Quote from: TrueCryptonaire on June 10, 2017, 06:53:26 PM

Quote from: aminorex on June 10, 2017, 06:13:16 PM

Quote from: TrueCryptonaire on June 10, 2017, 05:59:54 PM

According to your definition also bitcoin can be considered as a ponzi scheme.
Basically anything that is valuable is with limited supply.

On this we may significantly disagree. Had I appreciated the severity of the flaws in versions of Monero before RingCT, and had no faith in the team to manage the issue as they did, in the breach, I would have been railing against Monero likewise, but not for intentionally centralizing and materially facilitating the defungibilization of the currency - only for lacking the competence to make a meaningful distinction as against, e.g., boolberry.

I do think that the actual technical and economic characteristics of real hard money will dominate in the long run. Monero has them. To my mind anything that pretends to have similar utility and value but lacks those characteristics is an imposture and a fraud. Stop calling it money when it doesn't have the essential qualities of money, stop classing it with Monero when it does not belong in the same class, and I will probably just ignore it. As it is, I feel it is needful to warn against such schemes.

If you want to collect rare Pepes that's none of my business. I would advise however that the cultural value of Putin's Patek-Phillipe is likely to be much more persistent. Even Mao's very perishable mangos have greater persistent value than Dash.

From the point of view of economics, what do you see the main problem with Dash?

Money needs to be a store of value, means of exchange and measure of value. What are the characteristics of money that Dash is lacking?

The only problem is that the Dash is very centralised.