash ROI percentage / Dash annual revenue percentage.
It is a crypto based percentage, not a FIAT based percentage. FIAT is completely irrelevant to the Dash ROI / Dash annual revenue.

1000 Dash to 1056,76 Dash = 5.68 % (https://dash-news.de/dashtv / pille) --> Dash annual revenue percentage
56,76 dash / 365 days = 0,1555068493150685 Dash per day

1000 Dash to 1059,837735 Dash = 5.98% (crowning site) --> Dash annual revenue percentage
59,837735 / 365 days = 0,163939 Dash per day

The reason why there is a difference in Dash ROI percentage / annual revenue percentage is because both sites calculate the MN rewards differently (which i showed by showing the MN rewards per day for each of them).
I am inclined to believe that the 5.98% Dash ROI percentage / annual revenue percentage is more accurate.

[toknormal]

No, not when we are talking about the Dash ROI percentage / Dash annual revenue percentage.

But that is not ROI. It's the "Dash annual masternode revenue" expressed as a percentage of the collateral.

That is not ROI which is a very different thing.

[qwizzie]

No, not when we are talking about the Dash ROI percentage / Dash annual revenue percentage.

But that is not ROI. It's the "Dash annual masternode revenue" expressed as a percentage of the collateral.

That is not ROI which is a very different thing.

It is the same thing in crypto.

You have 1000 Dash
You have 5.98% annual interest
you receive 59,837735 Dash

ROI annual / Annual Revenue = 59,837735 Dash
ROI percentage annual / Annual Revenue percentage = 5.98%

There is no difference in crypto between crypto annual revenue percentage and crypto annual ROI percentage, so far i can see.
Some use annual revenue percentage, some use ROI percentage, some even use APR percentage (Binance) but that perhaps falls outside this discussion as users basically loan their Dash to Binance.