Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 141. (Read 9723733 times)

Only if you subscribe to the 2+2=5 theory of accounting.

A second hand car may sell for 10% of its new value. Nobody may have literally "paid" the cost of the 90% depreciation but it's accounted for as a cost all the same and ends up being a real cost when I sell it due to the capital loss.

Similarly, the gap in your calculations (between hosting cost and MN revenue which amounts to around 95% of revenue) gets accounted for in real terms over time. If Dash primary investors are undersupplied compared with competing assets (which they are, by 55%), the market will go elsewhere. That competitive deficit devalues the capital value of your holdings over time.

That capital loss represents an unrealised "cost" that has to be offset against the masternode ROI and drastically reduces it if not cancels it altogether. If we restore a competitive supply to primary investors (by recovering the mining reward) we can address both issues. 1: arrest the haemorrhaging of investment to competing assets and in doing so 2: stabilise and grow masternode ROI in real terms instead of "Dash" terms

Masternode operators bear them, when we are talking about masternode revenue.

Miners do not bear masternode costs.
Masternode operators do not bear miners costs.

It all becomes mumbo jumbo when you have someone trying to reverse the above in his market theory and then tries to connect it directly to the loss of marketcap.

Ever heard of a "free lunch" ? Well just because it's not paid for at the point of consumption doesn't mean the ingredients don't have to be bought & cooked by somebody.

Dash "free lunches" are not paid for by masternode holders (at least over hosting cost). They are paid for with a loss of marketcap.

That is why I've advocated margin parity.

There Are Two Sides to Every Story



The Bitcoin network and its many forks have had a tumultuous existence when it comes to the aspect of governance. Originally, there was one Bitcoin. Everyone was on the same page fighting for an answer to the corrupt legacy system. Soon after, however, cracks began to show in the unity. There were differing opinions on how to proceed from a technological standpoint.

Because Bitcoin didn't have and still doesn't have an effective governance mechanism to ascertain the will of the true majority, the only thing they could do was to create another coin through a "hard fork" of the code. This new coin was called Bitcoin Cash, and those that shared the same viewpoint as the leaders of Bitcoin Cash followed...

Read more: https://www.dashnation.com/media/news/two-sides-to-every-story/

Thanks for reading and watching!

Are you not the one that constantly talks about revenue without cost though ? Free coins ? Leaving out the renting costs for masternode operators ?

I have heard nobody else claim that Dash Masternodes can have revenue without costs. And i know of no Dash promotion that does claim revenue without cost.
Costs that is getting more expensive by the way, as Dash Platform will require higher server hardware specs, driving up the costs for masternode operators.

No, I'm not doing that.

I'm acknowledging the fact that you cannot have a revenue without a corresponding cost (that someone else bears). That is what you and the rest of the community should also be acknowledging and addressing instead of promoting Dash on an "everything is great, it's Dash so you can have revenue without cost, fairytale, wizard of oz land" theory of accounting basis.

I am not a subscriber to that theory because it will drive us over a cliff.

I think you are confusing costs with revenue. Revenue is what attracts investors. Revenue is what grows the user base.
Revenue is basically what drives cryptocurrency.

Congratulation on discovering that the masternode network has a separate revenue stream.
Oh wait, you are a masternode operator... you already knew this.

Quick question : why are you running a masternode again ? could it possible be for the exact same revenue ? If masternodes are so terribly costly as you put it,
why not simply disband your masternode(s) ? Or better yet, donate all your masternode rewards to miners ? Be our shining example, lead the way forward !!

 

I'm saying we need to prioritise the coin protocol to appeal to the NON-DASH holding community, not to ourselves.

Lets get a couple of things clear. First of all, Dash has about the most expensive network on the planet to run. The masternode network costs around half a million dollars per week at current prices.

It behoves both Dash holders and prospective investors to do the due diligence to determine who pays that cost.

Turns out it's funded from 2 sources:

1. directly from the blockchain
2. by outside investors if the MN holder sells their rewards in realtime

In the case of "1", that is the supply that would otherwise have gone to investors in the primary supply and therefore represents a competitive cost to them. They get more of the supply with other coins. (IMO we should stop talking about "miners" because they're irrelevant and a distraction when analysing capital flows. If a miner mines to hold they're an investor. If they sell in realtime then the coin buyer is the investor, so the miner as an operative is no more than a proxy in the capital flow. "Investors in the primary supply" is the relevant contiguous group).

