Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 18. (Read 9723768 times)

It is not a capital flow analysis and that was also not my intention. My intention was to figure out if the NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners can influence the CoinPrice. Because you tell us the last 1000 pages lowering the ratio means the price will drop.

To do so we have to analyse the motivation for Miners and Masternode owners. That Ratio is relevant for those only.

If you check my last formula in the DOH post it is in essential a very scary miner invested miner capital to price relation:

let's free it from the balast and make the formula simpler:


-> (MinerCount * MinerCost) / CoinPrice = MinerAmotisationTime = aprox const

aprox const or meant to be it is target to keep that value the same because that isgiven through the alternatives of Mineing other more profitable Coins.
Byway I ignored the energy cost here which you would never do in a miner profitability calculation but it is irrelevant for us here. Just add it in your mind to the MinerCost .

And because you are interested in Capital flow MinerCount*MinerCost is nothing else than the total invested capital of ALL miners of the full network of this coin

So it is just:

  TotalMoneyInAllMiners / CoinPrice = const
 
so here is your in miner invested capital and it is in a fixed scary relation with the CoinPrice.

You know there is the disussion if the Total-Hashrate correlates to the a CoinPrice.

I would say replace the total HashRate with the total Money put into Mining Equipment (and energy) and you come close to something that might correlate seen over a longer time periode.

Now if you ask Miners they will say that the CoinPrice dictates the Hashrate (MinerCount for me) and not the other way around.

This is certainly true.. for medium and maybe long term but at the end it will have to balance out to get to the same average MinerAmotisationTime for all existing pow coins and that's my doh post. An imbalance of the MinerCount over a longer time will essentially lead to the CoinPrice adapting. They can sell cheaper compared to the other coins and it will lower the price.

It is a very frightening thing and actually confirms what you pryed the last 1000 pages just not over the way you do it with capital flow consideration that
be not made to me sounds gibberish to me.. likely the same gibberish you get from my analysis! lol

Anyway conclusion is by lowering the NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners a lower CoinPrice is to be expect and it is not a one time thing  but a trendset driven through the psychological factor of my DOH post.

That is not fix however if for any reason you can give people a good incidence to buy DASH..it will drive the price up again and minercount will follow.
But without anything new put into the system a down trend is most likely according to my doh post.

cheers

That isn't a capital flow analysis, it's a calculated example of Miner Amotisation which has nothing to do with capital flows.

It's explained here and is simple to understand.

In the masternode "reward" model, when rewards are sold the capital goes into the pickets of masternode holders instead of going towards bidding for the primary supply. There's nothing to understand. It's the basis of all mined coins value model.

Page 7000.

Well I wanted to stay out of toknormal's discution of CoinPrice and NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners dependency butI took the time to formluate the whole thing for myself.

I print it here. It's  a lot. I wouldn't read it myself!

But in conclution:

 MinerAmotisationTime = (MinerCount * MinerCost) / (CoinPrice * NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners * NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec])


Miners incentive is to have a low MinerAmotisationTime. As lower as better and more profit later.

 MinerAmotisationTime is in concurence to ALL other mineable Coins. The Miners will mine the Coins with the lowest MinerAmotisationTime. Or in other words all Coins tend to get equal MinerAmotisationTime or MinerAmotisationTime will stay const.

 MinerAmotisationTime = const!

Now if MinerAmotisationTime is constant then we have 3 values that have to keep the equation in balance:

MinerCount, CoinPrice and NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners
where as MinerCount : Total count of standard Miners on the Network

if we lower the NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners like we did then the CoinPrice has to be HEIGHER to keep this equation constant.
The Miners are stimulated to sell Coins at a Heigher price..
However we know that this will not happen.
Instead they will leave.

-> So the MinerCount lowers! The lower NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners is compensated with a lower MinerCount over long and NOT the CoinPrice!

There is however no incentive in this equiation for a lower the Price. The price isn't affected by the Miners. If at all they would tend to sell heigher.

And for Masternode owners it's an increase that theoretical attracs more investors and rise the price through that. But that is not how it will play out.

