Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 8. (Read 9723776 times)

Disagree.  A common mistake in this space is to compare coins like Dash and Bitcoin with LUNA, Terra, FTT, BNB, SOLana and other such scams.  Those coins have massive premines/pre-sales to VC, can be printed at will without consensus and are used to collateralise risky bets that invariably come under pressure in bear markets, when they do they go to zero.  Dash and Bitcoin are different, they have a finite supply, fixed emission schedule, are not used to collaterlise risky bets by the coin's own creators.  These will coins will hold their value and return to high valuations when the stampede out of the market ends.

This is a great opportunity for Dash as the market is doing what it must do which is purge itself of the rubbish tokens thus allowing the OG coins to flourish once again.

Well, it seems that it is inevitable to lose the $30

We go back to February 2017, but with more float, that is, more dilution, many more options on the market, and few real new things on the table.

They are things that happen. Sometimes we make the right decisions and other times we don't. We can blame the market, but realistically, we know that we have done really badly.

With that being said, I really wish you all the best, but understand that no one is going to invest or buy Dash today for anything other than speculation. We will see how important this platform that was previously called EVO is, but if it does not achieve a real and constant demand for Dash, I assure you that we will see the $10 during 2023 or maybe before.

Good luck.

This analogy doesn't describe blockchain mining. You're thinking of earth mining which isn't the same in economic terms and gold mining can't be used as an accurate archetype. In earth mining, the cost of production does not depend on the number of miners. The cost of extraction is fixed and depends on things like how deep in the ground the target mineral is, how sparse or dense it manifests etc.

Blockchain "mining" is different. It's a decentralised market pure and simple and therefore DOES depend on the number of market participants (which are unfortunately referred to a "miners"). So the price in that (primary) market responds to demand for the next block. Much of that demand originates in secondary markets (exchanges) and finds its way into the primary market via the brokering function of the miner. So the capital flow looks like this:

Exchange Buyer --> $1000 --> Miner --> $1000 --> Increase in difficulty (and therefore primary price)

But for masternodes, the capital that enters the exchange never reaches the blockchain and is not available for raising the price. Instead it goes onto the masternode's balance sheet and is lost to the Dash ecosystem completely:

Exchange Buyer --> $1000 --> Masternode --> $1000 --> Growth in MN balance sheet. (No difficulty increase and therefore no primary price increase)

Even if the masternode does not sell, as you propose, there is still a deficit in primary demand caused by the masternode receiving the coin without having to compete/bid for it (at nodecount equilibrium).

If we base ourselves on the fact that the difficulty of obtaining something demanded increases its price, you are absolutely right.

Let's imagine a gold mine where there are miners and mine managers. The former use machinery, fuel, labor to get their golden ounces out of the mine. The mine bosses get 25% of the production just for going to the mine to see how everything is going.

Then at the exit there are a couple of buyers of that gold, but there is not much demand to buy the gold, so they make low offers for the gold.

Who will be the ones who sell the gold and get more profit?

obviously the mine bosses who get their gold by going to look, while the miners cannot sell below their costs, otherwise they will not be able to continue mining and will leave.

That's your version.

But now let's think that the mine bosses have bought the land and they know that if they are not profitable for the miners, nobody will exploit the mine and it will be forgotten and nobody will win in the long term.

What mine managers should do is not sell their ounces of gold below the lowest cost of production.

If for example the miner who obtains the lowest gold spends 1500 dollars per ounce, no ounce should be sold below that price.

does this happen in dash?

obviously not. A lot of dash that goes to nodes, sells out instantly, just like the budget dash. If we add to this the mining dash at current prices, we understand that there is an excess supply of dash that pulls the price down.

Either Dash is added value, or it will not stop going down. And the market equilibrium can be very low, even less than $10.

Let's give Dash an added value like the one that the ETH network has and you will see how the ATHs break in a matter of weeks.

All the best

The difference is that none of those have 3000-4000 node holders leaching the investment in new supply straight into their own pockets instead of allowing it to pass into the chain in the form of raising the marginal cost of a block.

