Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 97. (Read 9723782 times)

Actually,i am not a Dash fan. But i find it somehow inaccurate to judge the value of a coin only by its price in the market. If you invested in Dash few years ago then you should now become a millionaire after the 2017 crypto boom when the price of Dash surpassed 1$. The opposite would apply if you bought Dash at that ATH price.

I don't think that Dash is a scam or a plan to scam anybody even i have other critics over it.

Dash command a) dumbass b) scammers c) losers Which option is correct? Meanwhile eth 500 $

If investors give any value to price per coin comparisons, well, yes, you might be right, the whole crypto market is probably controlled by simpletons like you. Congrats, Niels Bohr! Your genius will make you rich very soon!

Investors bring money to the TOP 10. Risky investors bring money to the TOP 20, very stupid ones-to the top 30.
DASH will drop out of the top 30, now even complete idiots will not bring money to the DASH team. Bravo! DASHSCAMCOIN

Understood your pro-mining stance, ok.
However :
Are miners TECHNICALLY avoidable with ChainLocks? With the necessary security?

An answer as close as possible to a YES or a NO, please, is appreciated.

A greeting.

Defending masternodes against the destruction of their capital.

The proportional cap that it generates, Einstein. Or do you think that the 30th place came from a lottery?

Although you may think that the institutional money that reaches crypto - and that DASH needs more than anyone else - chooses to put its capital after the 500th place in the ranking, of course ...

What's the point of comparing prices per coin, Einstein?

Blah blah blah, one chatter. Themselves are not tired of cracking tongues?   
When will we get rich? IT'S TIME!!!
LTC has already become more expensive. It's time for the DASH team to do something!
DASH Give me some signs of life. Or the end, scam?

You are not the only one dismissing toknormal premise in its entirety, there is just too much baseless assumptions with toknormal and too much presenting those baseless assumptions as facts.

With regards to your last question, he is indeed a masternode owner (he admitted that publicly before in here), which makes his crusade against masternodes and its owners all the more weird to observe. Everytime he was attacking them, he was basically attacking himself. It would have been funny, if it was not so very twisted.

I only found out that he is actually a masternode owner, after he posted a wish to hard fork Dash and a Dash community member on another forum posted he should just vote with his node. At that point toknormal was already heavily involved in attacks on the Dash masternodes model, so it hit me as hippocrite.I confronted toknormal about it and he confirmed that he is indeed a masternode owner. He also confirmed when i later asked about it, that he actually did not vote on the blockreward allocation change decision proposal, as he lost access to voting through Dash Central. He was aware he could have voted manually, but he choose not to. So here we have toknormal constantly attacking the Dash masternodes model and the blockreward allocation change all these months, yet he did not even took the effort to vote on it.

I too think he has an agenda, i think he wants to find support here to hard fork Dash into a more miner-focused coin. That is the only explanation i can think of why a masternode owner like him, is so focused on trying to discredit Dash masternodes model on a daily basis for all these months.

I think when he noticed that Dash price was in recovery, he decided to change his tactics and adjusted his market theory, so it would not clash as much with his former baseless claim that the Dash price was in a death spiral.

I don't think that change in tactics, will change the view people already have of toknormal, specially the view of those people that have been reading this Dash ANN forum for awhile now. A perfect case of too little too late.

Tok...you are now DASH's Official king of fallacious reasoning.  Zero evidence of propositions made, mountains of technical jargon and babble talk in attempts to make your points seem legitimate.

Argument by Gibberish combined with Propositional Fallacies for the win!  

   

Well you occasionally pop your head up to do that. But more in a sense of faux outrage than technical debate. (Not to mention the fact that you're highly conflicted anyway).

This isn't my "premise" and it isn't dismissible. It belongs to the Dash community. We're not in 2014 anymore where a bitcointalk fan-narrative is enough to sustain a coin. We're now in an era of genuine institutional investment where every last aspect of a coin's store-of-value mechanics will be scrutinised.