There are other reason why lowering NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners is bad. Psychological reason. And THAT is what influences the CoinPrice the most.
And like we have seen to the lower side.

I can not follow  toknormal why lowering NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners should have any impact let alone lowering on the CoinPrice. 
But I can also not grasp why anyone thought lowering NetworkDistributionRatioToMiner will help to rise the price of this Coin.

You ppl just don't make any sense. Ask yourself what is the value of a Coin? How does it get value? Certainly not through such Ratio manipulations.

Anyway...for those interested..here is my full blabla... I wrote it down for myself and it might be a bit messy and maybe even have flaws.


----------------------------------

*** General:

 CoinPrice(t) : CoinPrice at time t in [$/Coin]
 NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners : fraction of the generated Network coins that goes to the miners (i.e. 0.4)


*** Miners:

 Miner Investor incentive: low MinerAmotisationTime
 Miner Investor worries: never get the Investment back (MinerAmotisationTime rise to infinite)

 Note as lower the MinerAmotisationTime as more profit is generated later. The CoinPrice isn't really relevant for this mechanics

 MinerCount : Total Standard Miners on the Network (we simplify here and say all have the same MineingPowerHashrate and same MinerCost)
 MinerCoinsPower(t) : Coins mined per time in per Miner [Coins / sec]
 MinerCost : Cost of a Miner [$]
 MinerAmotisationTime : Time till a Miner investment is fully payed off [sec]

 MinerCashFlow(t) =  CoinPrice(t)  * MinerCoinsPower(t); in [$/sec]
 MinerCost = MinerAmotisationTime * MinerCashFlow(t)

 -> MinerAmotisationTime = MinerCost / MinerCashFlow(t)  lesser MinerAmotisationTime is better

 MinerAmotisationTime = MinerCost / (CoinPrice(t)  * MinerCoinsPower(t))


 MinerCoinsPower(t) = NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners/ MinerCount


 MinerAmotisationTime = MinerCost / (CoinPrice(t)  * NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners/ MinerCount)

 MinerAmotisationTime = (MinerCount * MinerCost) / (CoinPrice(t)  * NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners * NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec])
 

*** Masternode:
 
 MasterNode Investros incentive: Height YearlyInterest, stable or rising CoinPrice
 MasterNode Investros worries: falling CoinPrices


 MasterNodeCoinReward(t) : Coins rewarded per time [Coins / sec]
 MasterNodeCoinReward(t) = NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * (0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners)/ MasterNodeCount
 
 MasterNodePrice(t) : Collateral MasterNode in [$]
 MasterNodePrice(t) = CoinPrice(t) * MasterNodeCostCoins

 MasterNodeErnings(t) : Cash flow for MasterNodeOwners [$/sec]
 MasterNodeErnings(t) = MasterNodeCoinReward(t)*CoinPrice(t) [$/sec]
 MasterNodeErnings(t) = CoinPrice(t) * NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * (0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners)/ MasterNodeCount

 MasterNodeCostCoins : MasterNode Price in coins [Coins]
 MasterNodePrice(t) : Price of a Masternode in [$]
 MasterNodePrice(t) : CoinPrice(t) * MasterNodeCostCoins

 Not: NetworkDistributionRatioToMasterNodes = 0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners  (with 10% gov cost) but lets stick with just one value and the same value for Masternode too

 InterestPerTime(t) = MasterNodeErnings(t) / MasterNodePrice(t) [1/sec]
 InterestPerTime(t) = CoinPrice(t) * NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * (0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners)/ (MasterNodeCount  * CoinPrice(t) * MasterNodeCostCoins)
 InterestPerTime(t) =  NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * (0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners)/ (MasterNodeCount * MasterNodeCostCoins)

 OneYearTime : total Seconds in a year [sec]
 YearlyInterest(t) =  InterestPerTime(t) * OneYearTime
 YearlyInterestInPercent(t) =  100 * InterestPerTime(t) * OneYearTimeInSeconds

