The perspective applies whether masternode dump their rewards or none at all.

It's simply a formal approach to verifying the anecdotal claim that sliding the reward scale away from mining is effective in drawing less net liquidity from markets. From the responses I've received on here I don't think anybody actually bothered to understand the analysis and let it sink in. They generally make an intuitive interpretation instead in which case they always end up re-enforcing their original assumptions.


No, but it can't be created out of "thin air" either. You need a handy cosmic explosion which ostensibly occurs once per universal creation event around these parts. So when scarcity is synthesised by electronic assets, cost of production cannot be ignored. I put it to you the other way around: if the cost of mining bitcoin was zero and holding it was the only way to generate more supply, would that represent a store of value on its own ? Obviously not because the archetype is faulty and doesn't implement certain essential properties in the synthetic asset. It's simply a numerical redenomination exercise.

Redenomination of the base supply on its own is ok if you're adding value in some other way. But it's a fiat archetype where the store of value function only works if the supply growth represents a growth in underlying value of the economy. It doesn't work the other way around (growing the money supply to grow value) which is why I contend that Dash loses competitiveness against its archetypal peers.

I don't necessarily agree that we're going to see the 2017 type spike where we "out-FOMO" the market on a reversal. That happened because of pricing in a speculative rotation to Dash out of bitcoin and hedging due to prospective bitcoin forks. We now have several well established decentralised "payment rails" on the market - instant, private, stable coin and otherwise which makes it even more crucial for Dash to stick to its original archetypal space: a versatile version of bitcoin with as high as possible mined element unless its needed to pay for the "versatility".


Ok I stand corrected on that range. You're right that Monero was above us in marketcap for longer than I had remembered. I think I just spent too much time jousting with Monero trolls for years before that during which it remained at 1/5th to 1/3rd of out cap. However, it still overtook us on supply growth, not by limiting it. All these coins - BTC, LTC, BCH, XMR, whatever - ALL have protocols which deliver the entire supply into the hands of miners, yet they manage to capture more of the total cryptocurrency marketcap than we do.

This doesn't support the theory that throttling mining supply makes you more competitive as a store of value.

Partnership With TradeXSports
https://coindar.org/en/event/dash-dash-partnership-with-tradexsports-30165

you gave up too easily sir!

One of the liberating things about crypto is that it allows their creators and investors the independence to test their new ideas to destruction.

It is a matter of concern that in this case it isn't a "new idea" that's being tested but a very old one that's about as innovative as Bernie Maddof, i.e. dangling excessive margins over cost as a carrot to investors.

Even though masternodes may not recognise this as a failed strategy, markets have plenty experience in doing so and in our case they have recourse to a remedy beyond the reach of the Dash protocol to rectify the situation = eat those margins for breakfast by devaluing the coin and then diversify into assets that do compete more effectively than us against the best cryptocurrency stores of value.

Hopefully they won't use it, but equally as hopefully I can sell my bitcointalk posts for $10k a pop  

Ask yourself, what is an investor doing when they choose to purchase a mined coin from an exchange ? They're paying a miner to mine it for them so they don't have to buy a gazillion pound rig to do it for themselves. If you give then cheap, "unmined" coins in return that are cast-offs from large holders, what do you think they're going to do ?

Exactly what they have been doing for the last 3 years.

Sometimes I don't think Dash investors realise what they bought or how to protect it. If you wanted to invest in utility (rather than a mobile, versatile commodity) you should have bought Mastercard shares, or some other type of blockchain security who's protocol is designed to host entire nation's worth of debt securities.

Meanwhile, many people do not want to invest in that stuff. They want "sound money" that works. But be aware, it's the "sound money" part that they invest in. The "that works" part only makes its utility competitive against other offerings. It doesn't increase the value. (Like gold coins don't over gold nuggets other than a tiny premium).

So if you want to short-change digital commodity investors on hashrate and choose to inflate the blockchain supply on a purely numerical basis instead, don't be surprised to discover that they have more capacity to short-change you than you do them.



The competitiveness is the part on the left. The value is the part on the right. They are not interchangeable. To think that they are would be a very big mistake...

This week (7/19) at Dash Core Group:
- Testing v0.16 Release Candidate 2. Mainnet release expected shortly
- Upgraded DashPay for iOS & Android to the latest version of Platform (DPP v0.14)
- Completed development for contact requests on DashPay for Android
- Integrated DAPI Client 0.14 to Wallet and SDK
- Introduced document timestamps to DPP, allowing for a more accurate ordering of state transitions.
https://blog.dash.org/dash-product-update-july-19th-2020-be7ab182e882

Demise as a competitive crypto asset when compared with its 100% mined contemporaries.

Nobody's arguing against that.

Then you misinterpreted my remarks. I said that the non-mining reward should more adequately reflect the value that's invested into the network by masternode operators, albeit that there may be a profit component to it. Right now they don't invest anything. Their running costs are zero.

k!  thnx for clarifying