You know that's a red herring that Dash conservatives like to use as cover for core failings in competitiveness. We're talking about its performance relative to other coins, not relative to the US dollar. Dash lost competitiveness BOTH in bull markets AND bear.

The core thesis was that we "didn't need all this hashrate" and it was incumbent on those who argued for that fundamental principle and who implemented it to take responsibility for its subsequent impact (or complete absence thereof) on the primary performance metric that was targeted - store of value. That is ultimately measured in marketcap ranking against other POW assets which serve as effective controls for such a thesis (being that they continued to sustain a 100% mined protocol).

But relative to them our marketcap has in fact cratered instead of grown. So some introspection would seem appropriate from your side of the debate more than from mine.


That sounds like a nose-in-the-air type desperate dismissal of reasonable challenges if I ever heard one. "Golf club politics" in action again. But this isn't a golf club.

Again, the "belief" is all on your side. I've supplied reasoned argument to support my views. You haven't provided any, other than a vague appeal to regulatory authorities which I already pointed out is not having any effect on our competitiveness. "Circulating supply" is an arbitrary metric in Dash's case where it re-defined the term uniquely and unsoundly to suit itself and support a poorly reasoned protocol priority that does not benefit investors.

This problem isn't going to go away and the more noses remain in the air and cotton buds remain stuffed into ears, the more it will continue to shackle our performance. It might be ok with the "golf club hierarchy" whom the current policy seems to be trying to please but try seeing it from the perspective of outside investors for a change.