Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 180. (Read 9723733 times)

Its good to see you posting toknormal. I've missed you on the discord channel

If so, qwizzie, why hasn't the case for the current proposal been presented in terms of that long term vision, re-stating what the ultimate economic basis for the coin value is instead of analysing everything in reactionary terms of "limiting supply to markets". Why does it quietly ignore the fact that fiddling with the reward ratio does nothing to throttle the net fiat value of supply to markets as defined by the needs of the emission curve ?

By comparison, bitcoin's long term economics is unambigious: miners get "lottery" rewards in exchange for hashpower that slowly give way to rewards from payment fees. But in both cases the entire reward goes to miners in return for service provision. There is no "3rd party" parasite holder income to support.

The basis for Evan's original reward ratio rebalancing was that there would be massive adoption which would justify the masternode rewards based on value added in the form of service provision. He was planning for blockchain traffic in the 6 or 7-figure transactions per day range. That never materialised. Dash ended up being bought up as an investment instead. Not for use as a payment medium. This changes the priorities at present and makes a high POW level far more valuable in relative terms IMO - at least for a much longer period of time than Evan envisaged and maybe forever.


That's only true if you see hashrate as a form of technical security, not monetary security. That philosophy isn't "DASHy" it's "POSy" and a cursory glance at coinrankings shows that it's folly.

POW coins are invested in because they are scarce. Their scarcity comes from being competitively mined, not from being limited in supply. You can make anything in limited supply in 10 seconds.

Looking at the original masternode payment schedule, it is pretty clear that Evan Duffield never intended at any point in time to increase
the miners blockreward, rather the opposite.

Original masternode payment schedule


From the get go there was a clear initiative to diminish miners blockrewards and increase masternode blockrewards over time (2 years time period).
There was even an idea floating around to have masternodes directly control miners hashing power at some point, to keep miners from getting too centralized
and forming too much of a dominating factor in Dash.

With the implementation of ChainLocks, there is no reason anymore to keep the current blockreward allocation status quo.
Stating that miners blockrewards should be increased, goes against the very roots of this cryptocurrency.
It is in my view very not-Dash.

There is and always have been an overall focus on masternodes in this cryptocurrency, even Dash Platform focuses heavily on Masternodes with its
Dash Platform fees. The reality is that this is a masternodes-focused cryptocurrency, not a miners-focused cryptocurrency.
And i am pretty sure that new investors will understand this. 

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 masternode reward ratio. 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).

There is more to Dash then just the blockreward structure. Dash would still have made all these technological advancements and still would have made adoption progress in countries like Venezuela.

I'm guessing Dash would be out of the top 100 by now if that had happened

Well, there had to be room for the decentralized budget and i think at that point in time both miners and masternodes were very close to each other with
regards to percentage of block rewards. I guess it made sense back then to just freeze it at 45 / 45 / 10.
  
I do wonder sometimes what would have happened if we continued with the original masternode payment schedule where masternodes were heavily preferenced over miners,
while including the 10% for the decentralized budget. Would Dash ASIC miners still have emerged ? That part seems like inevitable to me.

Personally I am dismayed this  idea of taking miner share of block reward and adding it to masternode reward has come back again.

I am a masternode owner not a miner. But even so I hate this idea, I want my dash to be valuable. To that end we should embrace more proof of work not less.

This reallocation is a move towards proof of stake. Cheaply produced coins will be valued cheaply by the market, like deciding you can use tungsten instead of gold. Proof of stake does not provide store of value. Show me the leading proof of stake coin. Tell me why I'm wrong. The more proof of stake we take the more store of value we lose. The leading proof of stake coin, the first mover. The innovator. Peercoin is so poorly valued most people probably think its dead. It is not. It boasts fast transactions, low fees. Many innovations. And yet is a terrible store of value.

Also this idea of reducing inflation. It is not correct to think that inflation of circulating coins will be less if masternode rewards are increased. This is based on a presumption (a dangerous presumption) that price will rise and the number of masternodes will increase, with the move towards proof of stake. (Which will be a move going against evidence of all other proof of stake coins). Masternode collatoral is not locked in. IF increased masternode rewards leads to cheaper Dash (I think it will) then the circulating supply of dash will inflate massively when masternodes start being sold.

It is only conjecture that miners sell and masternode owners hold the new supply of dash.. I as a masternode owner have been selling, 1 for tax reasons and 2 because I am deeply concerned about these ideas of changing the block reward towards more proof of stake.

Dash is not overpaying miners, Dash is overpaying masternodes. (And the treasury on the whole is wasteful).

