Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 113. (Read 9723787 times)

Thanks for your advice @qwizzie! And I also appreciate the time you put into your post. For sure I will take actions based on my sole decisions, I take everything I read out there with a grain of salt.

As for the @thunderjet user, maybe his intentions are not bad, and maybe he is upset because of the price fall of Dash. As for the 17.67% ROI, I thought is a typo and he wanted to say 7.67%, I must have a look into this as it seems is actually 17.76, and to my shame didn't noted that ROI on binance.

Now I wonder why the ROI for 10 days is bigger than the ones for 30/60/90 days. Makes no sense to me., even tho the 10 days ROI is capped at 50 DASH.

I think you maybe just trying to convince yourself that something that isn't viable somehow is.

The costs you cite are not even scaled with price. At $500 Dash, weekly margin over cost for a node is about 99% given a hosting cost of 30$ per month (which is already about 2 times what I pay).

That isn't sustainable. The conditions now are nothing like the conditions in 2017. We received a massive pump from hedging the impending bitcoin fork at that time. Bitcoin had never been forked before - there was no BCash or BSV. There were almost no stablecoins which are now prolific and efficient to be used as payment mediums. There were far fewer competing investable assets.

Additionally, the 2017 pump (in Satoshis at least) preceded bitcoin's big rise by around 10 months. So if you're looking for an echo of that one then this was it - we already had it and profits are now being taken:

True, hosting costs don't increase with Dash price but they do and have increased as Dash masternodes need to provide more services. The release of Dash Platform will also increase hosting costs and as Dash Platform is adopted, hosting costs will likely have to continue to increase.

Now, let's just illustrate reality. Instead of 2015, let's use near end of 2016, which I contend matches up to where we find ourselves right now within Bitcoin's 4 year market cycle.

2016: masternode count = 4100, paid roughly every 7.38 days or just over 4 times a month, block reward = 1.8, total reward = 7.3 DASH @ $9.50 each
2020: masternode count = 5000, paid roughly every 9 days or 3.33 times a month, block reward = 1.44, total reward = 4.8 DASH @ $65 each

2016: hosting cost per month = slightly more than 0.5 DASH at roughly $5
2020: hosting cost per month = slightly less than 0.5 DASH at roughly $30

2016: net DASH per month = 6.8 DASH and 27880 DASH across all masternodes
2020: net DASH per month = 4.3 DASH and 21500 DASH across all masternodes

2016: total DASH = 6.95 million, 4.1 million in masternodes which is 59% of supply in masternodes
2020: total DASH = 9.80 million, 5.0 million in masternodes which is 51% of supply in masternodes

Ok, so let's check some of the things you said.

1) You said more DASH is at $0 base cost now than before. And even if I accept your argument that DASH masternode rewards are $0 cost base this is not true. Each masternode receives about 36% less DASH than it did roughly 4 years ago and the total that all masternodes receive is just under 23% less.
2) You said it's harder to create masternodes today because the supply is more fragmented. Yet we have 8% more supply that's not contained in masternodes that can be bought than roughly 4 years ago and can be bought at a cheaper rate with top coins BTC and ETH. From 2016 it seems masternode count added another 500 before DASH topped out in price around mid December 2017. From today starting with 8% less DASH tied up in masternodes, just to match the ratio 4 years ago, we'd need to add another 780 masternodes. Also, consider the supply increase that occurs as blocks are mined throughout 2021 and the real possibility that StakeHound is even moderately adopted. All that indicates to me that we have more than enough runway to add another 500-1000 masternodes.

As illustrated conditions leading up to the 2017 bull run seem to be in place for the 2021 bull run. Good luck and just remember this time to plan properly and take profit when you have a chance.

Venezuela Unveils State-run Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dash, and Petro Exchange
https://cryptonews.com/news/venezuela-unveils-state-run-bitcoin-litecoin-and-dash-exchan-8216.htm

Ok, you may be right. I was trying to illustrate a point.

Being that:

 • hosting cost does not increase with Dash price
 • mining costs do

Therefore as price rises, those two profit margins get out of sync.

The more they get out of sync, the less capital value Dash is able to absorb into the chain (because, proportionately, more of it is going towards holder profits).

Therefore it has a glass ceiling that fully mined coins don't have and when it reaches that glass ceiling (where the disparity between the two margins is stretched beyond the point that the market wants to start taking profits from one of them) it crashes back down to an equilibrium level.

