• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Increase Funding Budget to 50%

Aaron

New member
Dash has significantly increased its value in the last two months.
To increase the population's acceptance for Dash, I propose to spend 25% to Miner, 25% to Masternodes and 50% to the funding budget.

Reason:
Nobody will accept a currency that enriches those, who already have a lot. This increases uselessly the Gini ratio (see Lorenz curve) and the currency can not establish itself. This is the basic problem of all cryptocurrency. The population requires a currency that can establish a distribution right. The increased budget could fund culture, theater, library, research and infrastructure which neglected and under-funded by conventional governments. Thus, Dash is establishing itself in the economy of the society. The “intrinsic value” of Dash is therefore the funding policy for social projects. In this way, Dash can massively increase its market capitalization, which also benefits Miner and Masternodes.

Info:
It does not make sense to drive the Hashrates up, as with Bitcoin. The value is only the distributed and unassailable network.

Proposal for 5 dash coins to refund this proposal.

Please read some more explanation at commentary #10
 
Last edited:
I think you raise some good points.
When evolution is released and we have "saving accounts" trustless shares in a masternode we will need a reasonable payout to masternodes.
As for hashing rate, as long as it is high enough to secure the network there isn't any point increasing the incentives.
I agree with you in principle, not sure about the final figures.
 
We've barely just reached $100.00. Four weeks ago we were at $20.00. While your suggestion may be good in theory, I think it's a little early to start playing around with the ratios. Also, I don't think it would be prudent to make significant changes all at once. If Dash were to head back to $20.00, you could have a mass exit by masternode operators if proper incentives are not in place. Dash needs to have a much stronger base, before these types of changes should be voted on. Also, don't forget... masternodes will begin to take on more and more responsibility in the future. Evolution savings brought up by @Acedian is one example. Sorry this would not have my vote... at least not at this stage.
 
Why 50% and not 30% and not 60%???

Please my signature, and vote with numbers.

Because it's a 50-50 trick of marketing. I can not convince anyone of Dash, if the most is spended to the big holders. 50% for the operators of Dash and 50% for the society is a fair deal.

I do not think so, that Dash goes down under $80. I guess with this step, Dash goes like a central bank and would have a potential of $1000 and more ... already this year.
It sounds crazy, but is currency for the miner and masternodes or for the people?

It is an effect of emergence, like in this xkcd ...
 

Attachments

  • purity.png
    purity.png
    31.5 KB · Views: 106
Last edited:
correct me if I am wrong, but even at 10% we are not utilizing most of the budget, right?

I would not be in favor of a change.
 
...
Nobody will accept a currency that enriches those, who already have a lot.
...
Well, I think that early adopters ("who have a lot") should have higher reward for higher risk they took at the start of the project. Remove that incentive and welcome back to USSR or North Korea. Also, IMO nobody would really care if network "enriches" someone else (which it actually doesn't, it simply pays for provided services in a decentralized manner). If network can do smth people need i.e. transfer value faster, cheaper and in more convenient and secure way than ever before, they will simply use it.

...
The increased budget could fund culture, theater, library, research and infrastructure which neglected and under-funded by conventional governments.
...
Governments collect taxes from people and then fund all these things for them, at least it supposed to work this way, more or less. I can hardly see how even this system is fair, I would rather pay for such services directly instead of paying taxes, but anyway, let's pretend it is. What you propose is to tax all Dash users via inflation for the benefits of some other random people, which is even more unfair model imo. I really doubt that any significant number of MN owners/miners/general users would agree to spend network resources this way. I definitely won't personally.
 
Well, I think that early adopters ("who have a lot") should have higher reward for higher risk they took at the start of the project. Remove that incentive and welcome back to USSR or North Korea. Also, IMO nobody would really care if network "enriches" someone else (which it actually doesn't, it simply pays for provided services in a decentralized manner). If network can do smth people need i.e. transfer value faster, cheaper and in more convenient and secure way than ever before, they will simply use it.
You didnt take any risk. The risk was taken by satoshi. You just copied his code, and the code of bitcoin, and you did some relatively small changes.
So you didnt work a lot, and you didnt take a big risk. At least not as big as the money you claim you deserve.