 YearlyInterestInPercent(t) = 100 * OneYearTimeInSeconds * NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * (0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners)/ (MasterNodeCount * MasterNodeCostCoins)
 -> Note Not CoinPrice dependent


 or if we want to express in a sort of amotisation time analog  to the Miners:

 MasternodeAmotisationTime = MasterNodePrice(t) / MasterNodeErnings(t)  lesser MasternnodeAmotisationTime is better
 MasternodeAmotisationTime = CoinPrice(t) * MasterNodeCostCoins / (CoinPrice(t) * NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * (0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners)/ MasterNodeCount)
 MasternodeAmotisationTime = CoinPrice(t) * MasterNodeCostCoins * MasterNodeCount / (CoinPrice(t) * NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * (0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners))
 MasternodeAmotisationTime = MasterNodeCostCoins * MasterNodeCount / (NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec] * (0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners))
 -> Not CoinPrice dependent BUT..as lesser the Price as lesser worse the investment  so interested in CoinPrice stable or rise


*** Comperation:

 MinerAmotisationTime    = (MinerCount * MinerCost) / (CoinPrice  * NetworkDistributionRatioToMinerso * NetworkCoinsFlow)
 YearlyInterestInPercent = 100 * OneYearTimeInSeconds * NetworkCoinsFlow * (0.9 - NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners) / (MasterNodeCount * MasterNodeCostCoins)


- Masternode owners perspective:

 CoinPrice is irrellevant for (new) MasterNodeOwners! CoinPrice is NOT part of the MasterNodes incentive YearlyInterest
 However if price rises they will get more money for old MasterNodeOwners with same YearlyInterestInPercent
 
 -> Lowering the NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners rises YearlyInterestInPercent and is in the interest of old and NEW MasterNode owners.


- Miners perspective:
  As heigher the CoinPrice as smaller the MinerAmotisationTime when the total MinerCount of the Network doesn't change!
  However it becomes negleted because more Miners become attracted which will rises MinerAmotisationTime back to what it was.
  MinerAmotisationTime is in concurrence with other coins. Miners will mine the Coins with the lowest MinerAmotisationTime.

  Now if the price falls the same thing happens in reverse:  Miners will flee. MinerAmotisationTime goes back to coin miners market average values.
  there fore over a longer time the price isn't relevant for miners too! It will just lead to more or less Miners/Hashrate

  -> Lowering the NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners rises the MasternodeAmotisationTime. if the price does not change the Miners will flee and the MinerAmotisationTime goes back to coin miners market average values.
 
 Now in short time when the NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners got lowered it is an incentive for miners to rise the CoinPrice and selling the less Coins for more!
 Theoretical that will rise the price for a short time. Practical it will be negible. Miners just sell and don't try to make best market prices. So it will not affect the price.


*** Conclution:

 Changing NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners can not have an impact on the CoinPrice seen over a longer time. There is no mechanic for that.

 However psychological it will push miners away since it is seen as really unjustified. Why mining a coin where the most part goes to some greedy MasterNode owners? Would you do that?
 You only do that if MinerAmotisationTime is significant lower than the average mining market or you simple do not care of what others get. That the get more than you.

 The low NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners looks bad/unfair for anyone interested in the Coin itself. -> Coin loses attraction.
 And THAT at the end will drive the CoinPrice down: Less interested, less used less value.

 For Masternode investors the NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners looks good because it rises the YearlyInterestInPercent however there is a catch and this is that
 the CoinPrice has to at least keep its Value to not lose money at the end.

 So yes more Masternode incentive = more user buying Coins for this = CoinPrice should rise theoretical. Practical the user will not buy Masternodes because we
 are at a low position in the Coinmarket cap signaling significant value loss and unsafe investment.
 So the the psychological bad looks likely will have more impact on the CoinPrice.


 I too say it was a bad decition but because of a completly different reason.

 What you should get away from here is that the CoinPrice is NOT determined by anything mechanical you do here! But by Human psychologie and Coin usability.
 So doing something that is taken as bad is not a good idea.
 