That "glass ceiling" gets ever harder the more masternodes we have because the nodecount reaches a point where the coin supply ownership is exponentially more fragmented. At that point nodecount growth stops. You can't manipulate it via protocol incentives.

So we need to be competitive at the equilibrium level of masternodes. MN growth or shrinkage cannot be a factor in Dash's store-of-value proposition other than temporarily because MNs must be tradeable just as the rest of the supply is.

We are now at 5000 - back in 2014/15 it wasn't anywhere near that so the low hanging fruit was still being picked. The price was rising from populating the MN collateral, not because of core store-of-value properties.

The way to remove the glass ceiling and allow the price to rise sustainably is to set the two margins at reasonable parity with each other over cost. Obviously that is not an exact science because the mining profitability is always kept competitive by the free market - they have variable costs. Meanwhile masternodes have fixed costs so their profit margin is effectively set by the protocol and rises with price without MN's having to do anything for it. But we have such a massive room for manoeuvre on this that we could instantly increase the mined proportion of the supply by about 30% and still cover masternode hosting costs by multiples.

That seems to me to be the way to respond most robustly to our market devaluation.

Except this isn't true. In 2015 you likely wouldn't need to spend more than $5/month for a cheap VPS and if you could maintain a static IP at home you could do it for less. On top of that you would get more than 5 DASH/month back then as rewards were higher and there were less masternodes. If I use the figures of 3500 masternodes and a block reward share to masternodes of 1.8 I get over 11 DASH/month. Interestingly enough, a very similar ratio to cost/reward that masternodes have now...

2015 per month: 11 DASH reward, 1 DASH cost
2020 per month: 5 DASH reward, 0.5 DASH cost

So, if your theory is so true why must you continually resort to exaggeration and in some cases blatant lying to make your point? Let's just deal with facts please and not make up figures which help bolster your already believed in conclusion. I repeat, DASH is in a very good position for the upcoming bullrun. And no, toknormal's prediction of $6 will not happen.

Anyways, on a somewhat different topic, seems like we're getting close... LTC touched below 375000 satoshis... bottom was last reached early 2017 roughly at 300000 satoshis. BTC is getting closer and closer to its previous ATH of $20K. Shortly after those 2 events, alts exploded to the upside last time. Make it of what you will, doesn't mean it will occur the same way this time... I just happen to think it's more likely than not.

Excellent post ! (+very interesting perspective re. MN subsidised mining = (zero difficulty mining + commercial difficulty mining) = reasons for cartels to accumulate = corruption).

This is the kind of numerically informed debate we need to restore Dash back to top-10 marketcap rather than roll over and die "cos MN's took a vote and that's sacred". It isn't sacred. It's a vote, that's all, and it was the wrong vote.

The beauty of Dash protocol is that the utility layer is extremely cheap to support but massively competitive against other mined coins. However the store-of-value function is in the mining, not the utility. Therefore the obvious advantage that we have is that we can support almost as much mining (store-of-value) as bitcoin, but only have to sacrifice a tiny bit of it to gain a disproportionate advantage in utility.

That was always Dash's advantage - so why no avail ourselves of it and go on the attack ? Why be defensive and pretend that we need to play some silly games with supply & emission optimisation to be competitive ?

Did anyone that invested in this coin do so on that basis ? Did y'all look into emission, traffic to order books from miners vs masternodes and that type of stuff when you invested ? Of course you didn't. You just saw a "better bitcoin". Implicit in that appraisal was the idea that Dash would have bitcoin's store-of-value properties as a given but additionally great usability. Why else inherit its codebase ? But according to Spork 21 that isn't what you invested in. You invested in a coin who's major governance achievement as far as store-of-value is concerned is to optimise traffic-to-market between miners & masternodes.

For me that is unacceptable. In the words of a tennis player "you cannot be serious".

We need to re-appraise this. As always, the thing that will save us is...thinking.