If and when Dash gets to $1000, half the blockchain supply will be issued to network operators who at that point will be receiving a reward of $5460 per month for a service which costs them $20 to provide. Questions will therefore be asked as to why fixed-cost network operators need to have a 99.7% profit margin supported when the other half of reward recipients operates at a commercially competitive margin. Questions will also be asked as to how that excessive margin benefits new investors and protects their capital.

Satisfactory answers to those questions will not be forthcoming because there aren't any.

Mining protects the capital value of new blocks because most of the mining reward attracts fiat revenue which contributes to increased network difficulty. That is the mechanics by which fiat gets transmuted into cryptocurrency mined value. Masternodes on the other hand drain it in a reverse process because most of that block reward has to support pure profit that contributes to masternode holiday cruises. Those margins are therefore a toxic timebomb the bigger they get. (And the higher the price goes, the bigger they get).

Dash has a huge advantage - owing to its innovative decoupled protocol - in that it only takes a tiny amount of the blockchain reward to make us unassailably competitive in service features. But we're not availing ourselves of that advantage. We're paying masternodes a massive margin anyway straight out of the blockchain reward that should be allocated to mining. That's why the markets are crucifying us.

b.t.w. regarding this point:


Anecdotal opinion polls are not a substitute for a viable economic model. Your polled investors don't need to be "aware of masternodes" for them to lose their shirts on an investment. Miner's and masternode's interests are miss-aligned by the protocol. They need to be aligned for the coin to be successful. Masternodes can drive down the price at a profit in terms of their rewards. Miners can only drive down the price at a loss.

When you have half the coin-holding community sitting at a permanent profit-taking position while the rest are all at speculative margins, the outcome is inevitable. It's what we've seen during the last 3 years and why we're the only one of the top 10 mineables now below support in satoshi price. In fact we've given up all satoshi gains since 2 months after the birth of this coin despite being the most feature-rich.

A fundamental rethink is required for us to become aggressively competitive again. The answer is staring us in the face. We have the dry powder available and the protocol control to direct it where it matters - making the primary supply more expensive and thereby attracting mining competition away from our competitors. We won't even lose any of our "feature" advantages in doing so.  It just needs a few turkeys to vote for an "alternative" christmas that will benefit them far more sustainably then the current one

margins insane
are not capital gain
you think the explain
means even more pain

but margins well spent
are capital kent
internals may vent
but investors relent

I think this community has spent far to much energy in entertaining you hypothesis on this matter.  It is now clear that you have an agenda in the community. What this could possibly be will certainly be revealed over the next several months if not sooner.

I, like many others are very confident in our investment in DASH and continue to up our stake.

 It may seem to me that your ire and anger with DASH may stem from heavy loses you may have had to endure, if so, this is most unfortunate.  If you find that trolling this community and its devs and team leaders therapeutic then continue as there can be no other possible reason to you berating this community for the last several months with baseless claims.

I've polled dozens of investors, large and small, not 1 single crypto investor gave their main consideration investing in crypto to masternodes, second lay or mining rewards as an important part of their investment decision, not 1.

And these individuals are invested in the 100's of thousands of dollars.  

Only 3 have ever mentioned that they heard of masternodes..

Yet you are claiming that crypto investors are heavily considering this in their investment strategies.  Prove it.

    

This is incredible and fascinating...I'm going to prepare long form document on the sheer volume of fallacious claims and proposition's you have continued to make with out evidence.  

You have now certainly taken the seat of the most dishonest interlocuter I have ever had the misfortune of interacting with.  

Every time I've asked for proof of correlation  to you hypothesis you have deflected.  

DASH is in the 10 of minable coins and in fact is more realistically in the top 5 of minable coins.  You are purposefully misrepresenting facts and contorting them to feed your narrative.  You have not shown 1 piece of evidence to proof you position.  

I dismiss you premise in its entirety.

Please provide evidence...yet again.  Your question to me can in no way be construed as evidence of you claims.  Its irrelevant...

For transparency, are you a masternode owner?