 Like I always say ..create a product where the Coin is needed and can't be bought with anything else. A Coin needed for something increases its value.
 You have to generate an incentive without worries of losing values.

---

DOH!

I just see how toknormal's CoinPrice fall can happen through leaving Miners!

MinerAmotisationTime = (MinerCount * MinerCost) / (CoinPrice * NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners * NetworkCoinsFlow [Coins/sec])

true..longer time stability will be this:  lower NetworkDistributionRatioToMiners -> lower MinerCount, no CoinPrice change

But let's say Miners are p**** of the unfair Ratio enough that they also do not get into the game if MinerAmotisationTime is significant smaller than all other coins due to too less Miners.

If no additional Miners get back into it...the  CoinPrice will lower over time till MinerAmotisationTime rises to equal level like the other coins.

So in effect yes if you make Miners dislikeing a Coin it will backfire in lower CoinPrices over an even longer time periode.
And if you make Miners attracted to a Coin then well...price could go heigher.

I can somewhat follow toknormals argumentation now. Given Miners do not look on their profit numbers only but also act psychological mineing coins they like and avoid those they dislike despite lesser profit.


[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Not sure if the whole ESG thing is not yet another tricky marketing stuff. Humans spoil the Earth so hard you cannot solve the issue by simply forcing the big tech companies to follow ESG rules. Also, big tech will likely continue to grow pollution covering it with ESG flags and extensive marketing which will claim they do the best while in fact they do even worse than ever. Just my thoughts. I do not believe that ESG trend is powerful to solve anything, the whole system needs changes.

Also, I do not believe that POW is harmful to the ecology in general since people consume electricity anyways, there is no difference between you and me using computers, phones, and other electro stuff and some miners who is using ASICs or GPUs to mine btc or eth. Miners are not the primary consumers of electricity - but the whole population is.

  Well that's a new one at least. Do you have a cache of these anecdotal explanations available to pull out for gatekeeping duties by any chance ?

Nº 271: All coins lost value
Nº 386: Hashrate's only a measure of carbon footprint
Nº 364: Dash was in a secular downtrend
Nº 210: we had some large elderly whales sell everything recently
Nº 142: Dash performs poorly leading into December
Nº 176: MNs aren't forced to sell, miners are
Nº 481: The instamine !!!

Anything to deflect from the systematic analysis of capital flows in a coin where only part of the yield is used to attract bids into the primary market and where the balance is used to attract fiat into the pockets of existing holders instead. Fiat that should otherwise be going towards boosting our marketcap (and which it is in the case of our 100% mined competitors).

P.S. Howru enjoying your 50% cut in masternode rewards courtesy of the free market ? Please reflect on how ridiculous this makes the idea that "everyone would sell if MN reward was cut". When the free market does it for you it's not only carnage for the reward but for the collateral as well. Wouldn't it be more prudent to use the protocol to set the reward at a sustainable level so that:

A. an optimal dollar reward value was targeted instead of the Dash return (the latter amounting to measuring sand value in sand units)
B. the capital value of the collateral was protected and stabilised

Sure, but the falling price has nothing to do with what Tok is talking about.  The advantage that Bitcoin has is that its first 1 million coins never made it to market, so the price can stay inflated because Satoshi is not taking profit.  In the case of Dash we emitted our first one million coins at a rock bottom price (primary market)  and ever since then, those first adopters have been taking huge profit into a pool of just 10.5 million coins.  This radical asymmetry in our coin distribution is the reason we are struggling with the larger prices, it has nothing to do with how the coin is mined.

You have been arguing for many years, but the price and rating continues to fall.
Litecoin and Bitcoin do not have masternodes, but they are growing.

You keep pretending that just because I discuss anything with you that I automatically take the polar opposite side. I don't know how I could've made it any clearer than I've already had in the past and now that I think both you and the absent one you're trying to debate are both wrong. You both have points, maybe you even have a stronger case but you still speak in absolutes and extremes. The answer is closer to the middle. Also ESG is bigger than you realize. The world with money is beholden to it whether you like it or not.

