Quote from: toknormal on July 10, 2020, 11:41:44 PM

Quote from: jdmcg on July 10, 2020, 11:12:13 PM

What would your proposal look like?

It would look as described in the closing remarks of this post.

Justified by the observations made in this one.

Quote from: jdmcg on July 10, 2020, 11:12:13 PM

Also you keep saying half the supply is given away for free without mentioning that masternodes need some kind of incentive to exist. How is Dash not a Bitcoin clone without masternodes?

The DCG proposal isn't concerned with the existence or non-existence of masternodes, it's concerned with changing the reward ratio away from miners and towards masternodes. I would not get rid of masternodes and have never argued for that. I've only argued that if the masternode reward goes beyond a measurable added value to the coin from a new invstor's perspective, then capital will move away from Dash to its fully-mined competitors.

I've also argued that for Dash to be to be investible, the masternode operating margin and mining operating margins need to be congruent, otherwise the market will simply revalue the coin until they are. This is what's been happening over the last few years when you compare Dash's relative value with its (former) competitors.

I say "former" because they no longer need to regard Dash as a competitor. They've remained in the top 20 by marketcap while we have not so it's us that have the re-examining to do, not them. We've had a 40%+ deficit on mining reward during that time. Increasing it to a 50% deficit as a solution doesn't exactly strike me as a "re-examination" of priorities and I don't think the wider market will see it as one either.

Ok, so your proposal is to give more to miners, less to masternodes. Specifically then, what is the right number?

And you are arguing that something needs to be done more than just voting no for this proposal.

Does it matter to your conclusions whether or not masternodes hold most of their earnings?