There are plenty of holders of $83k worth of bitcoin who do so without requiring an "uneconomic profit" to be paid to them out of the blockchain. Nor would they want to if it came at the cost of devaluation of their capital. Dash has no advantage there from simply having coins held in wallets. Its advantage is in being as good a store of value as bitcoin but with an on-chain service layer.

But that service layer should be valued appropriately. If it isn't then the advantage is lost and we simply use the blockchain to pretend that "something is happening" which warrants payment to masternodes.

You are the one who is mis-representing Dash by pretending that capital costs alone represent a basis for masternode revenues and absolve them from generating any economic benefit for the chain. I can understand how masternodes themselves can be deluded by this logic (turkeys/christmas) but outside investors are not.

Here you go again, willfully, misrepresenting what DASH is when you know oh so well what a masternode is and you know it is not the same as the Bitcoin node where I can run one without having to cough up 1000 DASH currently worth about $83K USD.  Tying up that amount of capital needs some kind of reward or tangible benefit for doing so otherwise people won't do it.  The reward comes from the block.  Masternodes are bought and sold such that the network optimises the reward to balance the supply and demand.




Let's address this, because I feel I have yet to put forward the reasons for DASH's meteroric pump and subsequent collosal dump.  DASH pumped through 2016 and 2017 for the following reasons.

• A bullish crypto environment where Bitcoin and other alts were all the rage.
• Good coverage from influencers like ABJ driving interest into DASH from her Daily Decrypt days especially.
• Jerry Banfield jumping on the DASH train and discussing how masternodes generate an ever increasing revenue stream
• The Pokemon effect for Masternode ownership, if one is good, two is better and so on
• The very high at the time MN reward as high as 12% in DASH terms initially, drove investment into the coin
• Fast development, novel features, and promise of a game changer product just around the corner

Causes of the collapse are as follows.

By the way, neither list is exhaustive, but I have captured the most important elements.

• A bearish turn in Bitcoin causing a collapse in the entire ecosystem, DASH was not immune.
• Failure to deliver Evolution in what has been a shambles and disgrace in DCG and continues to be so.
• A very bottom heavy coin distribution that created an oligarchy of super rich OGs such as yourself that when they decided to take profit the cycle never ended because their cost of aquisition was nill.
• a higher emission rate than our competitors
• A no longer favourable ROI for running a masternode due to massive swell in the population size of nodes and yearly emissions reductions.

Interestingly, the plight of Ethereum was very much the same, you see Ethereum pumped to an ungodly high based on the ICO locking up ETH which was never going to be used for anything other than enriching the founders.  As this insatiable demand for ETH took hold the price sky rocketed according to the law of supply & demand.  During the bear market of 2018 the ICOs started their exit scamming, unlocking all that ETH and selling it at market and never delivering on their promises.  This drove the price of ETH under a hundred dollars and I predict ETH will go there again, you see right now we are in another mania, this time it is called DeFi, and while the scam is a little more sophisticated this time, the basics remain the same.  ETH is locked up in 100s of DeFi scams, take your pick, SUSHI, YAM, YF*, ... and this has created an ungodly demand for ETH causing the price to pop almost as high as $500.  However, the fundamentals underpinning DeFi are weak and we continue to see exit scams left, right and centre.  When all is said and done, this bubble will also unwind and return ETH back to $100 or below.  So, we have two well documented cases of how contrary to Duffield's orginal paper, Masternodes actually increase price volaility, not decrease it.  ETH was the same, Masternode, ICO, DeFi are interchangable.

As noted ETH is already on it's second run, a leader if you will and DASH has its first capital reallocation in just 8 days, care to guess at where the price will go as more and more of the network reward is shunted into operating Masternodes? 

And now you're the one making blind assumptions with no evidence. In fact the evidence is to the contrary.

Bitcoin has over 10,000 nodes and not one of them gets a satoshi from the block reward. You quote an ROI in Dash which you must know is meaningless because it doesn't account for the capital gain or loss on the collateral.

If the network can sustain 5000 nodes with a net negative ROI in dollars then we can easily have 5000 nodes with a net positive one even if it means a revision of the block reward back in miner's favour. There are always takers for nodes at any price as long as they're the least bit profitable, same as mining. The difference is that miners invest more into the network as price rises (they have to) while masternodes drain more from it as price rises (proportionally). Their costs are fixed.

