An Open Letter From Evan and Ryan Regarding Dash Marketing

Status
Not open for further replies.

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
I remember your posts about mining. And as I already said, the fact that people had wrong assumptions about how mining profitability is going to evolve after market is flooded with ASICs (i.e. underestimated the number of ASICs that can be shipped in a short period of time) has nothing to do with governance. Market is simply reacting as it should: too much of hashpower supply with a fixed mining reward and relatively stable price makes mining not profitable - works as designed, nothing to fix here. If you think that every time mining becomes not profitable (because a lot of people started mining) block reward should be significantly increased to make it profitable again, than I have bad news for you - it doesn't work this way. This would just attract even more miners and would require to inflate the currency even more. And so on. Basically, the moment you'd try to regulate supply to make everyone happy is going to be the end of the currency.
Why the collateral fee of the masternodes is a hardcoded number (1000 dash) and it is not subject of a market negotiation? Why there is a maximum number of Masternodes and you dont let the masternodes to be as many as the market desires? Why you designed this artificial masternodes scarcity?

While you expect others to obey to the market rules, the Mastenodes aristocracy is deliberately designed (by the core team) to be a market protected element of the community. Why the core team designed this protectionism, for the benefit of the masternodes, and against the will (and the interest) of the whole Dash community?

If you really like market freedom, apply it to everyone and do not exclude the masternodes (or yourself. Being a salary paid employee, you are not fully exposed to the market, are you?) from it.
 
Last edited:

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,638
3,538
1,183
Why the collateral fee of the masternodes is not a subject of market negotiation? Why there is a maximum number of Masternodes and you dont let the masternodes to be as many as the market desires? Why you designed this artificial masternodes scarcity?

While you expect others to obey to the market rules, the Mastenodes aristocracy is deliberately designed (by the core team) to be a market protected element of the community. Why the core team designed this protectionism, for the benefit of the masternodes, and against the will (and the interest) of the whole Dash community?

If you really like market freedom, apply it to everyone and do not exclude the masternodes (and yourself, as a salary paid core developer) from it.
Let me put it this way:
Why the total supply is not a subject of market negotiation? Why there is a maximum number of coins and you dont let the coins to be as many as the market desires? Why you designed this artificial coins scarcity?

If you are argueing that we should lower collateral fee to let more people host MNs, then it was already discussed a million times or so. tl;dr: This would change almost nothing. Assuming that we would lower it N times, current MNOs would just have to maintain N time more nodes which is going to bump their expenses ~N times and would also bump related network traffic N times for everyone else. Plus some new MNOs would join too but their number would be relatively small if not negligible. Overall it's going to be the same system with the same distribution of voting power but with higher expenses for everyone. That's why we are aiming to make trustless shared MNs a reality - it's the way to actually include more people in the governance process without bringing additional expenses and unnecessary traffic bloat.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Let me put it this way:
Why the total supply is not a subject of market negotiation? Why there is a maximum number of coins and you dont let the coins to be as many as the market desires? Why you designed this artificial coins scarcity?
You compare the uncomperables. The scarcity of money is unrelated to the scarcity of the masternodes. Some things need to be scarce, while some others dont. I mean , why turn the Masternodes scarce and the collateral fee stable, and not turn the miners scarce and fix the difficulty algorithm so that it will fit to the scarce number of those miners? Do you think the idea of scarce miners is absurd? The same it is with the idea of scarce masternodes.

If you are argueing that we should lower collateral fee to let more people host MNs, then it was already discussed a million times or so. tl;dr: This would change almost nothing. Assuming that we would lower it N times, current MNOs would just have to maintain N time more nodes which is going to bump their expenses ~N times and would also bump related network traffic N times for everyone else. Plus some new MNOs would join too but their number would be relatively small if not negligible. Overall it's going to be the same system with the same distribution of voting power but with higher expenses for everyone. That's why we are aiming to make trustless shared MNs a reality - it's the way to actually include more people in the governance process without bringing additional expenses and unnecessary traffic bloat.
Your approach is not scientific. There is no proof that the masternodes should be 10000 and their collateral fee should be 1000 dash. Prove it in a scientific way. For example dynamicaly and mathematicaly relate the hardcoded numbers (10000 and 1000) to the needed (by the community) bandwidth or to the needed (by the community) transactions load, and you may convince me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Checkerama

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,263
1,130
1,183
That's why we are aiming to make trustless shared MNs a reality
I'm concerned that increasing granularity will return us to hoardcoin levels of illiquidity.

The deliberately large chunks needed, and the hurdle of requiring trust in the current model, are the barriers to entry that maintain duffs in a liquid state.

