I think that's a "64" actually according to my "trainspotting" log.

If you read between the lines here, "X" (Twitter) is basically saying the account WAS'NT hacked. It was legitimately authenticated from Twitter's point of view using the correct phone number. So SECgov must'v simply lobbied X to announce it was "compromised" based on SECgov's word that someone had access to G Gensler's phone that shouldn't have had it.

This has already occurred - propelled on in no small measure by the reward ratio adjustment of 3 years ago in favour of masternodes. Yield must be measured in $USD, not Dash because the yield is on the invested capital (which is $USD). This means capital loss on the masternode collateral has far more to say about "yield" than masternode rewards do while they are denominated in Dash.

("Obliteration" in most market observers eyes is being wiped off Page 1 of coinmarketcap.com which is now happening to us).

What we must do IMO is restore the Dash blockchain's capacity to absorb capital which has been throttled by the the need to fund unearned masternode profits and treasury budgets at all costs.

What's wrong with simply acknowledging that mining is a decentralised market ? Does that really have to be explained on a podcast ?

It's why "mining" was created - to distribute the coin to "buyers" without recourse to a trusted entity such as Binance. It's also why it's called the "primary" market because it's where coins are "purchased" for the first time. The buyer purchases electricity, the electric company supplies it, the buyer then feeds that to the network as a bid and receives coin according to the level of their bid. "Dash" is not paying the electric company, the buy is because that is the currency of this primary market. You feed coin into that market at zero difficulty (i.e. masternodes receive it) and you simply circumvent that market, thereby tanking the price.

What exactly is so difficult to understand about this for certain Dash people when EVERY OTHER POW coin understands it ? Even POS people understand it because they realise that if they don't have mining they need an on-chain business model.

 

This is hilarious. The last re-allocation worked so well that lets do more of it.

Let me just address this point first of all:

1. It doesn't matter that the "coins above us aren't proof of work coins". What matters is that the CONTROLS for measuring Dash's experiment in dminishing the POW quota ARE above us.

2. Efficiency can be measured 2 ways:

A: efficiency in storing value
B: efficiency in producing the actual coin

IF you use method "B" criteria (which is what is being done in that video) then all you're doing is judging the network as you would a production process. i.e. if you make the cost of production ever cheaper, the coin will simply changes hands for every cheaper amounts. This is NOT the case with the "non-POW" coins because they are proof of stake from inception and have a completely different business model from Dash. They have on-chain sinks.

The whole point of POW is to make the production cost approcimate to the exchange value until such time as transation fees take over. You can't just turn Dash into a POS simply because it "looks like everyone else is POS".

This is the most insane proposal I've seen and it will be the end of Dash due to people utterly misunderstanding the economic nature of a cryptocurrency, especially a POW one. The mining process is a MARKET. Miners are simply primary purchasers of the new supply and bid for that coin in a trustless market. If the chain simply gifts that supply instead, it will tank the marketcap back into the dark ages.

I have been right so far over the last 2 years. Surely people cannot be so stupid as to double down on an already failed strategy.

You've got this all wrong I'm afraid. It is not thought out properly.

First of all, nobody's earning any "yield" because the collateral does not hold its value. Nobody's interested in earning more Dash, they want the investment they already have to first perform against competing assets. In particular against other fully mined ones given that our protocol was modified on the basis that we didn't need that mining and that ditching it would make us more competitive (Need I remind you it hasn't, it's made us LESS competitive).

Secondly, when you take the market as a whole (Secondary exchange markets AND the primary mining market), it turns out that the CAUSE of the negative yielding in Dash is grossly over-rewarding existing holders just for holding the collateral. We don't control this - the external market does and so when it sees a node with $10 a month running costs being gifted half of all the new supply is simply devalues the entire asset to reflect the true value being contributed by masternodes. In fully mined coins you don't get this - the entire supply has to be bid for which restricts it to ONLY those investors who are paying for it. This serves to support the marketcap.

Thirdly, no coins are "locked" in masternodes. The situation's exactly the same as in bitcoin = you might as well say coins as "locked" in bitcoin wallets because Dash MN collateral is just as liquid - it can be sent to an exchange at any time and there's not timelock on those coins. In fact there's more incentive to hold bitcoin or any other fully mined, Page 1 altcoin, than to hold Dash masternode collateral simply because of the improved capital performance. (They "yield" more).

So your justification doesn't hold water and nor has it ever. Our protocol has prioritised masternode income at the expense of capital gain and it's toxifying the entire investability of the asset.

You have also miss-characterised the role of mining. It's not only to secure the network, that's just a technical bi-product. Its economic role is to support a decentralised market for the new supply where hashrate serves as the "currency" of purchase so that a centralised broker (such as an exchange) is not required.

