Quote from: afbitcoins on Today at 06:14:48 PM

To toknormal i would suggest this is looking like a lost cause, particularly on this thread. Would you consider going back to discord where your arguments meet a wider audience? (I actually do not believe the dash masternode community is in any way ready to accept these ideas yet sadly)

I think they'll have to face it sooner or later. The current policy contradicts itself all over the place. For example look at this...

Quote from: qwizzie on August 17, 2020, 01:42:13 PM

...
Best solution for Dash without rocking the boat too much (meaning without going full Proof of Stake or without messing with our emission rate schedule directly) :
Improve Dash Store of Value, by adjusting the blockrewards allocation split where more of blockrewards go to masternodes (+9%) and less go to miners (-9%)...

The rational behind this is that this will give an incentive for investors to buy more Dash collateral (1000 Dash) to setup new masternodes, which will then reduce the circulating supply as more and more Dash collateral is parked on a cold wallet address / hardware wallet address somewhere long term. Once the blockreward reallocation has been fully processed in 4 or 5 years, we will have less a problem with our
circulating supply.

It's all about how the cake is sliced and stopping coins from hitting exchanges. There is not a single mention of how the chain gets capitalised in the first place. It's assumed. Also, think for a moment about what all this liquidity traffic marshalling ultimately amounts to....an attempt to synthesise scarcity !

So why not just admit it, do it properly and build scarcity right into each block the way everyone else does it ? How does bitcoin get capitalised ? Investors pay miners, miners pay electricity companies and they mediate competition for each block. The more competition there is, the higher the block price. End of story. If you leave 6 of every ten of your blocks out of this race then guess what the market's going to do to your price ?

There are so many signals that this is the wrong policy - things that don't square with each other. For example we say we don't need teh hashrate, then we say we do need it to be ahead of "certain" competitors. We say we want to reduce circulating supply - so does that mean that high trading volumes are suddenly a bearish sign for Dash when they're generally considered bullish for everyone else ? We say we want to "retain" value in the network by paying less to electricity companies, but then we just pay it to holiday cruise operators instead (metaphorically speaking). We say that new masternodes will hoover up new supply by masternodes get traded and churn just as the rest of the supply does. Just because you have a certain nodecount doesn't mean their ownership is static so it's a false comfort.

We've now given up all gains against bitcoin for the entire year. Support is now resistance. Additionally we seem to be decoupling and are not getting any pumps when bitcoin pumps. The 1-week OBV is only widening to the downside.

A radical review of the reward ratio is needed IMO, one that addresses how to get capital value INTO the chain at a very basic level instead of taking even more out of it. My view is that opening up the rest of the blocks to competitive mining would be massively bullish in this respect and arrest the descent, but that's just my view obviously. It needs the community to see it that way for there to be any relevance so there's an argument to be won.

Discord is good for a laugh but I've served my time on there. I think this discussion should be exposed as much as possible to the wider market because that's who we need to co-operate if we want to be successful and competitively buoyant again.