Personally I am dismayed this idea of taking miner share of block reward and adding it to masternode reward has come back again....Cheaply produced coins will be valued cheaply by the market, like deciding you can use tungsten instead of gold....Dash is not overpaying miners, Dash is overpaying masternodes
This is how I see it as well. I just don't get it.
Here's the real problem and why messing around with masternode block reward in the manner proposed IMO is going to make zip difference other than steadily deplete Dash's quality as an investable asset (though it may still remain a technically interesting payment medium)....
You can increase the mining block reward. You can decrease it. You can do whatever the hell you want with it, but 2 aspects of Dash "economics" remain unchanged:
1. the emission schedule
2. who pays for it
The cost of the maintaining the emission schedule is still
100% borne by miners, regardless of what reward they receive. That should have formed the starting point for any "economic analysis" because it's the only quantitively known factor in Dash's economics. If it costs them $100k to mine X days of Dash's emission curve, they still have to dump $100k of Dash on markets to pay for it. (Before MN's even sell 1 single Duff).
Similarly, it doesn't matter whether difficulty goes up, down or sideways or whether coin prices lead or follow mining cost. The relationship between reward ratio and supply to markets (in fiat value terms) is clear:
1. the generation cost of the ENTIRE supply is still borne by miners and that therefore determines the potential liquidity they supply to markets
2. that potential supply is only ADDED TO by increasing the masternode reward ratio
Sociological guesswork about stakeholder demographics and "who is most likely to sell" may or may not be useful, but it's no substitute for basic accounting which is unambiguous in pointing out where the price has to go to support the spraying of free money at a gated sector of the coin holding community which has to make supernormal profits at the ultimate expense of new investors.
Finally, by depleting the mining reward, we're making Dash:
• less scarce (because, by definition, coins mined at high difficulty are more scarce than those mined at low difficulty - it's why competitive mining was invented)
• less efficient in markets (because more fiat demand is needed to maintain the price for each coin mined)
• less stable (because masternodes act against the natural correcting effect of difficulty adjustments by being able to continue to sell at a profit in bear markets)
What we need to do is
increase the mining reward, not decrease it and whether Dash community people see it this way or not, it's how new investors will see it IMO. (Most of them can at least count).
I think a large part of the problem is that masternode owners can't/don't or won't see the service they provide as an additional cost to the network.
"Sociological guesswork about stakeholder demographics" That is in a nutshell what the proposal is based on, I'd like to see Ryan Taylor refute anything tok wrote in this post
