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

Reduction of Masternode collateral

xkcd

xkcd

Well-known member
Masternode Owner/Operator
The purpose of this thread is to discuss and gauge community support of lowering the Masternode collateral from 1000 DASH to 500, 250 or 200 DASH.

Pros

  • Reduce friction to becoming a MNO.
  • Increase the decentralisation of the network.
  • Counter the trend of falling MN count from a peak of over 5000 to where it currently is at ~4600.
  • Improve price as people with close to the amount of Dash required, buy a few extra to meet the quota.
  • Negate the need for trustless shared masternodes, since the barrier to owning one outright is greatly reduced.
  • Reduce the risk of centralised MN sharing, eg Crowdnode, since the amount of DASH in there will be far less per individual than otherwise.

Cons

  • Existing MNOs will have to pay more for infrastructure.
  • Network will be larger, maybe too large?
  • Payment cycles would take too long?

Implementation

We would implement this by way of hardfork. At the fork active block, the network would for a period of time honour the existing 1000 DASH masternodes and allow (only) new nodes with the new smaller collateral requirement eg 250 Dash. For a period of time, eg 16616 blocks or better until a spork is switched, the network will run with 1000 D and 250 D nodes in parallel, once enough of the network has cutover to the smaller collateral requirement, DCG will flip the spork and all 1000 D nodes will be POSE banned and eliminated from the network.

To solve the issue of the longer payment queues, there are two approaches,
  1. Relax the POSE system to be more forgiving in the event of an infraction, eg currently the POSE system awards an MN a 2/3 penalty of the number of mnodes in the system, if you get another strike shortly thereafter you will be banned and lose your spot in the payment queue. If we however, make it such that the system awards 1/2 of the number of mnodes, then you can get two strikes in quick succession and still not get banned until the third strike comes. This gives you more time to respond to the issue and resolve it. To make the system more lenient, we could adjust the penalty to 1/3 the number of masternodes and then 3 strikes will not ban you and the fourth will only ban you if it comes in quick succession again giving you more time. Note: this doesn't speed up payments, but lessens the chance of you getting knocked out of the payment queue suddenly.
  2. Pay several MNs in a block. We could make it such that in each block we pay, 2 or 4 or 8 masternodes at a time (my preferred approach) this speeds up the payment cycle, which already is far too long at 8.4 days and reduced the impact of the occasional ban since you only miss out on a few days of pay at most. Drawbacks to this approach is that it makes the coinbase TX quite large, since for each MN there can be 2 payment addresses, + the miner + the superblock winners, it will mean our blocks are slightly larger.
 
As a "new" investor (I've been pretty active in the community) I would love if the collateral would be reduced.

I currently do not own even 200D, actually I own much less than that, but reducing it to 200~ would definitely incentivize me to purchase more so I can get there to run my own node, which honestly is a dream of mine.

I think there's also another advantage that hasn't been mentioned, and that is that a whole lot of Dash could be locked out of exchanges, inevitably driving the price up which would greatly pay current MNs for the extra expenses of running more nodes.

Anyway, PLEASE, lets implement this (or Trustless shares) so new guys like me can come and participate on the network!
 
This is an excellent project, even if there may be some risks. I am so enthusiastic that I will contribute to the fee of the corresponding budget proposal. Let’s submit that great idea to the MNO votes.
 
Great idea! Maybe another option is to introduce tiers like DIVI and Horizon has, where each tier has a different ROI. This way we can keep the 1000 DASH for the existing masternodes and create an incentive for new users / holders to start with a small amount and hold it to create larger nodes.

  • Copper – 50 DASH
  • Silver – 100 DASH
  • Gold – 200 DASH
  • Platinum – 500 DASH
  • Diamond – 1000 DASH
 
FYI : this forum is quite dead (as usually), the main and detailed debate about Xkcd's collateral suggestion is on the “Dash Legion” Discord.
 
Maybe start a discussion thread on the other Discord and on Dashpay Reddit as well.
Also this topic has been briefly discussed in the Dash Economics thread (Temporary Measures / Quick Wins), late December 2019.