If you look at historic chart of DASH masternodes you can see that 4500 masternodes were established before 2017 bull run for cost of about $15000 per masternode.I did calculation how much profit one such masternode made for period 2017-2020.I took average price for every month and that masternode reward per month is 4.75 coins:

02.2017 - 4.75*24.49 = 116.33
03.2017 - 4.75*75.04 = 356.44
04.2017 - 4.75*76.95 = 365.51
05.2017 - 4.75*111.54 = 529.82
06.2017 - 4.75*157.55 = 748.39
07.2017 - 4.75*172.28 = 818.33
08.2017 - 4.75*293.48 = 1394.03
09.2017 - 4.75*310.31 = 1474
10.2017 - 4.75*292 = 1387
11.2017 - 4.75*526.33 = 2500.07
12.2017 - 4.75*1097 = 5210.75
-----------------------------------
Total 2017 = $14900.67


01.2018 - 4.75*929.5 = 4415.1
02.2018 - 4.75*563.8 = 2678.03
03.2018 - 4.75*454.23 = 2157.57
04.2018 - 4.75*413 = 1961.75
05.2018 - 4.75*403.47 = 1916.48
06.2018 - 4.75*276.24 = 1312.14
07.2018 - 4.75*245.47 = 1165.96
08.2018 - 4.75*178.17 = 846.28
09.2018 - 4.75*191.69 = 910.5
10.2018 - 4.75*169.3 = 804.15
11.2018 - 4.75*130.68 = 620.73
12.2018 - 4.75*79.7 = 378.55
------------------------------------
Total 2018 = $19167.24


01.2019 - 4.75*75.53 = 358.74
02.2019 - 4.75*79.04 = 375.42
03.2019 - 4.75*93.95 = 446.24
04.2019 - 4.75*122.1 = 579.95
05.2019 - 4.75*143.51 = 681.67
06.2019 - 4.75*163.16 = 775.01
07.2019 - 4.75*128.62 = 610.95
08.2019 - 4.75*95.48 = 453.53
09.2019 - 4.75*85.08 = 404.13
10.2019 - 4.75*69.06 = 328.01
11.2019 - 4.75*61.21 = 290.72
12.2019 - 4.75*45.99 = 218.43
-------------------------------------
Total 2019 = $5522.8


01.2020 - 4.75*92.02 = 437.1
02.2020 - 4.75*108.67 = 516.18
03.2020 - 4.75*63.14 = 299.89
04.2020 - 4.75*75.63 = 359.24
05.2020 - 4.75*75.06 = 356.51
06.2020 - 4.75*73.75 = 350.31
07.2020 - 4.75*80.54 = 382.57
08.2020 - 4.75*93.34 = 443.37
09.2020 - 4.75*76.38 = 362.78
10.2020 - 4.75*71.15 = 337.94
------------------------------
Total 2020(10 months) = $3845.89



Total 2017-2020 = $43436.6

Investment value = $15000

Pure profit = $28436.6 per 1 masternode (that is buying a lot of cruises )

or $127.96 millions for 4500 masternodes established before 2017 bull run.

So $127.96 millions of pure profit were sucked off from market by masternodes

Of course not because Dash protocol allows you to put the mined supply revenue straight into your pocket at zero difficulty instead of investing it in mining which you would be required to do with bitcoin/litecoin which is why they attract far more investment capital than Dash does.

Monetary security vs Network security:

 • chainlocks implement network security
 • hashrate implements monetary security

Interesting personal opinion about that part of Dash history and the connection you are trying to make there.
I am not buying it though, but i assume you are not trying to convince me.

By all means keep providing your personal opinion and assumption, this is a forum after all where everyone can give their own opinion and assumption.
Maybe someone find it interesting to discuss it with you.

By the way : how many holiday cruises did you make with your 5 or 6 years as masternode owner ? I hope you made some nice pictures about your travels.

And at that time Dash was around $5-$7 or less. Masternode rewards were around $30 per month, allowing a hosting cost of, say $27 per month to be fully recompensed with a 10% margin to spare.

See ? Evan Duffield established the idea that:

#nodesAreNotACharity
#setMarginsAtParity  

That's why Dash was an efficient store of value back then - investor's capital went into capitalising the chain and not holiday cruises for masternodes. But as the price rose, hosting costs did not rise with them and so more of that capital should have gone into mining to keep the supply scarcity high and capitalised. Instead it didn't and masternode margins kept getting more & more bloated which is why we are now suffering from catastrophic deflation.

Sporks were invented by Evan Duffield in 2015 to avoid getting into a situation where the Dash network unintentionally splits during large updates, which then puts users / masternode operators / exchanges / miners / merchants at risk. By using sporks Dash can prevent all that, while still performing hard forks. If large updates cause unintentional side effects, the option is then available for the Dash Core Team to roll back the Dash network to a safe state.