Remember:

Marginal coin price = marginal cost of block /  block reward.

So you can't BOTH be a top 40 capital gain coin AND pay 4000 masternodes rewards that are 98% in excess of their operating costs. Pick one.

We already have a masternode below 2BTC

Quite an achievement. The best currency, the fastest, the most decentralized, the one with the least commissions, the pioneer of DAOs, the only one that emits 51% attacks, capable of hiding your transactions if you wish...

We can honor Dash with a thousand colored lights, we can create songs that talk about Dash, but we have not been able to turn Dash into a means of mass payment, or into a store of value, or into a reference currency in this world. crypto.

The currency has failed. It pains me to say this as an investor for many years, but things are like that.

When prices dropped below $150, everyone was quick to say that price doesn't matter, that the technology is there and people will come. Then when we went down from 30th, 40th, 50th... people were saying that the capitalization metrics don't measure how good a coin is.

Meanwhile, we have currencies that were criticized and laughed at here, such as DOGE, LTC, or even Monero, which remain at the forefront and do not lose capitalization with respect to BTC, and make their users, investors and supporters feel safer every day with their choice.

In life, if opportunities are not taken advantage of when the time is right, that moment passes and never returns.

I am clear who has been one of the main culprits of all this, we know his face, his surnames, and the lies he told us for years while he loaded his pockets with a good salary. Many warned here, but people said that this forum was plagued by trolls, that a "censored" forum was better, where only beautiful things and white lies were told for Dash.

We have what we deserve.

I can already tell you that in about six or eight months, there will be no budget for just a couple of developers, and the spiral that I warned you about would destroy Dash years ago is already inevitable.

I will no longer undo my position, I consider the investment lost, and luckily I was an early adopter who knew how to make ROI on time. I feel sorry for those who came late and invested in a team that only lied with a roadmap that was never fulfilled, and only knew how to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars doing nothing.

Greetings and sorry.

It doesn't ignore that point at all. What exactly would be the point of "forking" it ? To demonstrate that governance doesn't work ?

Governance is working fine, it's just sending the price in the wrong direction that's all, and the reasons are adequately explained above.

If you're on a freeway and discover you're accidentally going south when you meant to go North, you don't need to shrug your shoulders and continue clueless into the distance hoping you'll find a future as good as the one you planned. You look for the nearest exit, get across the opposite carriageway and continue back on track. The kinds of protocol changes we made a couple of years back address fundamental market trends that can take a couple of years to manifest unambiguously. We are now at "freeway" that point.

Every explanation you try to give ignores the point that you need developers to implement the changes you want to see... They (along with almost everyone else) have completely ignored you for years. Time for you to fork Dash since you are so sure you know what's best. Sometimes you have to be the change you want to see in the world.

DASH PUMP IT UP!!! 

I might be tempted if Dash went over $50. I never said our model was perfect, it was high tech stuff a few years ago but the economics of Dash (and crypto in general) has always been absolute shite imo. Good enough to fit in with todays world but it's never been "money reinvented", just something to build tomorrows money on (or rather, what makes money obsolete).

If you feel you have some "modern concept" of value that somehow defies the appraisals I made above, be my guest.

Hand waving philosophical vagaries, bald assertions and speaking in generalities has never and will never impress any potential investors. They understand basic things like how hashrate affects scarcity, how masternode rewards far outweigh operating costs (so "overpaid") and long term ranking performance as an arbitrator on the governance priorities we make.

This coin has some core properties that are very good and it's survived nearly 7 years so far with reasonable visibility. That is about to end because the market is turning around and it isn't taking us with it this time so some soul searching is in order. The kind of arguments you've offered up so far in response to my criticisms that the reward ratio is set wrong, are 2014 type stuff. We can't get away with that anymore - we need things nailed down and a granular understanding of the economics of the coin which REFLECTS what we see in the market, not that contradicts it.

There needs to be monetary tightening. If you really need a "for dummies" rule of thumb, a good indicator of "loose ship" economics is bloated parasitical profits being made by any type of stakeholder, be it miners, masternodes, contractors, traders, whatever. In that respect the masternode reward sticks out like a sore thumb. It's a no-brainer.

