• having masternodes invest a large part of the margin back into the network in some service provision capacity
I think the original thought (Evan Duffield's) was that running a masternode would at some point require specialized and expensive hardware to be able to scale the network. It seems research has determined that the DASH network can scale more or less as is without this requirement now. I would assume though that Dash platform will require masternodes to upgrade their servers but probably not at too great a cost.
This depends on how you denominate the "rewards". Since Dash isn't a stablecoin the reward is dependent on the exchange rate. At its peak, the masternode reward was around $83k per projected annum. Right now it's around $5k per annum. I ask you the same question: "why would anyone hold a masternode when the potential capital loss far outweighs the reward itself ?"
As the crypto markets go thru each cycle of boom and bust on its way to mass adoption it creates a roller coaster of emotions from euphoria to misery. Buying at peaks is risky if not foolish and yet it's human nature to rush in with the herd and then sell at a loss at the bottom. Buying BTC at the peak hurt too but those who hold long enough should be just fine.
The idea is that by restoring the mining reward we'd become more competitive in terms of investment (by needing to draw less capital from fiat markets as I've outlined in other posts) and restore price growth. This would INCREASE (dollar denominated) masternode rewards, not decrease them.
I realise this conclusion is counter-intuitive but it's rational all the same when you work through things on a fiat measured basis and consider the cryptocurrency market as a whole rather than simply draw a line around Dash miners and masternodes. It's at least as justifiable as the "shot in the dark" that's being taken now - IMO more so since it's based on known quantities and relationships rather than on speculated ones.
There's merit to your position but you need to garner support from DCG and the masternodes. I think this proposal has been discussed in great detail over the last 6 months. I assume you were part of the discussions?
It also has observable evidence on its side while the current proposal does not. 10% change may not seem much but the problem is it's in the wrong direction and we're already suffering enough from loss of marketcap share.
That 10% phases in over a 3 year period at the same time the yearly 7%+ reduction continues on schedule. This seems conservative and somewhat in line with Evan's original vision of a 60/40 split before the treasury was put in place. If it is the wrong direction I still can't see this causing hashrate to decline but it should be observed after this proposal is implemented to see any positive or negative effects on mining/hashrate. Miner's aren't going to continue to mine at a loss forever.
Besides if you are right, the implementation of this proposal should cause minimal damage and at the same time help provide increased evidence for your position. A future proposal could always revisit the issue.
With each new ATH and bubble popping, BTC also seems to be losing marketcap share. There's a lot more competition now. As I mentioned already, from 4 years ago BTC is up by 16 times, LTC by 15 times and DASH by 14 times. I used 4 years as this seems to be crytpo's (BTC's) market cycle. So yes, DASH holders have suffered more during this bear market but by how much more? LTC's 15 times vs DASH's 14 times (actually 14.3 times) is a huge difference? Is this because of DASH's masternode rewards? Could be but I'm still more inclined to think it's network effect and first mover advantage and DASH has done quite well against 2 coins that have already gone thru full market cycles.
In any case it seems silly to be complaining about 14 times increase over 4 years... this is such a once in a life time opportunity. Of course, if people are trying to get in and out over a few months (put in more than they can afford to lose) then yeah one can and will get burned with any crypto.
There are 3 groups of voters to be convinced here, not just 1:
• masterndoes
• non-masternode Dash holders (who vote in markets)
• non-Dash holders (who vote in markets)
This is one of the main reasons I think decentralized masternode shares should be a priority to implement after Dash Platform's initial release (and maybe in a way that's almost invisible to the end user). Not necessarily so much for the % every holder can gain but more so for every DASH holder to be able to have some say in the voting.
Fork it.
I think DCG should just fork the code. One at 30% mining reward and the other at 70%. Then let the miners & market discover which priority is more valuable. It would be an amazing experiment and worthwhile because it would empirically prove one or other priority as viable with market endorsement. A "controlled burn" version of the Ethereum fork minus the community contention. All current investors would be on both sides anyway and it would be a piece of research that's pioneering, instructive and at the same time would generate media interest and ultimately investment as people bet on one side or the other.
Interesting. It would likely generate some exciting and pump like behavior (short term anyway). Seems strange though given we have governance to actually prevent this sort of thing. It might also permanently split the community in 2 groups. Funny, maybe that's one of the reasons BTC and ETH became so successful.