Chainlocks is therefore not a substitute for this role which is why the market has valued it accordingly and we never saw any upwards revaluation when that feature was incorporated. The only thing the wider market will ever significantly revalue is if the masternode rewards are wound in. Then we might have a chance of stabilising the catastrophic and chronic capital loss on collateral.

The price is now $26.

That remark seems consistent with most Dash insider commentary I've seen during the last 2 years - that "worse is actually better".

Now at $26 in fact.

Ranking Nº 99.

As anticipated, capital loss on masternode collateral nicely continuing to outperform masternode rewards.

(By design, on a "we don't need all this hashrate" basis).

Prepare for Page 2 status:

https://imgur.com/lZkNzR4

It is still a very good coin with massive potential.

That potential is being heavily throttled by one small aspect of its governance which is its Achilles heel - namely that masternode owners perceived benefit is in conflict with their actual benefit.

Their perceived benefit = how much Dash per week they receive for free from the blockchain
Their actual benefit  = how much the wider market (non Dash holders) values that benefit

Masternode holders are getting pain from the wider market because their rewards never matched their contribution to the network (the cost of hosting a node) and so the wider market tanked the value of their rewards in dollar value accordingly.

But the problem with Dash protocol is that you are required to hold 1000 Dash to obtain those rewards, so the wider market is unable to revalue Dash rewards without tanking the entire marketcap of Dash.

The way to address this issue and keep Dash alive and investable as a store of value is to (for example):

1. Decouple the reward basis from the collateral and make it dynamic so that the reward could be valued independently (by the non Dash-holding market) thereby protecting the price from the dumping of "free Dash" that was never bought in the primary market (i.e. "mined") and returning its store-of-value properties to the performance equivalent to bitcoin

2. Reducing the reward (in Dash terms) to a level commensurate with the cost of operating a masternode, thereby restricting the flow of Dash to either:

A: miners who have to "purchase" it in the primary market straight from the blockchain
B: masternodes who have to "purchase" it in the primary market by providing network services
C: secondary market buyers who have to "purchase" is from either of the primary buyers above

That is a tight model that outsiders (non Dash holders) might be interested in investing in.

However until that fact is acknowledged by Dash insiders we are headed for Page 2 and from there destination Peercoin. Rapidly plummeting to oblivion with everyone trying to get out.

Not correct. "Mineables" that didn't do what Dash & Decred did have retained their place in the Top 10 and other "Mineables" that weren't even in our league such as Doge, Ether Classic and Filecoin have taken our places.

The reason for this is that mining is a market. The word "mining" is only a metaphor - a metaphor for a decentralised market that uses hashrate as currency instead of US Dollars. It's still a market though and if you feed supply into that market to ANY participant at zero price then you simply umndermine the marketcap.

It's fine that masternodes are rewarded.

It isn't fine that they are rewarded at multiples of the numerical monthly value they contribute to the network. Then the "free market" (that isn't invested in masternodes) just compensated by devaluing our collateral.

Anybody that doesn't understand that has no business investing in Dash, never mind governing it.

You're comparing apples with oranges. Ethereum has an on-chain sink, Dash does not.

It's a completely different economic model because the tokens are consumable and used by the chain itself to pay fund on-chain services, so it's a business services archetype, not a monetary metal archetype like Dash which inherits bitcoin's model.

It had a fatal flaw which was that governance was executed according to the priorities of insiders rather than outsiders.

The governance contracts therefore had to constantly appeal to insiders - people who already had Dash - rather than those who didn't and would have had to buy it.

Ironically it was the latter that were needed to support the marketcap which is why it tanked. More ironically, even the former haven't been retained by this policy and have disinvested.

Lets analyse Dash holistically.

How much more powerful could its marketcap be if the Masternode reward was directed economically instead of arbitrarily ?

Looks like we are now at the end of the road for bitcoin appreciation. Now fully capitalised and valuations will probably hover between 20k and 60k from here on in.

The price has now dipped well below the last market peak from the 4 year cycle instead of staying above it as in previous cycles and the logarithmic long term trend has now levelled off, so stock-to-flow worked for a while but we've even departed form that = projections on the future based on hopium of the past 

This analogy doesn't describe blockchain mining. You're thinking of earth mining which isn't the same in economic terms and gold mining can't be used as an accurate archetype. In earth mining, the cost of production does not depend on the number of miners. The cost of extraction is fixed and depends on things like how deep in the ground the target mineral is, how sparse or dense it manifests etc.