Peace.

---

Despite what toknormal insinuated I never advocated for DASH to dump POW and go POS. I merely brought up the ESG concerns big investors have. We can pretend that they don't have concerns but it's probably better to acknowledge them and try to address these concerns anyway.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

You know that's a red herring that Dash conservatives like to use as cover for core failings in competitiveness. We're talking about its performance relative to other coins, not relative to the US dollar. Dash lost competitiveness BOTH in bull markets AND bear.

The core thesis was that we "didn't need all this hashrate" and it was incumbent on those who argued for that fundamental principle and who implemented it to take responsibility for its subsequent impact (or complete absence thereof) on the primary performance metric that was targeted - store of value. That is ultimately measured in marketcap ranking against other POW assets which serve as effective controls for such a thesis (being that they continued to sustain a 100% mined protocol).

But relative to them our marketcap has in fact cratered instead of grown. So some introspection would seem appropriate from your side of the debate more than from mine.


That sounds like a nose-in-the-air type desperate dismissal of reasonable challenges if I ever heard one. "Golf club politics" in action again. But this isn't a golf club.

Again, the "belief" is all on your side. I've supplied reasoned argument to support my views. You haven't provided any, other than a vague appeal to regulatory authorities which I already pointed out is not having any effect on our competitiveness. "Circulating supply" is an arbitrary metric in Dash's case where it re-defined the term uniquely and unsoundly to suit itself and support a poorly reasoned protocol priority that does not benefit investors.

This problem isn't going to go away and the more noses remain in the air and cotton buds remain stuffed into ears, the more it will continue to shackle our performance. It might be ok with the "golf club hierarchy" whom the current policy seems to be trying to please but try seeing it from the perspective of outside investors for a change.

Hey there, everyone! Seems like hot debates here.

Let me put some thoughts inhere.

POW|POS hybrid model is already a great choise since people who jump from pow to pos betray miners, and people who shill pos INSTEAD of pow look idiotic to OGs.

In Dash, you do have both choises and everyone just pick - which is a diversity of thinking and actions and is very good.

It seems you have not noticed that no POW coin, other than BTC, has done very well this last year. And even BTC itself hasn't performed so great since ESG concerns were brought to light last April. Anyways, not trying to convince you of anything, believe what you will. Continue to believe that you are helping steer Dash's direction.

 

You have got to be joking.

Dash's is now governed by the priorities of  "Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance" ? That's your answer ? You think that regulatory compliance is gonna be Dash's strong point now and that's why people will want to invest in it over competitors such as Monero, LTC, Litecoin, Bitcoin, Doge ? We already only have half the reward proportion donated to mining that they do and they attract investment to multiples of our marketcap so the market sure doesn't seem to be pricing in our "compliant" posture so far.

Be advised that we will always have a primary and a secondary market - right now hashrate happens to be the medium through which bids are made in our primary market. It doesn't mean that it will always be the medium but it is right now and if we want to be competitive we need as many bids as possible which means subjecting as much of our supply to that medium while leaving enough reward to support services. Even if I thought you had a point and we did want to reduce energy use, giving the coins away beyond the point of diminishing returns would still be an extremely poorly thought out way of dealing with it.

We don't have the luxury of indulging random regulatory bodies, our priority and the priority of the protocol is to investors and the optimal configuration of core monetary fundamentals. If that's successful then regulatory compliance solutions will follow. It's the job of investors and governors, not the protocol.

What you're suggesting is suicidal and inane. Nobody's gonna invest in an asset that ditched its most competitive monetary characteristics to satisfy some green regulatory body. We've seriously lost our way if these are the priorities that are guiding us now to the extent of the blockchain protocol itself.

Sigh.... please research ESG and their criteria and tell me how DASH should address the concerns. DASH is largely cut-off from institutional investors because it is POW.

If you seriously think that Dash can morph itself from a POW to a pure POS asset, ditch mining and "everything will be ok" then you're seriously deluded. That is "make-it-up-as-you-go-along", "that-didn't-work-so-lets-try-this" type stuff.

