I'm still not completely clear what you're upset at, 1) the proposal to slightly change miner/masternode rewards or 2) the miner/masternode rewards from the beginning which you seemingly used to agree with before this brutal bear market...
Dash platform would move it closer to what ETH is, no?
I've always supported the idea of incentivised nodes, in fact it's why I invested in the first place. But it's a question of degree.
I didn't think too much about it until this proposal came up, in fact when DCG presented the idea in December.
If you're a crypto person, you tend to get used to the idea that coins just "pop" out of the blockchain with value attached.
If you're an economist you're also quite comfortable with the idea that "money printing" has a viable basis.
But if you're a bookkeeper and you see revenue then you're always looking for the other side of the entry to see where the expense is and whether it's viable. (I'm not a bookkeeper, just half a lifetime of building accounting systems in software for businesses).
This set me off down the path of actually analysing the mining business model and accounting for the various capital flows. To me crypto isn't inherently valuable. It has value because it catalyses capital flows between real people in the real world. In doing that I came to the conclusion that the problem has been wrongly framed (in terms of minimising the flow of Dash denominated mining rewards to market) and when you frame it more completely, you come to the opposite conclusion: that all of the primary supply is always sold regardless of relative reward ratio. Further, that the masternode margin causes us to have to draw a lot more fiat from markets than Bitcoin and Litecoin et al do for the same proportional supply production.
See for example:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg54754054#msg54754054I was also very skeptical of the assertion that "we don't need all this hashrate". I think we're about to find out that we do - or at least we need a large part of our supply to be as competitively mined as possible if it isn't doing some other job that delivers measurable value back to the investor.
Saying we have "value added" features like instantsend and privatesend is true but not really relevant to the economics of things. These features don't cost the masternodes anything to support relative to the revenue they draw from the network. Even just intuitively, margins like that are not sustainable - in any business. You end up paying for it somewhere and I've shown in other posts the possible mechanics by which we end up paying for it in chronic loss of marketcap share.
Most of all I'm gobsmacked at the lack of effort to explain or account for the reason that the split reward ratio has not made us more competitive compared with our 100% mined counterparts. The evidence is there staring us in the face. They have BOTH more mining reward (which we claim is our problem) AND less functional versatility (which we claim is our strength). Yet we choose to ignore this and are now doubling down on more of the same, citing all sorts of excuses such as "first mover advantage" or "market bias" obstructing our growth. Anything except consider that the mining business model might actually have a basis to it in stabilising the asset as a store of value or that expensive masternode margins may be leeching out or competitiveness from the investment market's perspective.
I find that reckless.
It just doesn't seem to me the proposal changes the ratio that much though. In 3 years will miners stop since the reward will be reduced to 1 DASH instead of 1.15 DASH every 2.5 minutes? DASH is the top X11 coin by far, hashrate keeps going up too...
If the proposal was to change the masternode reward from 1.15 DASH to 1 DASH in 3 years would most masternodes quit at once? Not sure they would. I assume this would be the proposal you'd want or would you look for a larger reduction?
No DASH holder is happy with the market share loss but that doesn't mean it's because of what you've outlined. Somehow I can't follow completely your line of logic to draw the same conclusions you do. Yes, the masternode reward far exceeds the cost to operate a masternode on face value. Are there hidden costs? Maybe, cost to acquire 1000 DASH and not trade or use it for another investment maybe? It's somewhat speculation, and I haven't seen a convincing argument yet. Maybe once we reach something closer to mass adoption this will become a bigger problem. As of now, metrics indicate growth in new users/addresses every month so new money seems to still come in. And this is the case for BTC and ETH too...
Why would anyone hold a masternode right now if the rewards were reduced substantially? Almost all the new competitors have copied to some extent Dash's governance/treasury and ROI for holding coins and typically offer more than 6%.
DASH has only been thru one bull market so far and to me has survived this bear market well enough and has enough exposure to do well this next upcoming bull market.
Honestly, I'm somewhat indifferent to whether this proposal passes or not. It almost certainly will pass but it seems to me so slight a change that I would think DASH's fate will be the same regardless. We can try to understand how everything interacts but I haven't read anything which predicts this future.
Perhaps during a bear market we see all the new hype for new projects and loss of interest for old projects. DASH was the new shiny thing last time. At some point the hype passes and people rediscover the old survivors (like LTC in last run up).
Personally, I'm more focused and excited for what Dash Platform can bring.