So the MN network cost is borne by outsiders in both a direct and indirect sense. At a price of $1000 and the current nodecount, the node network would cost $5 million per week to run. Is it seriously any wonder that the price collapsed ?

Until we face up to this and sort it out so that Dash is investible again we're simply connecting our mouths to our ears. Nobody else is listening. You can argue "speculative value" all you like but remember what speculative value is: it's simply the pre-emptive pricing in of REAL value in the absence of significant futures markets. If there's no "real value" in the analytical appraisal of the asset then there won't be any speculative value either.

If you are trying to convince the NON-Dash holding community, then are you not doing that in the wrong place ?
This is after all the Dash ANN, maybe you should try to convince Non-Dash users in other ANN threads ?
Convert them there ?

May i suggest you try Monero's ANN thread ? They are such an energetic friendly Non-Dash community, worthy of a convert. I am sure they will have no problem keeping this coin alive.
Just don't mention my name there please.

Let me help you out there. Investors put their money:

a. where they think they are getting a reasonable deal in the first place and
b. where they think it will accrue value

Dash's primary supply fails at point "a" because (let me restate for clarity):

Coin A: Block size=10 coins, primary investor (who fund mining) receives 4, miner keeps 1, "others" receive 5
Coin B: Block size=10 coins, primary investor (who fund mining) receives 9, miner keeps 1

That is what we are seeing. What we are NOT seeing is a phenomenon whereby progressively reducing the proportion of your primary supply that's subjected to competitive mining, increases the marketcap in relation to other coins that do.

We are seeing the reverse.

Also (btw)..


Who cares about the "Dash community" ? They're not who we're trying to convince. It's the NON-DASH holding community who probably have a very different set of priorities that need to be convinced to keep this coin alive.

Investor will invest into what he thinks is important : whether that is with smart contracts (Coin A) or with transaction speed (Coin B)

Investor buys either 10 coins from Coin A or buys 10 coins from Coin B on public exchanges. If Fiat price is lower with Coin A, then that simply means investor can buy
more crypto coins from Coin A, but the amount of Fiat investor puts into crypto is the same for both Coin A and Coin B as investor dedicates a certain fiat amount for crypto.

Return on Investment is the raw percentage return of Coin A or Coin B from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.
Investors do not fund mining. Investors just buy coins or invest in coins or save up on coins.

1 Dash = 1 Dash everywhere, on all exchanges.

Miners fund their own mining, have their own expenses, carry their own expenses. Miners can not forward their mining costs onto exchanges, making 1 Dash more expensive then another Dash.
Mining costs are solely for miners, just like masternode costs (renting servers) are solely for masternode operators.

Miners know exactly what the mining reward and their ROI will be.
Masternode operators know exactly what the masternode reward and their ROI will be.

Both mining rewards and masternode rewards end up in the circulating supply. Some (most) will go to exchanges to be sold off, some will be kept in personal possession and saved up.

Coin A: Block size=10 coins, primary investor (who fund mining) receives 4, miner keeps 1, "others" receive 5
Coin B: Block size=10 coins, primary investor (who fund mining) receives 9, miner keeps 1

If the aggregate mining cost between those two coins is comparable, where do you think the primary supply investors are going to migrate ? Coin A or Coin B ?

Interesting... how this relates I'm curious... have the supplies of any of these cryptos been adjusted by moving the decimal point right or left to demonstrate the opposite of the point I was making?

To cite another example besides DOT... how about Elrond, which reduced their supply 1000x by moving the decimal point 3 to the left. Before the re-denomination, ERD was trading around 2.5 cents, now eGLD is trading around $17 to 19 (not $25)

Or how about VEN to VET, where 1 VEN was swapped for 100 VET, and despite being in the beginnings of the bear market, managed to increase its marketcap shortly after the swap...

BTW, to be clear I'm not necessarily pushing that DASH follow DOT or VET in re-denominating. I'm merely pointing out an observation that more people will be drawn to own a whole coin at a lower price point. How many people are studying marketcaps when buying an asset, whether gold, stock or crypto? The price invariably gets the most consideration. More interest, more buying pressure, more decentralization in ownership. There are 7+ billion people in the world, at some point if any crypto wants to compete as a global currency, it's going to need a perceived supply much higher than in the millions. People don't want fractions of or partial ownership of things as much as the satisfying sense of full ownership...

And it doesn't necessarily need to be at the protocol level... In the future I could fully see BTC being priced in something else socially made up, let's say bits where 1 bit = 0.01 BTC or something just to make it easier on the average person's mind...