Governments collect taxes from people and then fund all these things for them, at least it supposed to work this way, more or less. I can hardly see how even this system is fair, I would rather pay for such services directly instead of paying taxes, but anyway, let's pretend it is.
The tax system is not philanthropy. It is obligation. And it is a social thing. Can you pay direclty the services of your own protection? Are you kidding me? Have you ever imagine how much your protection costs? I mean the army, the coastal guard, the police, do you imagine how much they will cost for you? Thats why you pay the taxes, in order to be secure in your own home, in your own town, in your own country.
 
Can you pay direclty the services of your own protection? Are you kidding me? Have you ever imagine how much your protection costs? I mean the army, the coastal guard, the police, do you imagine how much they will cost for you?

Yes, I did and I do pay. And yes, I know how much does it costs and what part of the "state defence budget" is actually used to defend the payers.
 
Well, I think that early adopters ("who have a lot") should have higher reward for higher risk they took at the start of the project. Remove that incentive and welcome back to USSR or North Korea. Also, IMO nobody would really care if network "enriches" someone else (which it actually doesn't, it simply pays for provided services in a decentralized manner). If network can do smth people need i.e. transfer value faster, cheaper and in more convenient and secure way than ever before, they will simply use it.


Governments collect taxes from people and then fund all these things for them, at least it supposed to work this way, more or less. I can hardly see how even this system is fair, I would rather pay for such services directly instead of paying taxes, but anyway, let's pretend it is. What you propose is to tax all Dash users via inflation for the benefits of some other random people, which is even more unfair model imo. I really doubt that any significant number of MN owners/miners/general users would agree to spend network resources this way. I definitely won't personally.

I will explain my thoughts a little more:

In my point of view, we make a mistake when we consider Dash as a payment service or stock. We should use Dash rather than an economic or solidarity community.

It is hard to understand how value comes in a fiat currency (money from nowhere). Finally Dolla, Euro, Bitcoin or Dash could be copied. For most economists it is still a mystery, why Bitcoin has a value.

How become value in a fiat currency? This is a mystical process. This is dismantled in Goethe's Faust II: ( http://www.thewire.ch/en/abstrakt/no-5---geld-ist-tot-lang-lebe-geld/zur-herkunft-und-zukunft-des-geldes-von-burkhard-varnholt or german: https://deutscherarbeitgeberverband.de//aktuelles/dav_aktuelles_2014-03-10_money-matters.html )
It is the capture of commodity trade and the faith. At the German reunification in 1990, at the time everyone in Eastern Germany got a welcome money gift. This was not a problem, because the economic space expand. If we give some Dash to people, who do not have and believe the value of Dash is rising, they will not back-trade it to local fiat and the course is stable. When Dash is distributed far enough, people will begin to trade commodity with Dash. This increases the price of Dash and the local Fiat currency is falling down. This creates an enormous demand of Dash and the course explodes. This is an extremely evil trick. We can do this, because we know, Dash will be become free scalable with Dash-Evolution.

In the end, the question arises: What is the inner value of Dash?
This is the funding policy. That is why we should not simply give away Dash. We should distribute Dash where local governments fail.

There is still the question of what the intrinsic value of fiat currencies is. Taxes and fees are payable in these currencies. But there is something more. It is difficult to understand. For the Dollar, the Euro and the Pound it is the Pentagon and for Ruble it is the Kremlin. But to explain this would lead to far. If you are interested, you can read here: http://evonomics.com/the-new-confessions-of-an-economic-hit-man-perkins-reality/

The funding system is the key element of Dash. This has created a super strong community and a superior technology in the cryptocurrency market. I think we should expand this. Maybe not today, but before we launch Dash-Evolution.

In my opinion, Dash should not be a stock but cash. And cash gets value with cash flow. This is the trick and it is generated with the funding system. Without cash flow, Dash has no value, only speculation.
 
