I already had feedback from DCG and its formal position is to categorically dismiss the role of mining in store of value, other than to secure a leadership position within the masternode sector.  ("We don't need all this hashrate"....."except where we do"). It's been made abundantly clear that that is the end of the story as far as it's concerned. Unfortunately the market doesn't seem to concur with that view which is why I've persisted with this analysis in studying why the recent vote to change the protocol didn't have a significant impact on valuation or ranking.

Also I'd appreciate if you'd stop referring to this as a "theory". It's an observation of capital flows and how masternode rewards are not recycled back into the chain, either as mining power or in service layer costs. Public domain knowledge and published Dash protocol. If you were a masternode holder at the height of the market and received $1400 dollars worth of Dash each WEEK for doing absolutely nothing, you'd know that intuitively without even having to understand the protocol.

You'd also know it if you'd ever had to file a tax return for masternode earnings since it's recorded as income followed by a capital acquisition, where you're taxed on the full value of the income. That's where your cost base comes from - not the scarcity value established by competitive mining.

A Litecoin miner who receives $1400 from the chain at least has to apply their rig to near the tune of that value to make the next block less accessible. (A legitimate and better use of their reward than paying tax authorities IMO). Therefore no blocks at all emerge from the Litecoin chain with a price-tag of zero. That's why store-of-value seekers invest in Litecoin over Dash.

(Consequently it's why Litecoin is now getting more traffic than Dash. Nothing to do with ease of use.)

Well I admit it's difficult to compete with the #pumpIsComing theory of capital flows as a basis for attracting new investors. Long may it outlast investor due diligence otherwise we're screwed as long as we stick with the current protocol

But you're not receiving any masternode reward because its bottom line measure is capital gain (due to Dash not being a stable coin). So you should be supporting my reasoned arguments to prioritise capital value over Dash-denominated margins which are meaningless in the event of a capital loss.

That is great !! I always wanted Dash to be added to some tiny unnamed exchange !!
Thank you.

I assume they have unnamed users there as well ? Maybe you could even change the listed cryptocurrencies there to unnamed, that way you have an unnamed exchange
with unnamed users trading unnamed cryptocurrencies. That would be super doopy cool.

Interesting DOGE BTC chart by the way.

That shit got kicked out of the top 30 again. Where's the big jump in price after the reward update?

That is fine for those few  that live in countries like yours. Doesn't help the rest much

Up until now, I've been talking about the "primary supply" (new mined supply) and people have responded with the #pumpIsComing theory of capital flows, saying that while I may have the odd valid point, when the "pump comes" it will blow these cobwebs away.

So I thought I'd have a look at the secondary market (exchanges, not mining) and see how absorbent Dash protocol is to rises in price there. But here I see a problem also.

As the coin supply gets absorbed into masternode collateral, it becomes ever less contiguous. What we saw in 2016 & 2017 was the low hanging fruit get put into masternodes, but we will reach a point where it gets exponentially more difficult to find any continuous block of 1000 Dash with the same ownership (or co-operative owners) at which point we've reached "equilibrium: As many masternodes get sold as bought and the nodecount remains constant.

So we MUST consider the protocol in the context of this equilibrium state. It isn't enough to depend on a growing masternode count because at some point (like now) it will hit the limit and at that point we want the capital value in the chain to maintain buoyancy. (Which it can do by directing any mining revenue that isn't absorbed by service provision towards keeping the block scarcity high for the majority of blocks).



Considering a rise in price in the secondary market then (i.e. nothing to do with mining, just new demand at exchanges) we know that that feeds through to mining difficulty to raise the cost of mining a block, and therefore keeps the "opening price" of each new block catching up with the secondary market. For a 100% mined coin, ALL of the money going to primary market is directed at this priority. (i.e. all revenue generated by newly minted coins goes towards raising the difficulty and therefore opening price across all of the chain. No blocks emerge with a zero cost base).



But in Dash it does not. What's supposed to happen is that some of that revenue was to go to finance the service layer, but instead it just goes straight into private hands, not funding either mining difficulty OR services because the masternode reward coins continue to be generated with a cost base of zero.

So we have a TRANSMISSION PROBLEM even in the #pumpIsComing scenario. Exchange demand does not fully feed through to scarcity. Instead it goes to MN profits directly. The way to sort this would be to set the two margins at parity - mining and masternode. That would allow the protocol to:

A. retain capital in the chain without it hemorrgaging out to uneconomic masternode margins

B. absorb far more of the secondary market demand (if and when it comes) as capital gain instead of it being derailed into masternode revenue (and from there, out of the network)



#nodesAreNotACharity
#setMarginsAtParity

 Watch this video, does it sound like a multi-million dollar project? The last money is actually sucked out of the coin. How will it grow if they don't do anything useful other than adding a% rollback to themselves.

Sorry to hear. I can understand disappointment in Dash since 2017 but that doesn't mean scam IMO. None of us had crystal ball. I thought the features and innovations combined with governance would cement dash in the top 5 or 10 back then. Hadn't realised at that point how  important scarcity through mining actually was. Thought the masternode rewards were a free lunch  (as most masternode owners still do)