It's definitely not a priority, but many people have been requesting this feature for a long time. So it would be nice to have a formal analysis when more time is available, to see what is actually possible and if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Of course it is a priority. Beyond that, the fact that many people have requested it for a long time has occurred because DASH was engaged in its official channels, as well as in other media, on the lips of people installed at the top of the DASH hierarchy and all this paid by the DAO, to implement them. That's the difference between a business dissatisfaction and a scam. Although it is certain that if there were any movement, it would be disguised as "consideration for the needs of the user community", when in a decentralized structure, condescension, like trust, is simply unnecessary.



The truth is, we don't need any more masternodes. There is no immediate benefit to the end user. The focus of investment potential should be on Dash itself, not the masternodes in my opinion.

Of course the investment focus should be on the value of the asset ... but it is you who is constantly approaching it from the economic prism. The WORST thing about not offering shared Mnodes to the real DASH community (euphemistically, the "users") is the centralization with which the corrupt Mnodes gang manages to overstep their attributions as "workers of a service layer" to take them to the point to own the project completely. With the law in hand, you have not only the rewards and the "common" Treasury in your hands, but anything else that occurs to you at your entire disposal, such as premeditated and subsidized censorship and information intoxication, breaches that last YEARS, rentals of $ 55,000 of empty facilities, or silence in response to community members who demand explanations about it ... while the parasitic hierarchy continues in its advantageous positions and there are colored glasses parties on the DASH news channels. What in a project that hypocritically "sells" decentralization is perfectly reflected in the price.

Microholders don't need the modest rewards they can get from joining shared Mnodes as an incentive to sustain their DASH. But integrating into their FAVORITE cryptosystem, from which they are trickily marginalized, yes. On the contrary, and as a supposed aspiring decentralized organization, the one that does need a constant voting niche that decides in the interest of the general of the project and at least bothers large owners to impose their whims, is the DASH ecosystem.



I honestly think that Ryan is wrong to continue 'focusing' on South America. His stuborness on this strategy is worrying. No matter how well intended it is, it is wrong to put too much focus on a market in an underdeveloped region.

... and in alt36 ... and in imposing its dogma that adoption would stabilize the price of DASH for years (and take advantage of its information distortion channels veto and try to ridicule any debate on the matter while the crypto ranking was filled with stable coins and DASH was falling bare chest for 3 years) ... and fuming about Evolution's default going into its fifth year ... and doing so with a RIDICULAR store of value proposition - imo, knowingly -. But worse than that succession of erroneous strategies, including the one you point to and others that remain unmentioned, is, deep down, the insane ability to centralize decisions and opinion trends that one person has and the resignation of the "brilliant" Mnodes, guardians of efficiency in DASH, before it.