Not forgetting to mention, getting masternode owners to vote for more for themselves sounds scammy. Because it is scammy. Monero trolls will have a field day with it.  

  

Why was that reallocation schedule abandoned ?

What you say is correct but let us not forget the cycle continues and buying opportunities always come round at another point in time. It might not repair the feeling of regret after a particular crypto hits highs to become a super success but what it can do I guess is to allow a mechanism to soften the blow if some profit can be made with the same crypto in the future.

DashMallParking makes an alliance with piiddo Merida, people can pay with Dash at +250 allied stores Venezuela
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/gxaofo/dash_mall_and_parking_makes_an_alliance_with/

Such great investment opportunities rarely exist. It often exists after 3 to 4 years so if one investor miss or ignore opportunities for this period, the investor will have to wait for another 3 to 4 years to see the same great opportunities.

Fear, hesitate, ignore opportunites, don't invest at great discount price and feel regret after all.

Me too, I absolutely believe in DASH. There are not really any major difficulties specific to DASH but what can be said is that the whole market has been affected. I think other crypto have been affected far more adversely than DASH, it is still an excellent investment opportunity.

I don't think the miners are dumping nearly as much as the masternode owners.  Masterenode owners essentially get free money every month and have a huge incentive to dump as the value keeps droppping.  A miner has to cover their electric and get scraps after all said and done.  But ya lets blame the miners are usual.  And so it goes.

Keep dumping masternode owners. I hope you get a higher reward so you can surpress down the price more and I can buy more cheaper

Despite all the difficulties, I still continue to believe in the project

As do i. To be fair though, it is not just the case of trying to improve Dash trustless full masternodes by re-allocating more of the blockrewards to masternodes (from 45% to 54%).
There is also the case of trying to flatten Dash circulating supply during the next five years and trying to get a grip on the sell pressure (which seems to mostly come from miners
immediately selling all their mined Dash, regardless of the price).

I have masternodes myself and i have stopped selling my masternode payments months ago. I wonder how many miners are in a situation that they can afford to do the same,
or even care all that much about Dash longterm.

The way i see it, if this proposal passes Dash will be more or less returning to its original masternode payment schedule, while still being able to get funding for its decentralized budget.

Original Masternode Payment Schedule in 2014 (note : there was no decentralized budget then, just rewards for masternodes and miners and it was the main reason that made me
invest longterm in Dash) :  

if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30.0% - 2014-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35.0% - 2014-12-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5% - 2015-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40.0% - 2015-02-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5% - 2015-03-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45.0% - 2015-04-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5% - 2015-05-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50.0% - 2015-07-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5% - 2015-09-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55.0% - 2015-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5% - 2016-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60.0% - 2016-03-23
 
We changed above Masternode Payment Schedule in 2015, when Evan Duffield introduced Dash decentralized budget.
So instead of reaching 60% for masternodes, and 40% for miners at some point in 2016, the schedule settled on 45% masternodes, 45% miners, 10% decentralized budget.
(current situation)

The Masternode Payment Schedule change being proposed by Dash Core Group recently (2020) will return us pretty close to that once planned 60% for masternodes / 40% miners
(namely 54% masternodes, 36% miners, 10% budget), but at a much slower rate (spread over 5 1/2 years).

I can live with that, as i believe this will improve Dash economics in the longterm.

Looking back, the original masternode payment schedule had an incredibly high rate of change, a masternode reward increase & miners reward decrease of every 1 or 2 months.
That will not be the case here, it will be spread out over a long period of time.

I fully support increasing MN allocation!

-removed-

These are the hosting services i know of, but only a few of them provide shared hosting (most seem to require the full 1000 Dash)

https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/masternodes/hosting.html

I also found another site that seems more focused on shared masternode services : https://www.cryptomorrow.com/2019/06/01/sharedmasternode-services/
I don't know how accurate / up to date this site is or how reliable the stated shared services are. Some of them do match on our own Dash hosting services listing.

The shared services are not trustless of nature, meaning they require a level of trust to be placed into these services and into the people behind these services.
They are 'trusted' services.

Some exchanges are also implementing (or are about to implement) staking on their platforms, this is different then shared hosting but interesting nonetheless.
Link : https://www.kraken.com/en-us/features/staking-coins
  
With regards to Pumuckel21 question, i think it depends on the profitability that is being offered by these shared services. Meanwhile Dash Core Group is trying to improve its
trustless full masternodes offering by proposing a change to the blockreward allocation : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/consensus-mechanisms.49135/page-3#post-221975

This could make Dash full masternodes more attractive to investors and in time more competitive to centralized (shared) services like the ones mentioned above.