I have no issues with trying to improve the tokenomics. I very much want to see a vastly more inclusive system.
With the previous proposal to reduce the proposal fee, the technical side was easy; we already know dash has the technical capacity to deal with more proposals. Playing with the collateral requirements, however, does have technical implications i.e. more nodes to contend with, and that in turn leads to potential propagation and latency issues. For this proposal to win my vote it needs to put the science first and demonstrate comparable speed, latency and quorum stability that we currently enjoy. Only then should we be discussing the pros and cons of collateral tokenomics.
Horizen has 4208 Super nodes and 43923 Secure nodes:
From a technical perspective, I have no idea how Horizen's technology stack compares to dash. Do they have latency issues and is it less important with Secure nodes i.e. perhaps less comparable to dash masternodes? So, although we might draw some inference from Horizen, we need hard data and simulations, not just for today but projected forward when we have 10 or 100 times more users.
Also, Horizen's "democratization" of paid nodes doesn't seemed to of made the slightest difference to how it's perceived. I have never seen anyone compare Horizen's node count to Lightening Network, currently sitting at 29k. So even the tokenomics is questionable. Again, I think we'd get more bang for our buck hiring top notch PR and marketing firms.
Can we ease the burden of Instant Send quorums by implementing a custom version of Avalanche? Again, at this point it's pure conjecture.
So, bottom line:
1. Give us the data, the simulations and the projections to show no negative effect.
2. Demonstrate the benefits for how this "democratization" of masternode collateral will help.
With the previous proposal to reduce the proposal fee, the technical side was easy; we already know dash has the technical capacity to deal with more proposals. Playing with the collateral requirements, however, does have technical implications i.e. more nodes to contend with, and that in turn leads to potential propagation and latency issues. For this proposal to win my vote it needs to put the science first and demonstrate comparable speed, latency and quorum stability that we currently enjoy. Only then should we be discussing the pros and cons of collateral tokenomics.
Horizen has 4208 Super nodes and 43923 Secure nodes:
From a technical perspective, I have no idea how Horizen's technology stack compares to dash. Do they have latency issues and is it less important with Secure nodes i.e. perhaps less comparable to dash masternodes? So, although we might draw some inference from Horizen, we need hard data and simulations, not just for today but projected forward when we have 10 or 100 times more users.
Also, Horizen's "democratization" of paid nodes doesn't seemed to of made the slightest difference to how it's perceived. I have never seen anyone compare Horizen's node count to Lightening Network, currently sitting at 29k. So even the tokenomics is questionable. Again, I think we'd get more bang for our buck hiring top notch PR and marketing firms.
Can we ease the burden of Instant Send quorums by implementing a custom version of Avalanche? Again, at this point it's pure conjecture.
So, bottom line:
1. Give us the data, the simulations and the projections to show no negative effect.
2. Demonstrate the benefits for how this "democratization" of masternode collateral will help.