I understand the objective, but it seems to ignore the trade-off that comes with it... The easier it becomes to hoard, the less will be liquid... The whole point is that it's not easy to hoard 1000 DASH, thus, smaller amounts remain liquid.

If you make it so that smaller amounts can be tied up just the same... It becomes staking, and nobody will spend.

Wasn't DASH Digital Cash? Instead, it becomes a hodl/hoard that creates more of itself instead of merely going up in fiat valuation... Same result of not being used as Digital Cash, but by a different failure mode.

It already is trustless; if you have the appropriately large chunk. The trust model of shares is a feature, not a bug. It's not supposed to be that easy...

We had this discussion way back when MNs were invented. 1000 was chosen exactly and because of what I just said. Is this yet another category in which DASH has lost it's way? Did you forget?
This would change almost nothing.
No, it would drastically alter the thing nobody wants to talk about anymore, which was the very reason for the choice when MNs were invented. The impact on MN participation and vote dynamics wouldn't change much, but liquidity would shrink to nearly nothing. It'll be PeerCoin all over again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GrandMasterDash

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,638
3,538
1,183
I'm concerned that reducing granularity (increasing duff resolution) will return us to hoardcoin levels of illiquidity.

The deliberately large chunks needed, and the hurdle of requiring trust in the current model, are the barriers to entry that hold duffs in a liquid state.

I understand the objective, but it seems to ignore the trade-off that comes with it... The easier it becomes to hoard, the less will be liquid... The whole point is that it's not easy to hoard 1000 DASH, thus, all smaller amounts remain liquid because there's no advantage in the alternative...
We are thinking about introducing a major/minor share system i.e. to became a masternode some set of shares would have to have at least one major share. And if the major share would be smth like 600 DASH and minor smth like 100 DASH I don't think it would affect the system too much.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
We had this discussion way back when MNs were invented. 1000 was chosen exactly and because of what I just said. Is this yet another category in which DASH has lost it's way? Did you forget?

No, it would drastically alter the thing nobody wants to talk about anymore, which was the very reason for the choice when MNs were invented. The impact on MN participation and vote dynamics wouldn't change much, but liquidity would shrink to nearly nothing. It'll be PeerCoin all over again.
So 1000 dash as a masternode collateral fee, was selected in order to preserve liquidity?
That's interesting, I never thought about it!
But how this 1000 number has been selected? Why not 999 or 1001? Is there any math for it?
Lets say that the masternode collateral fee is reduced to 500 dash, and the masternodes max number remains stable to 10000. Doesn't this increases liquidity?

You missed some important parameters:
In order for liquidity to shrink to nearly nothing, you have to both decrease the masternodes collateral fee AND increase the maximum number of masternodes, AND keep stable (or increase) the masternodes reward payment.

How much to decrease or increase these parameters? Lets vote the numbers of course!
 
Last edited:

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
You missed some important parameters:
In order for liquidity to shrink to nearly nothing, you have to both decrease the masternodes collateral fee AND increase the maximum number of masternodes, AND keep stable (or increase) the masternodes reward payment.

How much to decrease or increase these parameters? Lets vote the numbers of course!
Furthermore, and as long as the above parameters are correlated in order to affect liquidity, you should be able to vote these numbers using sliders.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
I agree, we shouldn't be solely encouraging hoarding. However, having said that, I'm happy with the idea so long as there is a counterweight that encourages spending. Perhaps the hoarding can be linked to merchant discounts in some way?

Spending X at a listed merchant entitles you to save X for Y days?
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
I'm concerned that increasing granularity will return us to hoardcoin levels of illiquidity.

The deliberately large chunks needed, and the hurdle of requiring trust in the current model, are the barriers to entry that maintain duffs in a liquid state.

I understand the objective, but it seems to ignore the trade-off that comes with it... The easier it becomes to hoard, the less will be liquid... The whole point is that it's not easy to hoard 1000 DASH, thus, smaller amounts remain liquid.

If you make it so that smaller amounts can be tied up just the same... It becomes staking, and nobody will spend.

Wasn't DASH Digital Cash? Instead, it becomes a hodl/hoard that creates more of itself instead of merely going up in fiat valuation... Same result of not being used as Digital Cash, but by a different failure mode.


It already is trustless; if you have the appropriately large chunk. The trust model of shares is a feature, not a bug. It's not supposed to be that easy...

We had this discussion way back when MNs were invented. 1000 was chosen exactly and because of what I just said. Is this yet another category in which DASH has lost it's way? Did you forget?

No, it would drastically alter the thing nobody wants to talk about anymore, which was the very reason for the choice when MNs were invented. The impact on MN participation and vote dynamics wouldn't change much, but liquidity would shrink to nearly nothing. It'll be PeerCoin all over again.

YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS someone else that gets it!!!!!!!!
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
So 1000 dash as a masternode collateral fee, was selected in order to preserve liquidity?
That's interesting, I never thought about it!
But how this 1000 number has been selected? Why not 999 or 1001? Is there any math for it?
Lets say that the masternode collateral fee is reduced to 500 dash, and the masternodes max number remains stable to 10000. Doesn't this increases liquidity?

You missed some important parameters:
In order for liquidity to shrink to nearly nothing, you have to both decrease the masternodes collateral fee AND increase the maximum number of masternodes, AND keep stable (or increase) the masternodes reward payment.

How much to decrease or increase these parameters? Lets vote the numbers of course!
While it does liberate half of the currency the MNs already possess, it also increases centralization of masternodes - people who now had 1000 DASH will just turn it to 2 masternodes if they can afford it, and the barrier of entry would be that much easier for others already hoarding their DASH and saving it till they can dump it.

The only way to ensure constant MN rotation is to decrease their reward system by a large amount - theres no reason they should both be winning in both the valuation of their 1000 DASH AND in a 8% return per year of their investment (which right now makes a retardedly large monthly dividend for simply maintaining a server which is, at best, a 100 dollar per month fee)

upload_2017-12-17_18-35-35.png
 
Last edited:

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
...which right now makes a retardedly large monthly dividend for simply maintaining a server which is, at best, a 100 dollar per month fee
Except you forgot to account for the upcoming dedicated hardware, co-location and maintenance costs. Or the redundancy and recovery plan to stay online 24-7 . Trust me, the thought of losing thousands of dollars is a VERY GOOD incentive, not least because dash is competing with other masternode systems.
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,251
794
183
While it does liberate half of the currency the MNs already possess, it also increases centralization of masternodes - people who now had 1000 DASH will just turn it to 2 masternodes if they can afford it, and the barrier of entry would be that much easier for others already hoarding their DASH and saving it till they can dump it.

The only way to ensure constant MN rotation is to decrease their reward system by a large amount - theres no reason they should both be winning in both the valuation of their 1000 DASH AND in a 8% return per year of their investment (which right now makes a retardedly large monthly dividend for simply maintaining a server which is, at best, a 100 dollar per month fee)

View attachment 5554
Everyone who holds dash, not just Masternode operators, reap the benefits of the increasing valuation of their holdings. I think I mentioned in one of the Reddit threads, this year non-masternode dash holders have made roughly 9500% ROI, and masternode operators (and MN share owners) have made about 10300% ROI, because of the additional 7-8%. If you're claiming that something is unfair about the MN payments, the increase (or decrease) in the value of the currency shouldn't be factored in.
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
Everyone who holds dash, not just Masternode operators, reap the benefits of the increasing valuation of their holdings. I think I mentioned in one of the Reddit threads, this year non-masternode dash holders have made roughly 9500% ROI, and masternode operators (and MN share owners) have made about 10300% ROI, because of the additional 7-8%. If you're claiming that something is unfair about the MN payments, the increase (or decrease) in the value of the currency shouldn't be factored in.
Your common sense seems to be off - did you just breeze over the fact you have 1000 DASH locked as well? So that means you're making over twice as much as the average DASH holder (10300 + 9500).
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
Except you forgot to account for the upcoming dedicated hardware, co-location and maintenance costs. Or the redundancy and recovery plan to stay online 24-7 . Trust me, the thought of losing thousands of dollars is a VERY GOOD incentive, not least because dash is competing with other masternode systems.
Right, because the DASH community is going to support equipment that is still theoretical, doesn't exist yet, and hasn't even been priced yet so you could sit with 20,000% ROI for barely doing anything more than sit on more DASH than the average user holds?

Save the mental gymnastics for the olympics, fellers. You aren't going to convince anyone but yourselves that MNO profits are ridiculously high for doing nothing.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,769
1,010
1,183
Right, because the DASH community is going to support equipment that is still theoretical, doesn't exist yet, and hasn't even been priced yet so you could sit with 20,000% ROI for barely doing anything more than sit on more DASH than the average user holds?

Save the mental gymnastics for the olympics, fellers. You aren't going to convince anyone but yourselves that MNO profits are ridiculously high for doing nothing.
Aaah, poor Checkerama. did mummy not buy you a masternode for Christmas? Life so unfair!

But, having said that, if you wasn't so busy sulking about life's inequalities, you'd know there are many other projects with very affordable masternodes. My apologies for throwing mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion.
 

