[ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes

[MyFarm]

For masternodes, instead of a simple, "You need X SPR to be on the list" and if someone beats you by 1, you're kicked off... what is there was a ranking algorithm.  Variables:

1.  How much SPR you have in the masternode.
2.  If your masternode is in a country with less than X% of masternodes, +Y
3.  If your masternode is at an ISP with less than A% of masternodes, +Z
4.  Other variables that help secure the network.

Those are obviously simplified.

Your masternode is then scored based upon these variables and you can see where you are on the list.  If you're on the bottom of the score list, better change something!  Or if you want a new masternode but have less SPR than a lot of people, simply get hosting in a country at an ISP nobody else has.

Darkcoin has a shitload of VPS masternodes at just a few ISPs in just a few countries.  Not good for the network.

With this, the amount of SPR in the masternode could be weighted much less in the algorithm compared to having a unique country/ISP since those are such important variables for network security.  So the people that want variable pricing are happy though it won't affect the score as much and the people who want a decentralized, secure network are happy.

[georgem]

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument.

Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea.

The requirement to run a DM (decentralized Masternode) will start at 1 SPR if I understood Mr.Spread correctly.
Because it is not necessary to set a minimum deposit price, much like it is not necessary to set a maximum deposit price.
It will be decided by the free market, much like bitcoin's difficulty is decided by the free market.

ONLY a maximum number of DMs must be defined.

Now let me ask you, since you say only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford DMs:

Who makes it EASIER to run a DM/MN?

Spreadcoin with a dynamic Deposit Requirement starting at 1 SPR, (letting the free market decide)
or Darkcoin who has a FIX Deposit Requirement of 1000 DRK? (Cutting out 99% of all investors from the start!!!)

 

[defunctec]

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Wrong.

Here's the explanation why:

With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc...

But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link.
(but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)

It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened:
The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase)

It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game)

This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are.

You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument.

Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea.

The requirement to run a DM (decentralized Masternode) will start at 1 SPR if I understood Mr.Spread correctly.
It is not necessary to set a minimum deposit price, much like it is not necessary to set a maximum deposit price.

ONLY a maximum number of DMs must be defined.

Now let me ask you, since you say only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford DMs:

Who makes it EASIER to run a DM/MN?

Spreadcoin with a dynamic Deposit Requirement starting at 1 SPR, (letting the free market decide)
or Darkcoin who has a FIX Deposit Requirement of 1000 DRK? (Cutting out 99% of all investors from the very beginning!!!)

 

Lets not forget that MrSpread could set the max MN amount to 4000, making it practically impossible to monopolise the network.

Thelone, i do agree about the vultr/amazon thing.

[thelonecrouton]

I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.

Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.

A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.

If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.

If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long.

I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. :p

"the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out."

Say MrSpread set's the max amount of MN's to 3000.

A big holder with 5 million spr can only fund 3000 MN's with 2500SPR. This makes his "monopoly" on the MN network weak and the majority of his MN's WILL be kicked from the list, allowing others to participate (decentralization).

Any help?

There are only 1.5 million SPR right now. (And 3000 * 2500 = 7500000, but that's beside the point.)

A dynamic collateral requirement just limits the number of people who can potentially run a MN. With a fixed requirement, those who wish to earn more can do so by setting up another MN, without limiting the ability of anyone else to do so.

This will lead to awful centralisation, I guarantee it.

[georgem]

Lets not forget that MrSpread could set the max MN amount to 4000, making it practically impossible to monopolise the network.

Thelone, i do agree about the vultr/amazon thing.

Yes, this is the big question. How to derive the most perfect max DM amount.

Once set it shouldn't be changed. Certainly not by a human. Maybe somehow monitor "the health" of the network and have the protocol adjust the max DM amount (IF it is necessary to adjust it over time. It probably isn't.)

[thelonecrouton]

The requirement to run a DM (decentralized Masternode) will start at 1 SPR if I understood Mr.Spread correctly.
Because it is not necessary to set a minimum deposit price, much like it is not necessary to set a maximum deposit price.
It will be decided by the free market, much like bitcoin's difficulty is decided by the free market.

ONLY a maximum number of DMs must be defined.