Put it this way, if you were earning $500 per week from masternode rewards, would you rather that came in the form of 2 Dash or 0.2 Dash ? Reflect on that for a moment because in the latter case your collateral would be worth 10 times more than in the former.

The DAO also needs some reform. The contracts on there are paltry. They are a pale shadow of the activity a few years back when there was a lot more contention in the community but a lot more action and broader participation as well. That all got shut down and needs to be invigorated but part of that process is acknowledging that this is not a "club", it's an industry and that requires critical self appraisals, not the kind of "everything's alright and everything will be alright" that seems to have characterised your responses so far.

All in all what I'm saying is that there is no way forward other than to make ourselves highly competitive again in the store of value asset market. That will mean some bullet biting decisions IMHO.

That's fine, if you or anyone else wishes to cling to some antiquated concept where artificial forms of value are necessary then I won't argue, and if anyone wishes to believe the earth is flat and climate change is a myth that's perfectly ok too but thankfully we live in an enlightened age with instant global communications so it's only a matter of time, one, maybe two generations at best before value comes out from the age of mysticism and becomes a legitimate science.

Then you just don't understand accounting convention. Unfortunately investors do and this matters to them because there is no other "convention" to measure value by. Even speculative value ends up on the books eventually either by mark to market conventions or, in the case of POW blockchains, through difficulty adjustments.

If you buy a tractor for $60,000, it goes onto your balance sheet at that value as a capital asset and then gets depreciated from there.

You're basically dismissing the value of "mining difficulty" on some nebulous philosophical basis it doesn't add "intrinsic value" to the coin. That's irrelevant because it adds a material value to the scarcity and therefore adds to the book value once it's mined. So you'd need to come up with some pretty categorical reason why a coin like Dash - where only 40% of the exchange revenues from mining sales go towards difficulty adjustments upwards while 100% of our competitor revenues do - should be more valuable and expensive.

You don't have one and that's what I'm saying the problem is (as far as new investors are concerned). All of Dash's "feature advantages" are worth nothing if half of the primary supply investment capital goes towards populating masternode balance sheets instead of backing the marketcap with higher marginal mining costs. We inherit the bitcoin protocol which is a store-of-value protocol. If we just want to create a feature-rich blockchain then you're better off with some modern token system like Tezos or something that's at least dedicated for that purpose.

Then there we're going to have to agree to disagree because from my point of view that has less than zero value. Energy converted to a usable form has value, energy used to create something with its own intrinsic value is fine but energy used to create something that has no intrinsic value is wasted, any value that item has is entirely artificial.

You can argue 'til you're blue in the face over what gives crypto tokens an intrinsic value but you will never be able to justify anything over fractions of cents, if you can have an infinite number of finite emission blockchains then that's an infinite number of tokens, zero scarcity.

You need to do the accounts to see it (profit and loss / balance sheet for each stakeholder). A miner only makes a small profit because most of the revenue they receive from the sale of their mined stock is passed on to the blockchain and serves to increase scarcity. The miner's balance sheet grows very slowly because, while the sale revenue is passed to the blockchain, the capital acquired (travelling in the other direction) is passed on to the secondary market buyer.

The spread between these bi-directional capital flows is what grows the miner's balance sheet and that may only be 5%-10% of the capital that passes through their hands if they're lucky. This "profit" is the capital lost to the ecosystem in brokering expenses effectively.

The accounts for the masternode however are different. The masternode's balance sheet will grow at a far faster rate since the revenue obtained from exchange sales goes straight onto the masternode's balance sheet and stops there. It does not get passed on to the blockchain and does not contribute to "scarcity" (by way of increasing difficulty). This "profit" is also capital lost to the ecosystem just as with the miner's profits, except it's far greater, in fact the full market value of the coin

So if you look at it from an outside investor's point of view in terms of what's "backing" the supply it looks like this:

In fully mined POW the whole supply is "backed" by the marginal cost of mining. In Dash only half of the supply is backed by the marginal cost of mining, the other half of the invested capital ends up on masternode balance sheets which ostensibly "back" that part of the supply. But of course that's useless to an investor since any realisation of that balance sheet capital (MN selling rewards) only serves to deplete the capital value of their own holdings. They're investing in the masternode's balance sheet, not blockchain difficulty.