Last edited:
I think that once "savings" accounts are implemented, it will open up a lot of opportunities for everyone and this will be a non-issue. Our budget is already outpacing our needs. We don't need more funding, and coins are simply not going to be produced and thus, the number of coins avalible will be reduced, centralizing the coin even more.

No, you are not thinking through the economics of such a move. Your suggestion would make the situation worse I'm afraid. And in fact, I don't hink we have a bad situation in the first place.

RE: above

No, absolutely not, IMO. I'm here for currency competition. Please read Hayek https://mises.org/library/choice-currency-0 . It's simply not what I signed on for. I'm a libertarian, I see this as a product, all money is a product monopolized by governments and thus manipulated and ruined.

There is nothing "fair" in life and none of us would be doing this if we didn't have motives. My motives are to take power from the government and give it back to the people, and to survive and possibly thrive at the end of all this.

If others started out in a better position and bought Dash and if Dash is successful, they become the richest people in the world, well BRAVO to them! Thanks for your support !!! You're AWESOME! The world will be a better place because YOU chose to put your faith in Dash!
 
Last edited:
Well, as you know about the recent DDos attack. It will be better to make sure the MN operator have resources to make sure they provide best service to the network. Especially when evolution comes out. Reducing the reward simply weak the 2-tear network.

And about the inner values of DASH (not only DASH but also Bitcoin) is consensus. There is a group of people think it is valuable. Then it is valuable. The more people think that way,the more valuable it will be.

I will explain my thoughts a little more: ......This is the funding policy. That is why we should not simply give away Dash. We should distribute Dash where local governments fail.

About the funding policy part, I would not mind if an NGO submit a proposal to sponsor their campaign to help homeless people or similar things. But at this moment I didn't see any pre-proposal about that.

使用Tapatalk 發送
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did and I do pay. And yes, I know how much does it costs and what part of the "state defence budget" is actually used to defend the payers.

The security that the state offers you is not only the one nearby your home. There are layers of security. The first layer is the state which protects you from the other states. The second layer is the coastal and the border guards, and the navy, which protects you from someone who wants to maliciously enter into your state in order to cause damages. The navy also protects the commerce routes, without those routes and without some key products that are imported, your economy may collapse, and this is also related to your security. Then comes the police, which protects not only your life, but also your whole fortune, all the the money you have into the bank ( in the absence of police, even the banker may steal you!), and all the commodities you own, and all the real estate you own. Then here comes the whole juridical system, the judges and the laws, which command the federal and the local police.

Can you live without all those layers of security? If yes , then why dont you go to somalia or to syria? Do you imagine how much all those security layers cost? Can you afford to pay all this by yourself? It is so much money that not even Bill Gates can pay them in order to protect himself.

It is obvious that you cannot afford to pay yourself for your own security, and thats the reason you pay taxes, and everybody pays taxes. And thats why what @UdjinM6 just said "I would rather pay for such services directly instead of paying taxes" is tottaly naive. Not even Bill Gates can afford to pay the cost directly for the protection services. Not to mention of course all the rest services, like the education, the roads , the health system e.t.c..

If after all the above arguments you insist of paying for such services directly instead of paying the taxes, then go to somalia or to syria, or somewhere where there is a total absense of the above security layers. Test there whether your theory about taxes is correct, and if you will manage to survive then come here and tell us your story.
 
Last edited:
I would rather pay for such services directly instead of paying taxes, but anyway...
How is it that the Russian Hacker is more American than any American?

DASH is money, not a government, not a charity... I've never seen handouts motivate a person to improve themselves.

Distribute DASH? Are you people retarded?
 
@demo, thank you for an unrequested "state 101" lection. Judging from it, I know the stuff better.

Also, why are you keep asking questions if you don't read the answers?

If yes , then why dont you go to somalia or to syria?

Because I live in Ukraine and we've rebuild our army from scratch in 2014 when Russia attacked us and occupied part of Ukraine.

Enough offtopic, I'm here to develop, not to have statist discussions or political flame.
 
Back
Top