Dash only ever had one thing it could out-do its competitors on and that was to support a VERY high mining quota WHILE simultaneously providing services. --- End ---

The services you speak of are not a replacement for mining, they're a compliment. They're not equivalent to the smart-chain business model in any price-supporting sense for several reasons, amongst them being:

 • Ethereum type services run on-chain and consume blockchain tokens directly. They are more akin to a fiat type monetary system where liquidity creation responds to demand and that demand is derived from on-chain activity

 • Dash services are designed to run off-chain so there's no such "token sink". Dash inherits bitcoin's economic model where value is supported by scarcity and primary market demand (a.k.a. mining). What services do for us is augment our competitiveness against other mined assets by being able to match their mining quota but blow them away on useability

However if we simply ditch the mining thinking we don't need it it's a bit like an aeroplane designer ditching the wings so they can carry more passengers. None of our services wil be worth anything if we can't store value and we can't store value without mining. We are a POW coin and that's what POW coins do.

Well, by all means then carry on with your mission. I just hope one day you realize what you are actually doing.

Anyways, let me try to address some of the things you said in previous posts...

You speak as if DASH won't have services... but then what is Dash Platform? Yes, not released yet but still that's the eventual goal, no?

And should DASH stay POW at all?

Ever hear of ESG? I suggest you do some research into it. Institutions are greatly disincentivized and to some extent even mandated not to invest in any POW chain (including BTC) since it's considered wasteful. Even though this environmental claim is mostly false, doesn't matter, it's the perception. DASH either needs to convince ESG groups that POW is not environmentally harmful or else abandon POW if it wants big investors. ZEC jumped over DASH in the rankings and stayed there just on the announcement they were moving to POS.

How about just addressing the matter at hand rather than trying to turn it into some kind of personal issue.

Masternode holders just lost around $80,000 of capital per node in a matter of days. That makes whatever reward "tweak" they get look ridiculous by comparison. So the policy of prioritising revenue over capital gain, thinking that the former is going to support the latter beyond a sustainable level is junk and needs to be addressed. Nobody - not even me nor DCG nor anyone can "do anything about it" until there's widespread community debate and re-appraisal of this policy and how it's actually supposed to support store of value and what our mechanics of store of value actually are.

In that regard I encourage you to promote debate and discourse on this issue rather than sweep it under the carpet as if it's "something we can't change" and have to live with.

We don't.

It doesn't matter whether you have a point or not when it comes to what you are doing to yourself. You have been lamenting for years and are unable to move on and do more constructive things with your talents.


Is that what you are actually doing though? Are you taking your responsibility to evaluate whether your past decisions are working for you or not? Are you putting things right? Unless doing the same thing over and over again that hasn't worked for 2 years somehow can be interpreted as "putting them right", you are most definitely not putting anything right. You are just complaining about a situation you can't change. How about change what you can?

I don't think this forum is where DASH governance occurs...

The governance is truly f*cked in Dash. In shock vote governors vote more for themselves, less for the rest.

Clinging to a failed idea that hashrate is not needed and miners are net sellers, while ignoring mountains of evidence in the crypto world that Dash hybrid model fails as store of value when so much allocation is given away for free. The only time the allocation is questioned they vote the wrong way! Then deny its lack of effect. It was supposed to entice new masternode owners remember. didn't happen. support price because masternode owners hodl. (allegedly) and miners sell.

 Next they'll be telling me covid vaccinations stop transmission prevent infection. and are safe and effective.  

Great post by the way toknormal

Wot are you talking about "It really doesn't matter whether you have a point or not" ? Of course it matters. This is a "governance coin". The idea isn't that....


In "governance" you have the luxury of making decisions to direct protocol priorities. You also have the responsibility to evaluate whether past decisions are working for you or not and if not, to re-appraise them and put them right.

It really doesn't matter whether you have a point or not. Reality is you are stuck in a cycle of repetition, trying to change what you obviously can't change. All any of us really have control over is oneself. Too many people spend so much energy trying to control others when they can't even control themselves.