We cannot get past this. No amount of philosophical web weaving and pretending "it doesn't matter - a coin's a coin, it's all just market". These are the numbers. They are real. Masternode revenues have to come from somewhere, something has to lose value for the masternode balance sheet to populate. In our case it's marketcap. We need to sort this IMHO and the first step to sorting it is acknowledging it.

If total emission doesn't change, how does full PoW create scarcity that partial PoW doesn't?

No long, convoluted answer that bounces through a shell company in Panama and ends up correlating with the price of avocados please, so far you've claimed the answer is obvious.

You're arguing against a point that I'm not making. (commonly referred to as a "straw man").

I'm accounting for the capital flows in POW and Dash's hybrid version of it which delivers supply into the hands of holders at a zero price, thereby "shielding it" from the very market forces you cite and directing revenues from exchange sales into private hands instead of storing it as value in the chain. That is what is corroding the marketcap of the rest of the supply.

It's even measurable and is numerically equivalent to the total masternode "profits" realised every week - not to mention the strategic damage in loss of credibility as an investible asset. In a business that profit at least manifests itself on a balance sheet even if it isn't re-invested. In fully mined POW it manifests as increased scarcity. In Dash it simply leaves the network.

Page 2 status awaits us as long as we keep our head in the sand on that point.

Is there some sort of brain disease going around amongst beancounters? Even the ones at the very top seem to have got the idea that the laws of supply and demand are merely guidelines :/

In PoW, supply costs have absolutely zero influence on market prices, nada, nothing, not even a little bit fallen down the back of the couch and clinging on so fanatically to the idea that they do isn't just wrong, it's entirely backwards. Markets decide how much miners are getting and it makes absolutely zero difference if 100% of miners are getting it or just 40%, the supply remains fixed regardless and the amount the market is willing to pay dictates its value.

One more time even though I know you're going to get this into your head even with the help of a very big hammer, difficulty adjusts so the supply remains fixed and the work varies, not the other way around. There is no influence from a "primary market" force, the markets decide what amount is available and miners can take it or leave it, it makes no difference whatsoever it they're getting 40% of that or 100% of that.

Now don't be lazy 

Observing that half the supply is issued without a bidding process and that this might affect marketcap is not "overthinking". It's just stating the bleeding obvious. The elephant in the room.


It isn't actually. I already pointed out here that the alt market has been reflating against bitcoin and Dash is not being carried along with it. So there's good reason even for "overthinking" and re-appraising if our protocol priorities (which are now supposed to be targeting store of value) are working.


Then what's the point of the Dash protocol ? If I'm "overthinking it" then the protocol settings are even more guilty of redundant thought since they're having the opposite effect to what was intended. Your contention seems to be simply to ignore that fact and assert if we experience market success then that shows our priorities are right whereas if we tank in competitively that's just "general market trends". This b.s. thinking. You can't have competitive governance with that approach.


And how would you define scarcity ? It first manifests upstream of exchanges, at the very supply source itself. That's why the protocol is important. It isn't just a "distribution tweak", we're talking about half the supply here. The only way I know how to formally define scarcity in the primary market (which is where it matters) is by the marginal cost of extraction from the chain. In other words the more expensive it is to mine, the more scarce the coin is. In the long run that rule also reflects "scarcity" in the secondary markets and so can't be ignored.

You're way over-thinking it. Stored value is artificial no matter what way you turn it, a shared belief or agreement and often has no relationship to anything other than scarcity on the supply side. The market is going down because the market is going down, personally I think manipulation plays the biggest part in that but it's just as explainable by lack of interest, the newness has worn off crypto and it's worn off Dash more than most.

A few tweaks with distribution of supply isn't going to fix it, a 10x reduction in the MN collateral requirement might put the economics on a more sustainable path but it's very unlikely to have much effect on our weak and mostly delusional markets.