Topic: Dash Sucks Dicks Dash Is Instamine - page 2. (Read 5010 times)

Not really - only in a notional sense.

They hold a diverse range of "forms of money". It's just that they all share the same denomination. (See here: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Pages/iadb/notesiadb/m4.aspx).

You're mixing up collateralising assets (or stores of value), units of account and payment systems. These are three distinct aspects of a financial system that can be, and usually are, completely decoupled. All the same they all tend to have the same unbrella term "money" applied.

To illustrate, lets take something that we're familiar with - a cryptocurrency exchange (Poloniex, say).

1. You start with a collateralising asset (100 BTC, blockchain based)

2. You make a deposit.
At this point, there is 200 BTC in circulation. That's because you just "signed" a contract with the exchange to permit them to bring an additional 100 BTC of derivative tokens into existence backed by a line of credit that you give them. The original 100 BTC are still circulating on the blockchain. While you're trading, they may lend them out at interest, buy stuff with them - whatever - depending on the terms of contract for depositing on the exchange.

3. You trade. You are trading with other parties who are all using the same class of "money" (credit backed tokens) but denominated differently - Ethereum, Mooncoin, you name it. Note ! While you are trading, none of the blockchain properties of the respective coins make a damn bit of difference to the trading experience. All trades are instant, support the same level of privacy, etc. That's because your are using a payments system (SQL server in this case) which is independent of the technical properties of the collateralising asset. It's also independent of the blockchain denomination which is an important point (see below).

4. You withdraw funds.
At this point, you may have your balance denominated differently to what you started with which will allow you to exchange your balance for a different blockchain token

You can see from those two examples that price denomination, collateralising capital and payment systems are all distinct. Adopting a "currency" means no more than re-denominating the capital base. "Holding a currency" means holding an asset that's denominated in that currency. (That could just as easily be Bitcoin bonds as a private key to a bitcoin balance, so it doesn't have to be a bearer instrument). "Clearing a trade" means using a payment system to facilitate an asset exchange in an arbitrarily nominated currency. "Holding a collateralising asset" means holding a bearer token or instrument where owner and possesor are indistinct. (i.e. where the denomination is instrinsic e.g. piece of coal, diamond, pound in weight of siliver or Blockchain private key).

These three aspects of monetary media not only are distinct, but actually have conflicting priorities - which is why they are almost never the same medium. If you try to create a crypto that does these three things well it will be a crap crypto because you'd have to create nasty couplings between conflicting objectives:

 • Payment systems need to be currency agnostic whereas blockchains have to be currency native
 • good stores of value need to impose scarcity to deflate prices over time whereas good currencies need to inflate liquidity to keep prices stable
 • currencies must be definable against a heterogeneous background of both payment systems and collateralising assets, whereas payment systems only facilitate the clearing of a trade and represent neither a currency nor an asset

Think of it this way. If a Shakespearean play was performed in different countries around the world, then:

 • the language of the performance would be the currency
 • The village Stage would be the payment system
 • The literary work "Hamlet" would be the collateralising asset

Script translation...$100.
Rental of the stage...$400.
Copyright to the script ? (Priceless...!)

I would think that you can talk about a currency, even if it is not a world-wide accepted currency, from the moment that it is used as a currency, that is, as an intermediate asset between providing value, and obtaining value.  Otherwise, most small (?) countries' currencies wouldn't qualify as currencies.   The Australian dollar, the Canadian dollar wouldn't qualify as a currency, because I don't use it, I can't buy bread with it, etc...

In order to talk about a currency, you must be able to use it *in some circles* as a currency, and be able to exchange it for another currency if you "change circles".  You can do that by using a "backbone" currency (what you call a global reserve currency), but that is not necessary.  Currencies do not necessarily have to have a total order (you don't like that, do you) or hierarchy.  

@toknormal, unit-of-account means everyone holds that form money as their checking and even savings (reserve) account.

As the US dollar became the global unit-of-account, the total market cap of the currency increased by orders-of-magnitude. The USA citizens ended up consuming 25% of the world's resources with only 5% of the population. The banks who created the US dollar out-of-thin-air (who get the seigniorage) pocketed the $trillions (not the holders of the dollars).