Now let me ask you, since you say only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford DMs:

Who makes it EASIER to run a DM/MN?

Spreadcoin with a dynamic Deposit Requirement starting at 1 SPR, (letting the free market decide)
or Darkcoin who has a FIX Deposit Requirement of 1000 DRK? (Cutting out 99% of all investors from the start!!!)

 

Good luck with your 1000 1-SPR Masternodes costing you $5000/month and earning you nothing because everyone else is going to be bidding the requirement up to the max.  

[LiteMine]

There are only 1.5 million SPR right now. (And 3000 * 2500 = 7500000, but that's beside the point.)

A dynamic collateral requirement just limits the number of people who can potentially run a MN. With a fixed requirement, those who wish to earn more can do so by setting up another MN, without limiting the ability of anyone else to do so.

This will lead to awful centralisation, I guarantee it.

As long as each node pays the same regardless of coins in it, then someone putting up a 10,000-coin node is no better off than the minimum node. Doesn't this solve the centralization issue?

Edit: I think I get it now, someone could set up a bunch of cheap nodes to centralize the network. It does look like a minimum # of coins still has to be enforced to set one up.

By only setting the # of nodes high or low, it can be gamed by a nefarious actor.

[defunctec]

I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.

Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.

A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.

If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.

If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long.

I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. :p

"the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out."

Say MrSpread set's the max amount of MN's to 3000.

A big holder with 5 million spr can only fund 3000 MN's with 2500SPR. This makes his "monopoly" on the MN network weak and the majority of his MN's WILL be kicked from the list, allowing others to participate (decentralization).

Any help?

There are only 1.5 million SPR right now. (And 3000 * 2500 = 7500000, but that's beside the point.)

A dynamic collateral requirement just limits the number of people who can potentially run a MN. With a fixed requirement, those who wish to earn more can do so by setting up another MN, without limiting the ability of anyone else to do so.

This will lead to awful centralisation, I guarantee it.

How can you centralize 3000 MN's? You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.

If the coin become's centralized it will lose value and become less profitable for the "monopoly" rendering it financially nonviable.

[driedgrape]

06:06:27

getmininginfo


06:06:27

{
"blocks" : 214682,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 53.75955703,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 3634614791,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}
wow,crazy ~ both diff and net hashrate have created new high ,perfect

[thelonecrouton]

How can you centralize 3000 MN's?

Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools.

You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.

I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry.   And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway.

If the coin become's centralized it will lose value and become less profitable for the "monopoly" rendering it financially nonviable.

Uh huh, miners who mine via pools render the whole value proposition of a 'decentralised' cryptocurrency worthless, but it doesn't stop them doing it.

[Lebubar]

I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.

I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.

Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.

Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.

A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.

If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.

If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long.

I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. :p

"the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out."

Say MrSpread set's the max amount of MN's to 3000.

A big holder with 5 million spr can only fund 3000 MN's with 2500SPR. This makes his "monopoly" on the MN network weak and the majority of his MN's WILL be kicked from the list, allowing others to participate (decentralization).

Any help?

There are only 1.5 million SPR right now. (And 3000 * 2500 = 7500000, but that's beside the point.)

A dynamic collateral requirement just limits the number of people who can potentially run a MN. With a fixed requirement, those who wish to earn more can do so by setting up another MN, without limiting the ability of anyone else to do so.

This will lead to awful centralisation, I guarantee it.

How can you centralize 3000 MN's? You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.

If the coin become's centralized it will lose value and become less profitable for the "monopoly" rendering it financially nonviable.

You have to think with a bad actor (with lots of $) that want (for whatever reason) destroy the coin, or make it unusable...
Interesting discution by the way.

[driedgrape]

It's time to contact cryptsy and bter to add SPR .
Has anybody contacted them recently?

[georgem]

Good luck with your 1000 1-SPR Masternodes costing you $5000/month and earning you nothing because everyone else is going to be bidding the requirement up to the max.  

But... Yes exactly! lol

Price Discovery will kick in immediately and drive the price of a DM (Decentralized Masternode) to whatever value makes sense for ALL the market participants.
The people will decide what the price should be.

Also, you can't bid the requirement up to the max, since THERE IS NO MAX!