Are you sure you know what cognitive dissonance is? It seems to me that you yourself are in this state more than anyone else here for you believe that DASH is a bad store of value yet remain invested in it...

I think i will just place value on the Return On Investment that messari.io provides as data over the years that can be publicly verified and will just continue disregarding your assumptions about how you think the market works and your whole 'with Dash they will receive less than half of what they do with 100% mined supplies' and 'investors who pay for the mining' lines.

Seriously it just sounds like mambo jumbo to me. This is not about a possible cognitive dissonance, this is about a vague market theory of yours finding very little support in the Dash community.
You can of course repeat those beliefs with every post you make, it does not make it any less mambo jumbo.

 

That isn't what I was talking about. My post stated "comparison of the return on investment in the primary supply between Dash and 100% mined coins" which referred to  the proportion of the primary supply received by investors who pay for the mining. (Depending on which of 2 views you take, either these investors pay for the proportion they don't receive as well - MN rewards - or the MN rewards are generated on a purely numerical basis at zero mining cost).

With Dash they will receive less than half of what they do with 100% mined supplies.

Also, we are in 2020, not 2019. On the 3rd September 2015 Ethereum was at $1.27 and Dash at $2.37.

In 2015, Ethereum was 6.8x our marketcap.
In 2020 it's 65x our marketcap.

So you can "cook" the stats anyway you like but I don't think you can defend the "store of value" track record successfully against other mined coins who do not inflate their supply on a purely numerical basis (as we do) without subjecting it to competitive mining. Competitive mining puts a primary price on every block. Numerical inflation sets that price at zero.

The market assigns our aggregate marketcap accordingly. It's right there in front of you, even though I realise the cognitive dissonance doesn't allow you to "see" it.

Sure, and here are the top-10 coins we'd be competing with if Dash prioritised its "value offering" according to that type of "scientifically studied" psychology.



Feel free to invest

Yes, humans are. 

This is not my theory... in fact it's psychology, which is the scientific study of mind and behavior...

Okay, lets take a look at the ROI between Dash and 100% mined coins over the years :


Source : messari.io

Calculated by adding positive ROI and retracting negative ROI, arriving at a total ROI between 2015-2019.
Green is positive total ROI, Red is negative total ROI. % Down from ATH is excluded, as that is still in progress (2020) and is also not a ROI value i think.

Time Period 2015-2019

Bitcoin             : 1,460%
Ethereum         : 9,704%
Bitcoin Cash     : 69,15%
Litecoin            : 4,963%
Bitcoin SV        : 3,88%
Monero            : 4,932%
Dash               : 9,154%
ETH Classic      : 1,748%
Zcash              : --

Looks like Dash is ranking second (just under Ethereum), with regards to ROI.
Something tells me when ROI of 2020 comes in somewhere in 2021, Dash will still be ranked second.

My "theory" isn't a theory at all, it's a comparison of the return on investment in the primary supply between Dash and 100% mined coins. Nothing to do with "fully mined" vs "governance" coins.

Further, masternode margins are not used for "governance". In fact they're not used for anything at all that benefits the network, they are pure value drain and go into the pockets of holders, draining the capital value as they go. (Which is why Dash is always careful to express ROI in terms of "Dash" and not "USD", thereby omitting an entire element of the ROI = capital loss. Like cutting a diminishing cake into even thinner slices and saying you've got "ROI" cos you've got more slices).

Right now Polkadot is doing better marketcap / rank wise then Bitcoin Cash and several other full PoW coins (Litecoin, Bitcoin SV, Monero, Ethereum Classic, Zcash).
This is a governance & staking crypto coin, that marketcap wise will be outperforming full PoW networks (where miners are in full control) for a long time i suspect.
Source : https://polkadot.network/


This kinda puts a hole in your whole 'full mining PoW crypto projects are marketcap wise / rank performing better then governance / staking crypto projects' theory, does it not ?
I also wonder if coinmarketcap is not throwing the door wide open for other crypto projects (that are currently very low listed on coinmarketcap) to do some redenominations on their own projects.
In a few months we may not even regnonice coinmarketcap ranking anymore.

Can you imagine Bitcoin SV doing some redenomination on their crypto project ? I would not put it past them, and it could set them above Bitcoin, marketcap / rank wise on coinmarketcap.

Question for all : by allowing Polkadot to redenominate their cryptocoins and then processing that redomination data into their website, did coinmarketcap devalued itself with regards to marketcap and ranking  ?


Source : https://coinmarketcap.com/


Source : https://coinmarketcap.com/coins/