G2Jwy9n.jpg

Source : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/temporary-measures-quick-wins.49138/

I think we were back then more or less on the same number of masternodes as today (around 4600).
I don't mind a further discussion of this topic though, specially as this could (possibly) help with the Dash community's wish for trustless masternode shares / trustless masternodes with less then 1000 dash as collateral.

One thing to keep in mind though, those masternode operators that are running servers that have much higher specs then recommended requirements for running a masternode, could after lowering of the Dash collateral just add masternodes without paying additionally for infrastructure.
There could be an unfair element to that.. or not.

On the other hand they would most likely have additional costs for having to register additional ip addresses and there is also the question of what the recommended requirements for running a masternode will be after Dash Platform hits Mainnet.

With regards to more network decentralization by lowering the dash collateral, if those additional masternodes after lowering of the dash collateral mostly comes from additional ip addresses on one server, the network could end up getting more centralized.
 
Last edited:
Would definitely support this but I fear larger holders will not be too keen to double or quadruple the number of nodes they're maintaining. I hope they can see that the potential benefits would outweigh the inconvenience to them, especially the potential for attracting new investors into the network.
 
x5serv said:
Great idea! Maybe another option is to introduce tiers like DIVI and Horizon has, where each tier has a different ROI. This way we can keep the 1000 DASH for the existing masternodes and create an incentive for new users / holders to start with a small amount and hold it to create larger nodes.

  • Copper – 50 DASH
  • Silver – 100 DASH
  • Gold – 200 DASH
  • Platinum – 500 DASH
  • Diamond – 1000 DASH
Click to expand...
This would be perfect! Very achievable for most people to work towards getting more Dash to stake
 
The last thing I want to do is double or quadruple the number of nodes i have to manage. But regardless, there is no way I'm going to vote for such a drastic change. The impact of such change, additional stress on the network etc, can not be fully understood until you do it. What is the plan if it turns out to be a bad idea? Bring it down to 900 and leave it like that for a year, then revisit.
 
This proposal is basically trying to appease those that keep saying 1000 dash is too expensive. NO, it's ALWAYS going to be "too expensive", even at 250 dash. The bigger problem is the widely misinformed perception that the only way to participate is to own a masternode. Most people don't understand you can run a node without having 1000 dash. This proposal would not change that perception at all, it simply means a few more people with a little less money can participate, it's still a pipe dream to those in poor countries.

For all its flaws, and god there are many, people accepted Lightening Network because the perception is anyone can run a node, zero collateral, therefore truly decentralized. This proposal is basically trying to find a middle ground where there is no middle ground. To vote yes on this is to ignore the technical implications and the technical purpose to have 1000 dash in the first place i.e. to create a reputation network that can form a distributed network of quorums.
 
It's the same with Avalanche and eCash, people chasing the idea that to be "decentralized" - not centralized - you have to be open to EVERYONE to participate, that is the publicly held litmus test.

OTOH, there are other blockchains with higher demands than dash yet they don't attract the same negativity. I mean, Solana goes down for 17 hours and no one gives a fuck. Well people SHOULD give a fuck, I mean when it's visa doing that we all point and poke fun. So the problem and answer is in long term marketing, changing perception. This proposal tries to appease some people but could never possibly satisfy everyone. From what I can see, there is no technical merit to this proposal.
 
Last edited:
And no, I'm not going to discord as I don't like the format. I can't be the only one that feels this way.
 
x5serv said:
Great idea! Maybe another option is to introduce tiers like DIVI and Horizon has, where each tier has a different ROI. This way we can keep the 1000 DASH for the existing masternodes and create an incentive for new users / holders to start with a small amount and hold it to create larger nodes.

  • Copper – 50 DASH
  • Silver – 100 DASH
  • Gold – 200 DASH
  • Platinum – 500 DASH
  • Diamond – 1000 DASH
Click to expand...

ZenCash / Horizen is ranked 108, they've been in that ballpark for how long now?

The tiered system can't work because there is no technical solution to divide the same work equally and proportionally. Why should I put down 1000 dash if I'm doing the same work as someone at 50 dash? The only way to do this is to create new dedicated functions for a different network, this I support. I reiterate what I have always said, dash should create a new node type for fast low latency data delivery e.g. streaming services. The masternode network would test and score that network to make it eligible for payments. There is no need to pay those nodes from the treasury because those node operators could be paid from content creators and end users. But i know no one will actually do this because it's far easier to change a number in the source code than it is to do actual work.
 