With a crypto-currency which has no seigniorage (e.g. Dash doesn't qualify), then increase in market cap is awarded to those who hold the tokens.

In conclusion, I disagree with you.

I'd agree with that. But "becoming a currency" doesn't necessarily make an asset more valuable.

Lets say the UK government decided to "adopt" bitcoin overnight by denominating the entire economy in "BTC". So the next day, all prices in supermarkets would be in BTC, national accounts reported in BTC, bank account balances re-denominated in BTC and taxes charged and paid in BTC.

All that would happen is that the payment systems, barcodes, shelf labels and national report generators would be reconfigured (in terms of units) to display BTC instead of Pounds Sterling. The M0 to M4 money supply tiers would still exist and continue on at around £2 Trillion. So you'd have an effective broad monetary base of 1000 Billion bitcoins, even though only 15 Million existed on the blockchain.

However, since "currency" as a unit of measure and "monetary assets" as a store of value are distinct concepts, what would happen is that one would simply decouple from the other in terms of value. You can see that's already happened with all fiat currencies since they are mostly named after weights of metals (Peso, Pound etc). Nowadays:

1 Pound of sterling silver metal at spot price = 16 Ounces = £223 Pounds of sterling currency.

The thing is, this deflationary property that the base asset has (i.e. prices measured in pounds of sterling silver decrease while prices in sterling currency inflate) isn't confined to assets who's names happen to be adopted for price denomination. It happens anyway.

So the moral of the story is that cryptocurrencies - if they want to accrue value over time - should NOT model themselves on payment systems or currencies. They should model themselves on hard assets with limited supply that have the added bonus of being mobile on an electronic network and can therefore serve as an electronic "bearer token".

This's what makes them supremely powerful !

Unit-of-exchange. Unit-of-account.

What exactly do you understand by the term "currency" out of interest (as distinct from an electronic asset that is deployed as a store of value) ?

Personally I want to be onboard the next move from pennies to $130,000. That is only going to happen for the one that becomes a currency.

Don't waste my time with 10 baggers.

Excellent !

Not yet.

Cryptocurrencies are not actually a "currency". They are far more like equity than a currency and an equity valuation model isn't inappropriate.

For a start, "currencies" are used to measure value independently of their monetary base. For example, if a regional authority is in the process of commissioning an estuary bridge which takes 4 years to build, it will create work in progress entries in its books which will be monetised by credit markets at discrete points to keep the project financed. (This is the 'creating money out of thin air" aspect of currencies)

Crypto, on the other hand, is simply an electronic asset which markets have decided to endow with tradeable value - the only difference form a peice of rock being that it can travel through wires and therefore can be used to directly exchange for goods and services as if it were 'electronic currency'. That exchange is actually barter because instead of being carried out in abstracted monetary units who's denomination is independent of the material of the trade, it's simply a straight swap.

Bingo!

Readers raise your hand if you even had a clue what he means.

(where is the ranking by verified unique humans adoption?)


A skyrocketing cost of security unitized per unique user is not a positive attribute.

So you agree then that the Market Cap means essentially nothing and is easily gamed by scams like dash where a few own all the coins due to taking them all at the start then magnifying their loot with slashing the minting and taking more with masternodes just because they already took the lions share at the start.

that's good to know.

I notice the only people protecting dash are those that have had their noses in the dash trough since the early days and paid dash shills like spoetnik who go from calling it an ultra scam to protecting it over and over by trying to divert to other issues.

You yourself have admitted the instamine (this is good not trying to excuse it at least) but enjoy profiteering from leveraging that scam start. This is fine too since most would do the same in your position really if the truth was known.

However, seeing you always in these threads throwing in red herrings and nonsense in an attempt to stop people seeing it is a scam makes you a scammer.


Some of the biggest dash coin scam protectors have turned anti dash over the years I think there is hope for you too. Sell now at 50 bucks and move to a cleaner project. I would suggest PIVx where you can probably afford to buy up a HUGE share with your masternodes profit.

How many masternodes do you have btw?