Also, if the price of a DM gets too high, say it gets to 100k SPR, then you could only create 200 DMs with the whole coin supply, so this doesn't even make sense.

All this tells me that we will have a price discovery that will lead to a perfectly balanced price per DM.

Should the price get too high, then those DMs will all take so many SPR out of the coin supply, that the remaining allowed DMs can be setup cheaper!

So, why should a DM owner put too much SPR into his DM? He will not want to put to many SPR in a DM because this will reduce his profitability.
Because, remember, a DM with 100 SPR earns the same amount like a DM with 100k SPR. But the first one has a lifespan of probably 10 seconds.  

[georgem]

I'm working on decentralized (no reference nodes) masternodes and instant transactions. I hope that by the end of this month or sooner we will have public testnet with working masternodes and instant transactions, all code will be open sourced by that moment. DarkSend is much more complicated subject, don't expect it soon.

Amount for running masternode hasn't been set yet. It depends on how many masternodes we want which is not yet clear. The more is better for decentralization, on the other hand we need not to bloat the network with masternode related messages. Instead of setting the required amount it may be better to set the maximum number of masternodes and minimum required amount. Once the number of masternodes will reach the maximum only masternodes with maximum deposits will remain and others will be automatically delisted.

So the next questions to ask are:

1) What is the perfect amount of max DM (Decentralized Masternode)?
2) Do we even need a minimum required amount of SPR to run a DM (Decentralized Masternode)?


My noob answers:

1) I have no idea. I understand that data bloat is a problem, but I suppose if we implement something like Darksend then the bloat will obviously be very high. But what if we forget about DarkSend for the moment, and concentrate on InstantX?
So the sole purpose of decentralized masternodes will first only be to serve as instantx facilitators? So those Decentralized Masternodes will earn SPR for enabling instant transcations, right?
That's enough incentive for many investors to buy SPR and setup masternodes (DM), I am sure about that.

2) I don't think so, once people start outbidding each other to catch a valuable DM, you don't need a minimum price. It's like when in ebay you see valuable things with a starting price of 1$. The seller is not stupid, it's not like he will lose out here. In the contrary, the cheap price encourages MANY MANY bidders to bid, MORE than what an initial HIGH price (like 1000 DRK) would ever be able to attract.

So that's the other difference between SPR and DRK, if we leave the min price out, we will attract so many investors it will blow us out of our socks!

[defunctec]

How can you centralize 3000 MN's?

Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools.

For a few people to control this network we are talking hundred's of thousands of spr(with current supply), and in years to come million's.
Utoh on darkcoin thread has over 100 MN's 100,000 DRK! And he still is only 1/16th of the entire DRK MN network.

It's unrealistic for a small group to have enough coins between them to build a monopoly, as shown above.
It all comes down to how many MN's MrSpread set's as the maximum.

You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.

I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry.  And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway.

I will keep trying.

MrSpread sets the maximum amount of MN's to 3000.

So there are 3000 available slots on the MN network.

Me and 5 other people own 40% of the current supply 600,000SPR.

We try to gain 50% of the MN network with our 600,000SPR and find out we can only fund 1500 MN's with 400SPR.

I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules.

EDIT: 50% would not be enough to have a monopoly btw.

Would love to hear MrSpread's opinions on this matter.

[georgem]

I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules.

Good point.

That's why Spreadcoin must enable instantX first, so that we can start experimenting with our fast and lean DMs.
(Let the anonymization/darksend stay outside for the moment.)

With even faster transactions (already we have 1 min) we could create an economy that uses SPR for everyday business.... so the DMs owners trying to setup a monopoly will have it EVEN HARDER to get to those coins for cheap, since most of the coins should not be in DMs ANYWAY, but in the hands of normal trading people. (buying/selling things, offering services, etc.)

So over the next years, it really depends how many coins will even be available for DM owners.

Also I so wonder how big the spread will be between the DM with the fewest SPR and the DM with the highest SPR... this will be so interesting to watch.

This is another characteristic of this coin that perfectly fits its own NAME, can you believe it.  

[minerpage]

>> create an economy that uses SPR for everyday business

Exactly... create a thriving marketplace...

