I'm disappointed that this one remark (the scammy question) is all that has been noted about my post. I've removed that question from my post now. It was not my opinion, rather put as a question intended to highlight what some will accuse Dash of being. Anyway I would urge you to read my post again. Now without that offending one line.
@qwizzie Yes its true Dash has always (since very early days at least) been a masternode coin. This is one of the reasons I invested and stayed invested. Masternodes are a fantastic innovation. I think I can also speak for toknormal on this if I say neither of us dislike masternodes. The point as I see it is that they don't come without cost. If the reward favours masternode more, the cost to pay for the masternode layer goes up.
The original schedule would not have been good for Dash as store of value. Nor will Ryan's proposal be good for Dash as a store of value. Dash has already paid too much for masternodes layer which is why Dash is not a top 5 coin.
As much mining as possible IS good for Dash as a store of value. Masternodes add value but at a cost. If the cost is too high it negates the benefits.
These are my opinions. I don't want to see Dash spiral down the rankings. Dash has potential to be a top project. This is a bannana skin for Dash, we can slip and fall.
Excellent article. Your opinions and view were very well articulated.
Everybody at some point will question their investments because that is part and parcel of the investing and reflecting cycle but the way you expressed your views on the where it seems the future will be moving away from PoW towards PoS. If you expressed your views and concerns then you have a right to them. I broadly agree with most of what you wrote in your article. Masternode owners already benefit to the tune of a massive 40% share of block rewards and they have considerable voting power on top - so there seems to be a huge conflict on interest to say the least.
My answer to the question you asked in your article is categoric and resounding "Yes it does": "
Does it seem a bit scammy for masternode owners to decide by vote, amongst themselves, to give themselves more and miners less ?"
How can it be considered 'scammy' when our orginal blockreward schedule also included a planned reduction in blockrewards for miners ? With a 60% (masternodes) and 40% (miners) end goal !!
Masternode Payment schedule :
if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30.0% - 2014-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35.0% - 2014-12-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5% - 2015-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40.0% - 2015-02-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5% - 2015-03-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45.0% - 2015-04-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5% - 2015-05-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50.0% - 2015-07-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5% - 2015-09-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55.0% - 2015-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5% - 2016-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60.0% - 2016-03-23
Does that mean Darkcoin/Dash was scammy from the start ? I don't think so. Miners and masternode operators knew very well what they were getting themselves into (at least those that paid attention).
And yes, we stopped in 2015 with a 45%/45%/10% blockreward split (which was very very fortunate for miners), but that does not mean we are not allowed to change this when we need to.
And it certainly does not mean that by changing it (again), this crypto project suddenly becomes a scam project.
I am going to repeat this once more, Darkcoin/Dash is and always has been a masternodes-focussed cryptocurrency. If people only start to realize that now (6 years later), then that means those people did not really understand Dash all that well or understand where its power and decision-making lays.
I understood that perfectly well in 2014 / 2015 -->
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=860067.0 and seeing the explosion of masternodes that followed in those early years many many others understood that as well.
People can try to bend this crypto project into a form that they want or desire as much as they want, but if that conflicts with a crypto project's identity and that which really drives such a crypto project,
then those efforts will be pretty pointless and not very realistic.