If the MN requirement is above 10,000, that's going to put away a lot of people. IMO it should be either 5000 or 10000.
I agree with this. I think it's good for us to have a low barrier of entry for a masternode so that we can attract more investors. More masternodes more robust the community will become.
Yes I share the same opinion.
I'm thinking 25-50k for MN. 100k do seem slightly to the high side, considering the money supply.
But setting the barrier too low, can/should scare some investors away too. The lower the barrier, the more masternodes, the less profit for running a MN. And if there's no profit in running a MN, they will be shut down quickly again, and thus not help the network.
Take CHC as an example. CHC is now up to 2200 MN, meaning there's 60 hours between payouts. And this is with just ~14% of the money supply locked in.
This is more important with a PoS coin, as the MN reward on average should be higher than staking. So with too many MN, the reward for staking could be more profitable, and it's a hard sell to convince many to lock in their coins and make less profit.
CRM is in this situation now. Even though there aren't all that many MN yet, profitability between MN and staking is already quite close. Partly because MN are "only" rewarded 20% of stakes, and they're still in PoW+PoS phase.
Just my 0.02 PIE
edit, quote fix.
After doing some quick back-of-the-napkin calculations, I might actually have changed my mind a little.
If we assume that MN and minter are paid the same amount out of each block (either 50/50 or 45/45/10 (mn/minter/devfund)), what is important is to find a level where there's slightly more coins staking than locked in masternodes. As long as this is fulfilled it would be profitable to run a MN.
Current net-stake-weight is ~28 million, so the tipping point where staking is more profitable than running a MN is: 140MN @ 100k collateral, or 1,400MN @ 10k
In other words, the smaller the collateral the more MN can be profitably supported by the network, as long as the amount of coins staking is larger than what is locked in masternodes.
So the golden number is whatever ensures that enough coins keep staking.
Anyways, enough of me thinking out loud.
PS. Another thought. If we want to make it possible for "everyone" to afford a MN, then restrict masternodes to run a specific port, like ARC. Considering the low cost, and the profit per MN, means that it's not profitable to rent a VPS to run a MN on, and thus limiting the number of total masternodes.
PPS and now I stop thinking for real.
If we assume that MN and minter are paid the same amount out of each block (either 50/50 or 45/45/10 (mn/minter/devfund)), what is important is to find a level where there's slightly more coins staking than locked in masternodes. As long as this is fulfilled it would be profitable to run a MN.
Current net-stake-weight is ~28 million, so the tipping point where staking is more profitable than running a MN is: 140MN @ 100k collateral, or 1,400MN @ 10k
In other words, the smaller the collateral the more MN can be profitably supported by the network, as long as the amount of coins staking is larger than what is locked in masternodes.
So the golden number is whatever ensures that enough coins keep staking.
Anyways, enough of me thinking out loud.
PS. Another thought. If we want to make it possible for "everyone" to afford a MN, then restrict masternodes to run a specific port, like ARC. Considering the low cost, and the profit per MN, means that it's not profitable to rent a VPS to run a MN on, and thus limiting the number of total masternodes.
PPS and now I stop thinking for real.
If you are looking for quick profit on the short term, then indeed 5000-10000 coins for a masternode is too low, but if you are in for the long term it changes everything. You are talking about how profitable can be a masternode but in your calculations you don't take in account the price fluctuation. For example, let's say you set up a masternode for 10000 coins and it rewards you with 1000 coins a month. If the coins stay at the price you bought them at the first place, then it may not look really profitable indeed, but now if you add the price fluctuation factor to that : Let's do the maths, let's say you bought your 10000 coins for 0,01$ each, your masternode is worth 100$ and 1000 coins rewards per month would be worth 10$. But now, with the development going and the demand and supply changing, imagine that the coin is now worth 1$. If you have hold all your coins until then, you have a masternode which is worth 10k$, add to that all the rewards per months you got so far which are worth 1000$ each, not to mention that you probably put everything at staking and added other masternodes when you got enough to do so. Does it still look not profitable anymore ?
Personally I have already enough coins to set up some masternodes and I will run them on a vps h24 even if it cost me money at first. And I won't pay the vps with the masternodes rewards but with real money. This way I will hold all my coins and when they will be worth a lot more I will have a lot of money. As simple as that. It's a bet on the future, maybe the price won't increase much but maybe it will. In my opinion it will, and I'll do everything possible to make that happen. And I know that I'm not the only investor who plan to do that.