Another way to do this is to give everyone the power to vote for their favorite MNO. An MNOs voting power would be directly linked to their public support. This would make MNOs more accountable and more closely reflect traditional governance.

I don't think this will ever happen though because it means someone would have to change more than one line of code.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
And no, I'm not going to discord as I don't like the format. I can't be the only one that feels this way.
Click to expand...
You're the only one, even Qwizzie joined under the alias of Anonysuom#6766, if you want to be part of the discussion you have to go where the discussion is being held. There is even a DASH telegram group, though it is administred by a disgusting troll and I hate the single threaded format.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daf
1000 has worked well for Dash's entire existence.

To change something without a motivation that improves the blockchain dash is only to propose a useless change.

That there are 8000 nodes instead of 4000 will not bring anything more interesting to Dash.

If you want to encourage the ownership of Dash, you have to offer the possibility of staking on the wallet.

A kind of decentralized Crownode where a guarantee is provided in Dash that is blocked for a minimum period of, for example, 24 hours, to avoid continuously compromising nodes with constant contributions and withdrawals.

Anyway, I agree with Grandmasterdash.

I think that the problem is the ignorance and lack of interest of DCG, to promote the demand for its product.

They prefer to divert the budget on legal issues and salaries, which have been draining money for years without providing news.

It hurts to see DOGE or LTC so high and this extraordinary coin forgotten because no one has an interest in using it or looking at it anymore.

Just 9000 daily transactions support the existence of Dash.

I will vote No to reduce the dash warranty. I think there are other priorities to address. But obviously, it's just my opinion.

Good luck
 
GrandMasterDash said:
Here are the minimum requirements for running a Solana validator node. Anyone want to take a guess how much it costs to buy / rent such a setup?
Click to expand...
SOLana is centralised hot garbage, not sure why the comparison with DASH, DASH does not have a kill switch like garbage such as SOLana and IOTA do. Moving towards a more decentalised network is broadly speaking a good thing, improving the tokenomics of DASH is also a good thing as we want to drive more investment into DASH, in doing so it makes the DIF more effective, DCG more effective and helps us achieve our overall goal of becoming the best possible crypto money there is.
 
xkcd said:
SOLana is centralised hot garbage, not sure why the comparison with DASH, DASH does not have a kill switch like garbage such as SOLana and IOTA do. Moving towards a more decentalised network is broadly speaking a good thing, improving the tokenomics of DASH is also a good thing as we want to drive more investment into DASH, in doing so it makes the DIF more effective, DCG more effective and helps us achieve our overall goal of becoming the best possible crypto money there is.
Click to expand...

You make my point very clear. That piece of garbage is ranked #8 and somehow grabs more eyeballs than a 7+ year old DAO spending many millions on development. You do actually recognize then that this proposal is not fixing or improving any technical issues. The dash network is, in fact, functioning exactly the way it should.

More so, you accept that this proposal may well change the structure and technical stability of the network. If you don't accept that, prove to us that the dash network can actually withstand a four fold masternode count (possibly more / unknown) and still provide Instant Send within 1.5 seconds without dropping transaction locks / quorums. And even then you have to convince the network that the tokenomics is actually an improvement and demonstrate your theory for doing so is actually correct.
 
HoriZEN has 10x the number of nodes and works perfectly, however, additional modelling would be done with our resident mathamagician to determine the upper limit, for doubling the number of nodes would have no impact. The head in the sand club is strong with this suggestion, I don't see many other people looking for improvements in the tokenomics of the coin. I sure am trying to make DASH more palatable to more people, we want to grow the ecosystem and make it more inclusive and less exclusionary/elitist. As for SOLana, it is popular because it solves a problem for ETH in a centralised way, that problem being trading garbage like NFTs and paying less in fees than would otherwise be required. Here at DASH we have a choice to make, continue work on Evolution a mostly nothing burger in the space, or shut it down and work on something people actually want. That would be another approach for us. The problem is, we don't have the devs/talent to do, and we don't have the ideas. So for now, the simple quick fix is to adjust the tokenomics here and there to make DASH a better store of value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top