[thelonecrouton]

How can you centralize 3000 MN's?

Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools.

For a few people to control this network we are talking hundred's of thousands of spr(with current supply), and in years to come million's.
Utoh on darkcoin thread has over 100 MN's 100,000 DRK! And he still is only 1/16th of the entire DRK MN network.

It's unrealistic for a small group to have enough coins between them to build a monopoly, as shown above.
It all comes down to how many MN's MrSpread set's as the maximum.

You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.

I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry.  And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway.

I will keep trying.

MrSpread sets the maximum amount of MN's to 3000.

So there are 3000 available slots on the MN network.

Me and 5 other people own 40% of the current supply 600,000SPR.

We try to gain 50% of the MN network with our 600,000SPR and find out we can only fund 1500 MN's with 400SPR.

I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules.

Would love to hear MrSpread's opinions on this matter.

That was clearer, thank you, but I still think a dynamic requirement is a bad idea and offers no advantages over a fixed requirement, only disadvantages.

There are 5 people that I know for certain have over 100 Darkcoin Masternodes each. That's a minor issue though because of the n-of-m subsetting that Masternodes operate on.

The real problem with dymanic pricing is that a richer party can always drive out a poorer party. However unlikely you think this might be it shouldn't be a possibility at all as it will inevitably lead to centralisation in the hands of a few. The whole of human history shows us that this is what always happens.

With fixed MN price I will always have my MNs. Nobody can buy them out from under me. With dynamic pricing I could lose them at any time to someone with more resources, and I would have to be constantly spending time and money to recover my position.

I can set up a Masternode as quickly as anyone on Earth, I have it all scripted, it's easy, but it takes time. After a while, after having been repeatedly outbid, I'm just not going to bother any more, I'm going to say fuck it and lose interest, while the richer folk proceed to monopolise the whole show.

Dynamic pricing favours the rich few at the expense of everyone else and consequently diminishes decentralisation.

Add in the fact that with dynamic pricing there is going to be hard limit on the allowed number of MNs and it's going to rapidly result in a centralised monopoly.

[defunctec]

How can you centralize 3000 MN's?

Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools.

For a few people to control this network we are talking hundred's of thousands of spr(with current supply), and in years to come million's.
Utoh on darkcoin thread has over 100 MN's 100,000 DRK! And he still is only 1/16th of the entire DRK MN network.

It's unrealistic for a small group to have enough coins between them to build a monopoly, as shown above.
It all comes down to how many MN's MrSpread set's as the maximum.

You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.

I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry.  And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway.

I will keep trying.

MrSpread sets the maximum amount of MN's to 3000.

So there are 3000 available slots on the MN network.

Me and 5 other people own 40% of the current supply 600,000SPR.

We try to gain 50% of the MN network with our 600,000SPR and find out we can only fund 1500 MN's with 400SPR.

I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules.

Would love to hear MrSpread's opinions on this matter.

That was clearer, thank you, but I still think a dynamic requirement is a bad idea and offers no advantages over a fixed requirement, only disadvantages.

There are 5 people that I know for certain have over 100 Darkcoin Masternodes each. That's a minor issue though because of the n-of-m subsetting that Masternodes operate on.

The real problem with dymanic pricing is that a richer party can always drive out a poorer party. However unlikely you think this might be it shouldn't be a possibility at all as it will inevitably lead to centralisation in the hands of a few. The whole of human history shows us that this is what always happens.

With fixed MN price I will always have my MNs. Nobody can buy them out from under me. With dynamic pricing I could lose them at any time to someone with more resources, and I would have to be constantly spending time and money to recover my position.

I can set up a Masternode as quickly as anyone on Earth, I have it all scripted, it's easy, but it takes time. After a while, after having been repeatedly outbid, I'm just not going to bother any more, I'm going to say fuck it and lose interest, while the richer folk proceed to monopolise the whole show.

Dynamic pricing favours the rich few at the expense of everyone else and consequently diminishes decentralisation.

Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?

Imagine this

Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.

But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".

Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.

[thelonecrouton]

Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?

Imagine this

Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.

But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".

Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.

Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me.

With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with.

At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale (or government agency) with deeper pockets than you and your partners.