You have a stable coin between your eyebrows and I do not suggest that by any means, I have already told you days before. It is absolutely evident that a Reserves strategy does not imply that any bank, for example, - which has usually assumed these strategies for centuries - does not aspire that its Gold Reserves are the only key to the growth of this entity, sería ridículo ...and it's hard to believe that someone interprets that like this. For me, everything is a question of proportions and in fact, there are no major differences from the approaches that DASH already adopts in its current model. I think it was quite clear, although at some time, in the run, perhaps he has explained little to me.
This comment is from almost a month ago.
- 20% Miners - 20% Mnodes (Both with a top in FIAT performance. The Mnodes, in addition to be guaranteed acceptable rewards, would enrich their assets in DASH - and both they and the miners would reduce sales incentives -)
- 20% Treasure
- 60% Donations to the DIF structure and custodied as Reserves in BTC and Gold . And of course a really profesional and absolutely transparent DIF .
When I refer to Reserves and to show a 1: 1 ratio in a fork that leaves from ZERO, I mean a discovery of "inalienable wealth" of the cap ... of some "minimums" that can never be extracted from the project by speculative movements . Really, it would be a partial endorsement. But even those Reserves would be understood to be subject to interesting investments for the benefit of the project (although with the established dogma that "The Mnodes do not optimize financing investments", it would subject any movement to analysis of the utmost rigor ... and if those tests are not passed, the Reserves are fine where they are. And working while nothing is done ... but it is a good measure not to give away money - better than to dump it to particular benefits of the MNodes, as some suggest now -)
It could, in any case, be seen as a "Hybrid" approach, but never renounce fundamentals of the project such as technological development and others, which obviously would add value to the price defined by the pure accumulation of Reserves ... that would be ridiculous. I do not understand DASH without contributions to its development ... nor that development is worth ZERO. In fact, this "hybrid" strategy would be a very good claim for a "secured" investment in a currency that, in addition, obviously has other fundamentals, like so many other proposals in the crypto ranking.
It's a no-brainer, but just in case and seeing your perspective, I clarify it.
And, of course, I continue to maintain that a fork of those characteristics "nested or" linked "to DASH, would help to achieve greater rigor in the original project and would even invite support, otherwise, actions from that new approach - that his reservations, he could, of course, consider positions in Mnodes that would provide a more relevant collective voice in the "original" DASH -. And of course, from a much more inclusive project and representative of ALL its community from day one ... that would secure HODL positions in defense of the asset that today in DASH have simply been discarded due to contempt for the more modest holders beyond the Mnodes owners, which I have always considered an arrogant and unacceptable nonsense and greatly aggravates a Stock to Flow that at these levels of movement eat the price of the central asset by the foot ... which is absolutely terrifying to look at that chart.
