Quote from: toknormal on Today at 12:32:36 AM

Quote from: jdmcg on Today at 12:02:10 AM

The rewards are only paid out in DASH and it has nothing to with whether DASH is a stablecoin or not.

What are you talking about ? It has everything to do with it.

The "I" in ROI stands for investment. Return on investment, not Ratio Of Initial Collateral. The two are only equivalent in a stable coin.

Ok, whatever, you seem intent on arguing about something that is at best tangential. It's irrelevant to the points I brought up. It's especially curious as I don't think I ever brought up or used the term ROI.

Anyways, it seems clear to me that where once you would consider lowering the collateral required to gain support for reducing the block reward share given to masternodes, you no longer hold that position. That's fine, everyone is allowed to consider and reconsider things.

Quote from: toknormal on Today at 12:32:36 AM

Quote from: jdmcg on Today at 12:02:10 AM

So, we've already achieved the ideal equilibrium condition (masternode count saturation) way before mass adoption? If the whole world is to use DASH, 5000 masternodes is enough? That's decentralized?

I think 5000 nodes is enough and there seems to be consensus about that if you go back a few posts it was discussed.

Re. "centralised", I think that's a completely different discussion and I don't think it has anything to do with this - I described my vision in a previous post. 1 person can own 10 masternodes or 10 people can own 1 masternode. The collateral threshold doesn't have much to say about centralisation of ownership, it's to do with trustlessnes or otherwise. I said I thought it would benefit Dash economics and the ecosystem if masternode ownership was pushed into the fintech retail tier. The asset would still be "trustless" because the contracts behind the securities would be between the operator and the investors, but not the operator and the blockchain. That's going to happen anyway if price continues to rise as we would hope, doesn't matter what you set the collateral level to.

I don't think the nodecount would reduce anyway. I don't see why you assume that. How many masternodes do you think got sold off in the calamateous crash from $1500 to $60 ? It will have been thousands, all with ROI in the negative. Yet the nodecount remained steady.

Masternodes churn and change hands all the time.

5000 nodes is enough and there's a consensus? What I do know is that there's a consensus regarding the current block reward split.

Anyways, you're right, I don't know for sure but I just have a hard time imagining DASH would be able to maintain 5000 masternodes as it does now if each masternode were to receive 1/3 the rewards they do now. If so, then I would think that the masternode count could just as easily go up to 15000 to get to that same reward level. No?

Rather I think during the upcoming bull run, DASH might get as high as 6000, maybe even 7000 but not much higher.

Now let's say collateral was reduced to 500 DASH. The masternode owner who previously had 5 masternodes, now has enough collateral to set up 10 masternodes but at twice the cost (using your mining analogy, doesn't that mean the difficulty just doubled?). I also would conjecture that this same owner would have an increased inclination to sell off at least one masternode in order to diversify or take profit. Also, someone new to DASH who was interested in masternodes before but couldn't afford/justify 1000 DASH, now has the ability to get in and set up one for the first time. I would think these scenarios are good for the DASH network. I also conjecture that masternode owners would be satisfied with a smaller number than 6%, as the collateral risk is reduced, which would in turn put upwards pressure on masternode count.

Btw, I would never propose a massive move from 1000 to 500 in a single shot. These type of things need to be gradual as to not cause any shock to the network.