In time these sporks will need to be more decentralized (they are now merely manually flips from certain persons within Dash Core Group), but for now i see no problem using sporks to guide the Dash network safely through
some very large and important updates. After Dash Platform has been implemented on Dash Mainnet, i feel like we can start discussing using our governance system to vote on activating these sporks.

All spork 21 really does, is that it activates a minimum protocol version check on active masternodes :


Source : https://blog.dash.org/updated-product-brief-dash-core-release-v0-16-0-d3debdb6242e (the referenced 60% is actually 80%).

These kind of sporks have been used multiple times to update the masternodes network, by gently forcing them all onto one specific minimum protocol version.

What you need to understand is that Spork 21 and its origins is actually a very cleverly thought-out strategy by Ryan Taylor to finally allow the Dash governance mechanism to work in a truly decentralised and autonomous way.

He deliberately promoted a store-of-value mechanism that was so obviously flawed that the community would be forced into a phase of self-introspection and reflection to reconcile what was going on in markets with its own understanding of how its investment functioned. That would then lead to a decoupling from centralised thinking and an abandonment of the "follow the leader" form of governance to a truly conscious investor community where the governance system matured and came of age.

Clever stuff

Here is an update to my little game from many months ago ....

5th of November 2020

Source : messari.io

21st of July 2020

Source : messari.io

Very large difference between price performance then and price performance now for some of these coins (particularly Chainlink & Tezos) and a predicted further fall in price performance for the other coins.
Higher price % down from ATH = Weakened price performance !!

Now lets compare this to Dash.

5th of November 2020 : Price Down from ATH -96,1%
Source : https://imgur.com/7QKn2vJ (screenshot today from messari.io)

31st of July 2020 : Price Down from ATH  -95,1%
Source : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54904479

Please note that i am using - in general for Price down from ATH to emphasize that the price is moving downwards from an all time high price. How higher that percentage, how stronger that price
has moved downwards. Very little difference in Dash price performance between then and now (-1%), which indicates Dash price stability at around bottom level (slightly above).

I suspect Monero (-77,5% price Down from ATH) is also turning bearish now, after a 4 months bull market, i think it will fall back to -88% price Down from ATH over time (after some months).
Maybe Monero will even fall back to higher in price % Down in ATH, then that -88%. Which explains why we see so little of Dahaa lately, who is usually promoting Monero in here while trolling Dash.

Question is what Ethereum (-72,05% price Down from ATH) will do with regards to price performance coming months, now that the DeFi hype has faded and all focus is on Bitcoin who is making a move towards $15,000
Will Ethereum also face a retest of its bottom at some point ? Or can it hold on to its current price performance ?

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Qwizzie unreasonably called me Troll, for what I called the masternode DARMOEDS. I was right. And you completely rehabilitated, whitewashed me. Reasonably proved to everyone that masternodes are freeloaders, parasites and pests of the price of coins.

I would say slowed down, not stalled. It looks like each day the number of masternodes that have updated to v0.16.0.1
increase a little bit (it is now at 78.6 so an increase of 0.1 %)

Once we hit 80% and spork 21 gets activated after 7 days and masternode operators will get hit with PoSe scores / get PoSe banned,
i expect posts to emerge about those PoSe bans and what to do about it. I regard those masternode operators not yet updated (18.8%)
as out of touch masternode operators, that are perhaps not aware there is an update out there that they need to implement.

I wonder why the masternodes upgrading seems to have stalled

Miners Update Progress


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

This can fluctuate a lot and will need two separate time windows of 7 days. One to lock-in the blockreward allocation change and one
to activate it.

Masternodes Update Progress



Source : https://www.dashninja.pl/deterministic-masternodes.html

80% updated to v0.16.0.1 will be needed, followed by at least 7 days to give masternode operators the chance to update, before
spork 21 will be activated and masternodes with older versions will start to get PoSe scored and ultimately PoSe banned from the
network.

Yes for users. No for investors.

If you invested in Dash at $500 and now it's $65 then it clearly hasn't added value to the network for investors, has it ?

On the other hand, if you're only "spending" Dash rather than investing in it to hold (e.g. you're using it for a cross-border transfer or something) then there may be some utility value depending on your needs.

This is an important distinction when it comes to store-of-value criteria. Because for the temporary "user" it doesn't matter what the value of Dash is as long as it holds its value for the couple of hours you're using it, whereas for the long term investor it sure does, so they are distinct markets. The big ICO tokens attract investment from targeting massive utility, like in the 6 or 7 figure transaction range per day. Or hosting bond offerings or whatever.

