Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 163. (Read 9723733 times)

I don't want Dash to be like the other (POW) coins -- Those coins require foundations for funds, premine, ICO or other methods.   Dash has the ability to fund projects outside of Dash's code base, buy and store other crypto assets, fund development directly and indirectly -- this list goes on and on.   Dash is ultimately setup for success.   One could say this can be done with POW (and no masternodes) but as soon as you do that, it no longer is a "100% mined" competitor.   

Keep going Dash.

Demise as a competitive crypto asset when compared with its 100% mined contemporaries.

Surely this is a bit extreme because Dash will be around for a long time. Those who are calling for its early demise are just not serious...

This week (7/19) at Dash Core Group:
- Testing v0.16 Release Candidate 2. Mainnet release expected shortly
- Upgraded DashPay for iOS & Android to the latest version of Platform (DPP v0.14)
- Completed development for contact requests on DashPay for Android
- Integrated DAPI Client 0.14 to Wallet and SDK
- Introduced document timestamps to DPP, allowing for a more accurate ordering of state transitions.
https://blog.dash.org/dash-product-update-july-19th-2020-be7ab182e882

To those interested in obtaining information on how Dash as a crypto project has been doing these last three months and what Dash Core Group will focus on in Q3 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIuU9MstRWE




If people have questions for the Q & A part of the Summary Call, please post them here : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-core-group-q2-2020-summary-call-thursday-23-july-2020.50444/
I am always looking forward to these summary calls, as they provide great status updates on our Dash crypto project.

One of the liberating things about crypto is that it allows their creators and investors the independence to test their new ideas to destruction.

It is a matter of concern that in this case it isn't a "new idea" that's being tested but a very old one that's about as innovative as Bernie Maddof, i.e. dangling excessive margins over cost as a carrot to investors.

Even though masternodes may not recognise this as a failed strategy, markets have plenty experience in doing so and in our case they have recourse to a remedy beyond the reach of the Dash protocol to rectify the situation = eat those margins for breakfast by devaluing the coin and then diversify into assets that do compete more effectively than us against the best cryptocurrency stores of value.

Hopefully they won't use it, but equally as hopefully I can sell my bitcointalk posts for $10k a pop  

Ask yourself, what is an investor doing when they choose to purchase a mined coin from an exchange ? They're paying a miner to mine it for them so they don't have to buy a gazillion pound rig to do it for themselves. If you give then cheap, "unmined" coins in return that are cast-offs from large holders, what do you think they're going to do ?

Exactly what they have been doing for the last 3 years.

Sometimes I don't think Dash investors realise what they bought or how to protect it. If you wanted to invest in utility (rather than a mobile, versatile commodity) you should have bought Mastercard shares, or some other type of blockchain security who's protocol is designed to host entire nation's worth of debt securities.

Meanwhile, many people do not want to invest in that stuff. They want "sound money" that works. But be aware, it's the "sound money" part that they invest in. The "that works" part only makes its utility competitive against other offerings. It doesn't increase the value. (Like gold coins don't over gold nuggets other than a tiny premium).

So if you want to short-change digital commodity investors on hashrate and choose to inflate the blockchain supply on a purely numerical basis instead, don't be surprised to discover that they have more capacity to short-change you than you do them.



The competitiveness is the part on the left. The value is the part on the right. They are not interchangeable. To think that they are would be a very big mistake...

Yes there is something. Proof of work provides a better store of value than proof of stake. The empirical evidence stares us in the face.

you gave up too easily sir!

Partnership With TradeXSports
https://coindar.org/en/event/dash-dash-partnership-with-tradexsports-30165

Very well articulated, you tried your best to engage with those that have a different outlook but really there is no need to try to get through to them now - they are fixed in their ways and cannot provide anything of substance to debate about.

Exactly. With all that bad sides of Monero, it is now way ahead ( marketwise )  of DASH. Don't you think there is SOMETHING?

The perspective applies whether masternode dump their rewards or none at all.