Why do we "classify" crypto by market cap ?  Because we somehow think this is a gross measure of the "value pool" of the thing ; in other words, if new economic entities were to "take over" the entire thing, that's more or less what they would pay for it.  So that's "what it is worth".  It also means that if you possess, say, 1/10 of the system, that you will be able to obtain grossly, 1/10 of the market cap if you sell it over a period of a few weeks or months.  (yes, the market will lower a bit, but if it is sufficiently liquid, it will absorb it).

Well, this is not true with DASH.  If you own 1/10 of the DASH stash, you won't be able to sell it for 1/10 of the market cap.  You will simply crash the market.  Because the integrated demand, even over months, is not that big.

The dash destroyer is here. That is a good sign.

Taoway (now taoofscamtoshi)= the reason the dash coin scam was even highlighted. Well done Tao. You have held back dash more than anyone else. Your videos are the icing on the cake dude.

The butthurt = the scammers fav one liner.

I realise that.

Unfortunately your home-cooked arbitrary definitions of "marketcap" don't count.

It's interesting that crypto coins have adopted an equity valuation model, which is very inappropriate.

I'm not disputing the price of a single DASH.  BTW, there is an automatic relationship between the price of a single dash, the net block reward and the hash rate.  Miners make profits from the moment that the hash rate is lower than the profitable hash rate.

I'm disputing the "market cap" of DASH.  Most coins being locked in, this doesn't mean anything.  If I make an alt coin of which I own myself 9 million coins, and there is 1 million on the market, if the coin is traded for, say, $5, then the actual market cap is only 5 million, and not 50 million dollars.  Because the 9 million are not liquid.  In order to maintain the price, the net mined coins need to be sold to "new money" (or my pump money), but that's peanuts.  People *thinking* there is a market cap of 50 million, will not hesitate buying coins if it is on the rise, because they think that they will be able to sell a reasonable amount of stash without crashing the market.  That's where they are wrong, because the actual market is much, much smaller than what they think it is.

So is Dash just meant to be a store of value and nothing else?

Luckily there are markets to test whether this model works or not.

All we're discussing is the difference between risk assets and fixed income assets - where the lent collateral is "put to work" to earn a regular return. The market decides if that return is worthwhile.

With Dash that "market" is the mining community because they have to supply hashpower to the network AND a portion of the mining revenue. The incentive for doing that is that the NET value of their remaining revenue is increased due to the economic model as a whole supporting a high value coin.

The advantages of this approach are:

 • the miner's income is supported in terms of exchange rate with other assets regardless of yeild per hash in mined currency units
 • the "missing stakeholders" (investors) are given both and economic return and a level of say in the future direction of the coin via the masternode voting system
 • the monetary token is endowed with a native base lending rate that is trustless and which can be enjoyed without engaging with a 3rd party borrower

The tests of success of this approach are:

 • that miners endorse it by supplying hashpower to the network (check - see below)
 • that the market endorses it by supporting the exchange rate with other assets (check)

And finally - despite al of that - NO blockchain liquidity is "locked" in masternodes

It's the Dash economic model. If people don't like it there are about another 500 out there of all different types serving all different priorities. Judging by this thread though, the only criticism I can see is that "...b..b..but it gives economic incentives to buy and hold".

Of course. What do you think a successful store of value is supposed to do ?

But this means that the market is not liquid, until a "crash threshold" is reached.  Small downward corrections that would normally make people sell and amplify them until new demand is reached, will not happen, because these corrections are smaller than the interest.  In the same vein, "taking profit" is also discouraged, because taking profit by selling should be bigger than keeping and reaping in the interest. 

Which means that "slow pumping" is very easily done: you only have to buy up the small part that is liquid.  Nobody is going to "take profits" because there's more to be had when getting to the interest.  And you can also dump slowly on newcomers, even a small price decrease will not trigger a sell-out because interest compensates.  So as long as you pump slowly enough, and you dump slowly enough, you keep very small market liquidity, which allows you to pump the market to unknown heights.  But the real market cap is just the small amount of liquidity times the price, and not the full stash.  The announced market cap is entirely fake.

And this is just the case with a PoS coin in general.  But if moreover, the pumper is also the owner of most of the coins, this is even worse: of course he's not going to kill of his own dump, or his own pump, with his own coins !