On the other hand mined crypto sustains its value through mining, by establishing an equivalent level of scarcity to the fiat value invested in the mining cost. (i.e. if I "invest" $1000 in Dash mining then that should roughly correspond to the value of the coin because my $1000 directly contributes to raising the difficulty through a process called competitive mining). That form of store-of-value works even if there's no or very little utility which is why you can see for example Bitcoin barely ranking in the top 10 in this list but still out-ranking everyone else for marketcap. Or Dash is 7 places above Monero for activity, but only a quarter of its marketcap.

In bitcoin, you can invest $100,000 in mining equipment but to get any coin out of the chain you'll STILL have to contribute to raising the scarcity value of the supply by competing for it. So your reward is effectively a certificate of your investment. A straight swap - you stored your capital value in the chain and got a ticket for your contribution. That's why it has trading value in the secondary open market since it's the only way anyone can acquire a coin without investing in mining equipment themselves and competing.

Lets now turn our attention to a special kind of "miner" that exists in Dash. Here you don't even need to invest in mining equipment. Instead you just put up some loan collateral for a while and during that time you are allowed to mine at ZERO DIFFICULTY. No net investment in the chain is required (because your collateral is only lent). You mine for whatever period of time, receiving your rewards which are therefore a certificate of nothing. That's where the capital drain occurs (from an external store-of-value investor's point of view) because those coins were mined at zero difficulty, attracted no new scarcity value into the primary supply, but still get dumped on order books where they can make a profit at any price. In bitcoin, that orderbook revenue goes straight back into the chain in the form of raising difficulty. In Dash it disappears into private pockets, never benefiting the network. Is it any surprise the price only goes in one direction for 3 years since we hit maximum nodes ?

The masternode coins also undermine the trading price in other ways because they can compete with the mined supply for orderbook liquidity at almost any price above zero, so continually drive the price down. They don't have a cost base. (So this is ostensibly the mechanics by which the "loss of capital" finds its way through to the trading price).

This was not the original idea. The original idea was that masternodes would NOT be mining at zero difficulty (effectively) because the reward would be needed for funding the service layer of the network, thereby making that aspect investible. But that only works if the reward is set to a competitive level that's commensurate with, say mining rewards. So if mining is profitable at 10% profit margin then that would appear to form a good reference margin for masternodes as well. If their cost is 30$ per month then the reward should be $33 per month. If their costs are $2 million per month (as some Icelandic bitcoin miners are) then their rewards should be $2.2 million so they make $200,000 per month.

The idea of that would be to restore stability as a store-of-value (MDIA = "Make Dash Investible Again") and therefore rewards would return, except this time mainly as capital gain rather than blockchain revenue. That would be facilitated by exposing far more of Dash's blocks to competitive mining than are at the moment which would immediately raise the net opening value of the majority of the primary supply.

What's the point of a 5% ROI in Dash if it has to be paid for with a -50% ROI in dollars ? That's just the signal that we've got this balance WAY wrong. I think masternodes would far rather see their collateral value grow than their rewards grow and their collateral shrink.

It still seems incoherent to me to say that masternode rewards eat up core capital in the long run.

This is a pyramid scam, as is the monetary printing without compensation to cover holes or debt that cannot be paid with real value (labor, raw materials, territories ...)

If, for example, the DIF invests its capital in gold, or in a specific company, do they tell me that this does not generate value over the native token of the Dash chain?

If I can use master nodes to speed up the network, or privatize a fund transfer, does this not add value to the network?

If there are more and more masternodes, does this mean that people are stupid and put their funds in a pyramid scam to end up being worth 0?

I get the impression that some come here to repeat the same thing a thousand times, and they endorse it in the general drop in the price of many projects, not in their concrete achievements.

What is clear is that Dash is increasing its use in a very slow way, and the demand for real use, compared to other tokens such as ETH, or BTC is minimal, and this is because it is not necessary to use it in a "mandatory way. "to obtain a specific purpose.

I can use BCH, BSV, Monero, XRP, DGB ... to do almost the same thing, in a similar way.

If the future of Dash is not to make a clear difference in its use, it will be just one more chain with its fans, but it will not go beyond that.

There are a thousand shades of gray in the universe, but only one black, if Dash agrees to be just another gray, he will end up cornered in the egg.


a greeting