It's simply a formal approach to verifying the anecdotal claim that sliding the reward scale away from mining is effective in drawing less net liquidity from markets. From the responses I've received on here I don't think anybody actually bothered to understand the analysis and let it sink in. They generally make an intuitive interpretation instead in which case they always end up re-enforcing their original assumptions.


Ok I stand corrected on that range. You're right that Monero was above us in marketcap for longer than I had remembered. I think I just spent too much time jousting with Monero trolls for years before that during which it remained at 1/5th to 1/3rd of out cap. However, it still overtook us on supply growth, not by limiting it. All these coins - BTC, LTC, BCH, XMR, whatever - ALL have protocols which deliver the entire supply into the hands of miners, yet they manage to capture more of the total cryptocurrency marketcap than we do.

This doesn't support the theory that throttling mining supply makes you more competitive as a store of value.

Yes, I know. You've repeatedly pushed your opinion here for some time as proven fact. Like I've already stated, your position has merit but either DASH was never a store of value or it is... this proposal doesn't change things enough to change it from a store of value to something that's not a store of value.


Ok, so again, which makes DASH not a store of value... DASH before the proposal passes or DASH after the proposal passes? Because DASH's price chart looks pretty similar to LTC's and XMR's.

You state things too simplistically, that value can only be derived from the cost of mining. And you continually insist masternode holders dump their rewards... do you have evidence for this?

Is gold valuable and a store of value purely due to the cost of mining new supply of it?


I was pretty clear what date range I selected for comparison... September 2016 to January 2017, just before the last bull run started. I believe we're close to that time now so the comparison seems relevant. September 2016 is 2 months after the July 2016 BTC halvening. Today is about 2 months after the May 2020 BTC halvening.

It isn't beyond me.

During this discussion over the last few weeks, 2 ways of "looking at" the non-mined element of the reward have emerged. I initially presented the perspective of the mining cost also accounting for the "cost of production" of the masternode reward, in which case the mining cost of the entire supply is effectively born by the investors who pay the mining cost. ("Investors" in that case being either miners who mine to hold or the segment of the market that gets the mining supply dumped on them).

Then others remarked that they didn't see it that way. They saw 2 distinct segments of the supply. The "mined" part is what miners receive and pay to mine, the balance basically pops out for "free" and is donated to masternodes.

If you take the latter view, there's no distinction with a proof of stake model. It's a straight redenomination of coin supply - a numerical exercise like money printing. You can't have it both ways. In the former perspective, we overdraw mining cost and undersupply mining reward from available market liquidity compared with 100% mined competitors. In the latter we simply inflate the coin supply numerically instead of subjecting it to competitive mining.

Both are toxic & corrosive to marketcap while the masternode reward is simply drawn down for "holiday cruises" instead of being used to add value to the network.


I didn't expect it to drop out of the top 20 rankings while Litecoin stayed in the top 10 and XMR in the top 15. If you check back to postings around that period you'll see that most others didn't either. You were very selective about the comparison with Monero from late December. That was a spike that echoed Dash's from 8 months previously. It didn't remotely reflect the long term position over several years which was consistently a 3x to 5x multiple for Dash.

What happened was that Monero had a very high emission rate during those years but it didn't cause their price to tank to the same extent as ours did with a much lower emission rate. So although for a given wallet holding they may not have been higher performing as a savings vehicle, they ended up the more valuable chain.

All of this completely contradicts the logic behind the split reward system beyond what's warranted by measurable added value from the masternode network. (i.e. the margins are not justified, get passed to markets to support who in turn simply devalue the coin relative to competitors to compensate).

I don't think the current proposal speaks anything about any other crypto but DASH.

And did you expect DASH or any established alt to outperform BTC in a bear market? DASH has retraced to a previous ratio against BTC, so far more or less right on schedule within crypto's (BTC's) 4 year market cycle.