If reward ratio was shifted back, nodes would still be profitable. Sure there may be a shakeup but there's always takers for a profitable operation. You may ditch your node because you wouldn't be happy with the new high-mining protocol but someone would come along and buy it from you that was and they would be a far leaner and more efficient operator for the network.


Even a masternode reward ratio of 20% and Dash at HALF these prices, they would still be profitable. It would represent around $104 per month and would not be consumed in hosting fees which are around $20 per month. More to the point it would allow the currently wasted reward to be redirected into mining and start to address the issue of stabilising the capital value.

The risks you cite have already been taken - we've had the 3 year selloff, way beyond LTC, XMR et al. They hit rockbottom and bounced, even in satoshi price. We hit rockbottom and are still digging because we have this enormous deadweight to support in non-performing masternode margins, paid out of the part of the supply which our competitors have made available for mining budget. That's why they beat us on store-of-value even though we may beat them on "features".

You are playing a fool here.  Going from 2.1 million to 0.1 million is a reduction of approximately 95% in the pay of the masternodes.  The current ROI for running a DASH masternode in terms of DASH is 5.65% pa.  Under your correction it would become 0.28% all of which would be consumed in hosting fees, would not cover the currency risk a MNO is exposed to, would not cover the oppurtuniy risk, would not cover the cuck risk, the risk of the devs screwing something up etc etc.  The net effect of this would be for masternodes to be sold en masse as the network optimises the reward higher to attract/sustain investment.  Selling off millions of DASH onto an illiquid market would drop the price into the single digits.  You are well aware of this, and your posts hence forth should be considered as trolling since you are an intelligent man and know better.

LoL.

It's not a shame at all. We're not a church and I think I've presented my points in good faith and with plenty of technical background to support them. It's no different from the case I've always made for Dash going back years. I've also not been personal in any posts or "anti-community" or troll-like. Meanwhile I'm not aware that you've made any contributions to this exchange other than complain that I'm off-message and toxic and throw the word "evidence" around in an arbitrary manner.

I put a specific question to you in the previous post. Perhaps you could start by addressing that.

Thank you for at least attempting now to being more honest about your position.

In item 1) above...you still can not bring yourself to being honest about our true rankings.  Fact, DASH is in the top 10 of minable coins in the marketcap. Further, based on my comments  above regarding minable coins, we should be placed in the top 5.  Thats extraordinary...yet you diminish this fact because it does not fit your narrative.  Thats being manipulative.  The vast majority of these coins have mountains of more brand awareness and out reach then DASH has.

On point 2)...exactly because no evidence exists and where no evidence exists, we throw that out as bad reasoning.

3)...being dishonest at best.  I addressed this in item 1).

4) Ones opinion is not facts and not evidence...thus irrelevant

5) Opinion? Fact? Hypothesis.

A lot of pontification....ZERO EVIDENCE, and a lot of half truths.


Tok...many of us in this community valued your insight into this space...and not always did we agree, but it was valued all the same.  This narrative and opinion you have been building over the last several months has been disheartening.  You have back yourself into a corner and that you now believe you need to die on that hill.  

I'm very disappointed that you have now gone on the attack...with not a shred of evidence and alienated members of this community in the pursuit of your hypothesis.

There is a difference saying that one has a hypothesis regarding something to stating unequivocally that your hypothesis is the only valid one and that the opinions and thoughts and consideration of hundreds of members of this community must all be wrong,

A shame.

*** Dash has many other reasons as why in the general non minable coin community has done poorly.  It has spent millions of dollars on useless marketing gimmicks, scammed and showed complete incompetence in its outreach efforts.  If suffered prolonged attacks from other coin projects in individuals over the years like Charlie Lee and coindesk and numerous other venues where DASH was completed shut out.

Looking for a red-herring or an exotic reason for our performance other then the very simple realty of our communities poor performance in reaching out...shows a kind of desperation.