@toknormal.
1. What do you think about the yearly -7% miner reduction scheme? Bitcoin uses a halving (-50%) scheme every 4 years and there seems to be a general consensus that it creates strong upwards pressure on the price. Some time after the halving, price seems to strongly push higher. It almost confirms that the pure PoW mining model pushes price higher...
I think if we stick to a core principle, this question gets answered quite easily. That core principle is that:
Dash needs to be as
LIKE bitcoin as humanly possible in store of value and
as
DIFFERENT from bitcoin as humanly possible for utility
Therefore Dash needs to mine the sh* out of as much of its supply as possible to make it extremely scarce because that's what bitcoin does. At the same time Dash needs to leave just enough blockchain budget to fund its service layer - a dimension of utility that bitcoin does not have. That is very easy for us because it only costs us around 1% of our mining budget to fund the service layer to gain a huge advantage over bitcoin. Ever less as the price rises. (So why do we spend 60% on it
).
The smoother 7% reduction is therefore far more suited to that priority than the disruptive halving IMO because it makes masternode adoption less disruptive and allows investors a more predictable ROI.
2. How would you feel if Dash reduces the capital requirement for setting up a masternode, in the absence of protocol level shared masternodes? Clearly, this forms a high barrier to enter our service provisioning market (masternode network) and not everyone wants to use 3rd party shared masternode services (they should only do that if they are willing to take on the risk). Would you agree that reducing the capital requirement for masternodes should lead to an increased influx of investment?
I would not support that. The masternode collateral level should remain high IMO, otherwise we'd just end up as a proof of stake coin which would be disastrous.
Masternode "sharing" should occur in the fintech commercial sector IMO, not at the blockchain protocol level, nor by trying to reduce the collateral to ever smaller amounts. By keeping the collateral threshold high we create a clear market in the fintech sector for security type products that are Dash backed. I've always argued that we should not think of a masternode as a "person". That only happened because when the price was low, a masternode and an individual human were largely synonymous. But the masternode is actually an archetypal element of the protocol and should remain so. It should be investible like an ocean liner is, as an "all or nothing" thing, not an infinitely divisible thing.
It is not a "person". Nor is the masternode vote a "person". Everybody on board the ocean liner can have a vote but it's the role of the fintech retail sector to manage and ultimately direct the course of the one "ocean liner" which they control and that one vote then gets forwarded to the protocol. We need the idea of a masternode to stay with the protocol but the idea of its ownership to be able to float and be marketed by whoever wants to in a free enterprise manner IMO. Keeping the collateral high forces that decoupling at an earlier stage. It was already starting to happen during the last round of revaluation when we started seeing institutionalised investement coming in to the masternode sector.
But we're not going to see that again unless we address the reward ratio so that ROI in Dash can be replaced (mostly) with capital gain ROI. That's why it's important IMO to get Spork 21 reversed ASAP and restore mining across the majority of our blocks to protect their scarcity.
3. What do you think about the previously discussed idea to move the decimal backwards which would lower price per coin with a factor 100 for example? So if 1 Dash equals $100, it would become 100 Dash equals $100 or 1 Dash equals $1. It is not my personal preference, but during the 2017 pump to +$1500 it became quite clear that it provides a psychological barrier for potential investors who really want to own full units and simply don't understand the relation of our price with our extremely scarce supply.
Firstly, our supply isn't "scarce" unless it's made so through mining. Currently we give it away for free in cornflakes packets to masternodes in exchange for providing a service which bitcoin & litecoin get for free. (Dash would still retain all of its functional advantages even if all it did was to make operating a node profitable over operating a bitcoin node).
Re. the decimal point moving, that is another desperation move by people who don't understand where our store-of-value function is. Our store of value dimension comes from mining, not from either of:
trying to get the protocol to restrict traffic to order books or
playing around with the decimal point
To test the irrelevance of the "decimal point" theory, follow these steps:
1. Go to
https://coinmarketcap.com/2. Click "Filters"
3. Click "Mineable"
4. Click "Circulating supply" to reverse sort
You should now be seeing the most valuable coins at the top if the theory holds.