Blockchain "mining" is different. It's a decentralised market pure and simple and therefore DOES depend on the number of market participants (which are unfortunately referred to a "miners"). So the price in that (primary) market responds to demand for the next block. Much of that demand originates in secondary markets (exchanges) and finds its way into the primary market via the brokering function of the miner. So the capital flow looks like this:

Exchange Buyer --> $1000 --> Miner --> $1000 --> Increase in difficulty (and therefore price)

But for masternodes, that capital that enteres the exchange never reaches the blockchain and is not available for raising the price. Instead it goes onto the masternode's balance sheet and is lost to the Dash ecosystem completely:

Exchange Buyer --> $1000 --> Masternode --> $1000 --> Growth in MN balance sheet. (No difficulty increase and therefore no primary price increase)

Even if the masternode does not sell as you propose there is still a deficity in primary demand caused by the masternode balance sheet capturing the capital that entered the exchange market instead of passing it on to the chain.

The difference is that none of those have 3000-4000 node holders leaching the investment in new supply straight into their own pockets instead of into the chain in the form of raising the marginal cost of a block.

Remember:

Marginal price = marginal cost of block /  block reward.

It doesn't ignore that point at all. What exactly would be the point of "forking" it ? To demonstrate that governance doesn't work ?

Governance is working fine, it's just sending the price in the wrong direction that's all, and the reasons are adequately explained above.

If you're on a freeway and discover you're accidentally going south when you meant to go North, you don't need to shrug your shoulders and continue clueless into the distance hoping you'll find a future as good as the one you planned. You look for the nearest exit, get across the opposite carriageway and continue back on track. The kinds of protocol changes we made a couple of years back address fundamental market trends that can take a couple of years to manifest unambiguously. We are now at "freeway" that point.

If you feel you have some "modern concept" of value that somehow defies the appraisals I made above, be my guest.

Hand waving philosophical vagaries, bald assertions and speaking in generalities has never and will never impress any potential investors. They understand basic things like how hashrate affects scarcity, how masternode rewards far outweigh operating costs (so "overpaid") and long term ranking performance is an arbitrator on the governance priorities we make.

This coin has some core properties that are very good and it's survived nearly 7 years so far with reasonable visibility. That is about to end because the market is turning around and it isn't taking us with it this time so some soul searching is in order. The kind of arguments you've offered up so far in response to my criticisms that the reward ratio is set wrong, are 2014 type stuff. We can't get away with that anymore - we need things nailed down and a granular understanding of the economics of the coin which REFLECTS what we see in the market, not that contradicts it.

There needs to be monetary tightening. If you really need a "for dummies" rule of thumb, a good indicator of "loose ship" economics is bloated parasitical profits being made by any type of stakeholder, be it miners, masternodes, contractors, traders, whatever. In that respect the masternode reward sticks out like a sore thumb.

Put it this way, if you were earning $500 per week from masternode rewards, would you rather that came in the form of 2 Dash or 0.2 Dash ? Reflect on that for a moment because in the latter case your collateral would be worth 10 times more than in the former.

The DAO also needs some reform. The contracts on there are paltry. They are a pale shadow of the activity a few years back when there was a lot more contention in the community but a lot more action and broader participation as well. That all got shut down and needs to be invigorated but part of that process is acknowledging that this is not a "club", it's an industry and that requires critical self appraisals, not the kind of "everything's alright and everything will be alright" that seems to have characterised your responses so far.

All in all what I'm saying is that there is no way forward other than to make ourselves highly competitive in the store of value asset market. That will mean some bullet biting decisions IMHO.

Then you just don't understand accounting convention. Unfortunately investors do and this matters to them because there is no other "convention" to measure value by. Even speculative value ends up on the books eventually either by mark to market conventions or, in the case of POW blockchains, through difficulty adjustments.

If you buy a tractor for $60,000, it goes onto your balance sheet at that value as a capital asset and then gets depreciated from there.

You're basically dismissing the value of "mining difficulty" on some nebulous philosophical basis it doesn't add "intrinsic value" to the coin. That's irrelevant because it adds a material value to the scarcity and therefore adds to the book value once it's mined. So you'd need to come of with some pretty categorical reason why a coin like Dash where only 40% of the exchange revenues from mining sales go towards difficulty adjustments upwards while 100% of our competitor revenues do.

You don't have one and that's what I'm saying the problem is (as far as new investors are concerned). All of Dash's "feature advantages" are worth nothing if half of the primary supply investment capital goes towards populating masternode balance sheets instead of backing the marketcap with higher marginal mining costs. We inherit the bitcoin protocol which is a store-of-value protocol. If we just want to create a feature-rich blockchain then you're better off with some modern token system like Tezos or something that's at least dedicated for that purpose. Dash is mobile bitcoin and therefore can only work with very high mining quotas.