Not sure which date you're picking for marketcap comparisons... Months before the last bull market (Q4 2016/Jan 2017), DASH's marketcap was 1/3 of LTC's and much less than 1/2 of XMR's. Now DASH, months before the next bull market, is in a similar position 1/4 of LTC's marketcap and more than 1/2 of XMR's. All 3 of these cryptos are here to stay at least in the near term (3-5 years). I see nothing that suggests DASH won't recover faster and then increase faster than these other 2 cryptos in the next bull market. Of course it's speculation and everyone should figure it out for themselves.

Perhaps the mistake many make is to think gains in rank during a bull market or loses in rank during a bear market are somehow permanent... especially before mass adoption and while things are still largely speculative.


I kind of agree... selling DASH when it's still in a bear market (ie: selling low) and buying newly hyped assets that just hit new ATHs (ie: buying high) is likely a bad idea. Of course if you really think DASH is doomed and going to page 3 of coinmarketcap then you know what to do...

Wish you wouldn't call it proof of stake when it's not. But whatever, how a 10% shift that phases in over 5 years (and coincides exactly with Evan Duffield's original allocation) moves it away from a store of value is beyond me. 

I feel there is little point for me to discuss this any further, people will just have to deal with the outcome of the block reward reallocation decision proposal in their own way.
If people want to ventilate their frustrations about it on this forum that is fine, but personally i'm done with this specific discussion.



It is not a bad thing to re-evaluate a crypto project once awhile, to see if the project goals still aligns with people's own expectations about that crypto project.
I am not sure if now would be such a good time to re-valuate that alignment though, with pretty much all the Altcoins in a bear market and emotions running high.

I am not a speculator and no thank you, I will not consider your idea of speculating on newer projects at this time. I am primarily interested in hard money alternatives to fiat. I thought for a long time Dash could be it.

Dash is so close to being the one that ticks all the boxes. It is very painful watching this change of direction away from store of value.  Dash has potential to being great. Store of value will not be found in the direction of more proof of stake. 

I don't see "stock buybacks" as a viable business model in corporations and while I do recognise that reducing "circulating supply" in a monetary asset like Dash can be useful for supporting the price, I don't see reward ratio as a way of changing it. The supply is "out there" however it's generated and even entire masternodes are part of the "circulating supply". I dumped half a masternode over a year ago for example. There was no "magic gate" to go through. I simply opened my wallet, sent the appropriate balance to an exchange and sold it. The coins were not "locked up" in my node any more than the rest of my balance was as the wallet balance is a continuum.

Masternode revenues give people an incentive to hold as long as the capital value is rising. But they give an incentive to sell if it's falling because the exposure is far larger. So it's a zero-sum game.

What would make it NOT a zero sum game is if all the coin supply was "doing work" for the network. i.e. if the proportion of the supply that wasn't competitively mined was being invested in some kind of network service. If it isn't it should be subjected to competitive mining to maintain maximum scarcity of the primary supply. This is where we disagree. I see mining as extremely valuable because it acheives scarcity in a way that limiting the numerical supply never can. That's just a denomination. We could re-denominate the entire supply as 5000 coins or 50 million instead of 9 million and it wouldn't change a thing. Wouldn't make the supply any more or less valuable. That's all non-mined "coin" inflation is - a purely numerical exercise just like printing fiat. (See my post above about it).

Bitcoin has 100% mining reward ratio + no node collateral requirement. By the logic of the current proposal it should be losing value at a faster rate than Dash because of so much "circulating supply". But it isn't. It has blown us away on marketcap (how valuable the entire supply is) over the years.

Litecoin has 100% mining reward ratio + no node collateral requirement. It has blown us away successively on marketcap.
Monero has 100% mining reward ratio + no node collateral requirement. It has blown us away on marketcap, going from 1/5th of ours to double.

The theory that moving the reward ratio slider one way or another reduces "circulating supply" in a favourable way only works if you cherry pick your definition of "circulating supply" to make that theory behave the way you want it. Unfortunately the market doesn't do this as the examples above demonstrate.