JGCMiner

Moderator
Moderator
Jun 8, 2014
360
211
113
???

Why did this turn into yet another “complain about MN income” thread? Objectively, that is way off-topic. I hope the mods take care of this.

There are other places in the forums where this subject can be discussed.
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,251
794
183
Your common sense seems to be off - did you just breeze over the fact you have 1000 DASH locked as well? So that means you're making over twice as much as the average DASH holder (10300 + 9500).
Why are you adding them?
10300% = how much MNOs made
9500% = how much non-MNOs made
10300/9500 = 8% more, just as to be expected.
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
Why are you adding them?
10300% = how much MNOs made
9500% = how much non-MNOs made
10300/9500 = 8% more, just as to be expected.
*facepalm* because your 1000 DASH is not spent, it is locked, so your 9500% calculation is how much you have also made off of holding your 1000 DASH. the 10300% is simply off of the 8% return per year.
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
???

Why did this turn into yet another “complain about MN income” thread? Objectively, that is way off-topic. I hope the mods take care of this.

There are other places in the forums where this subject can be discussed.
Actually it was a "how do we not allow DASH to turn into a hyperdeflationary currency where everyone simply hoards it" discussion before someone decided they were gonna pull a fast one and try to justify their ridiculous ROIs. I can't allow that.
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
Aaah, poor Checkerama. did mummy not buy you a masternode for Christmas? Life so unfair!

But, having said that, if you wasn't so busy sulking about life's inequalities, you'd know there are many other projects with very affordable masternodes. My apologies for throwing mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion.
I rather not have her buy me a masternode. You're forgiven for the mental gymnastics.
 

Dandy

Member
Mar 1, 2017
276
99
88
44
Belgrade, Serbia
*facepalm* because your 1000 DASH is not spent, it is locked, so your 9500% calculation is how much you have also made off of holding your 1000 DASH. the 10300% is simply off of the 8% return per year.
I'm really not sure at this point if you are just trolling or you just don't understand math at all.

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
I'm really not sure at this point if you are just trolling or you just don't understand math at all.

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk
Then break down the math so you can prove my point.

This is how you calculate ROI:

"Everyone else" holding DASH for a year: 9500% return (supposedly)

But what you're forgetting is that these are holders and are getting no increased value of DASH for their current holdings, so your 10300% valuation of your own profits is only accurate if you had actually paid for the DASH you're proposing to add into your initial 1000 DASH (but you don't - you have it mined and distributed to you)

MNO's: Dollars spent on maintaining the server (at most, $100 a month)

Monthly income: 6.9 DASH/month or 7.5k/month (currently)

ROI = money profited/money SPENT = (90636-1200)/1200 = 74,530% ROI

That's your actual ROI on your investment, people. Holding is not an investment.
 
Last edited:

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,251
794
183
*facepalm* because your 1000 DASH is not spent, it is locked, so your 9500% calculation is how much you have also made off of holding your 1000 DASH. the 10300% is simply off of the 8% return per year.
The 8% is the difference *between* 9500% and 10500%. Masternodes do *not* make twice as much as non-masternode holders. I don't know how else to explain this. Suppose the price of dash went from $10 to $1000. If you bought a masternode, the value of your holdings started at $10,000 and ended at $1,080,000 (1000 dash + 80 dash from the payments). If you bought 1000 dash but did not set up a masternode, then the value of your holdings started at $10,000 and ended at $1,000,000. How is $1,080,000 twice as much as $1,000,000?
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
The 8% is the difference *between* 9500% and 10500%. Masternodes do *not* make twice as much as non-masternode holders. I don't know how else to explain this. Suppose the price of dash went from $10 to $1000. If you bought a masternode, the value of your holdings started at $10,000 and ended at $1,080,000 (1000 dash + 80 dash from the payments). If you bought 1000 dash but did not set up a masternode, then the value of your holdings started at $10,000 and ended at $1,000,000. How is $1,080,000 twice as much as $1,000,000?
You're explaining it too complex - simply put, when you did your calculations, all you did was add the 8% DASH you got into your total 1M so you could dilute the profits youre gaining as a MN, but that is NOT the case at all.

Lets say if someone wanted to buy DASH at its current price of $1000. At $1000, off of my rudimentary estimates for your server upkeep, you could pay maintenance for 10 months. A buyer would earn 1 DASH, and you would earn how many in 10 months? 69?

ROI is not based off of any value gained specifically on the currency, it is based on how much money you input to how much you have returned, and right now, the proportions are ridiculous. For a mere $100 a month and for simply entering when DASH was cheap (except for Dandy who for some reason mortgaged his house for the MN), you now gain ridiculous ROI in perspective of your actual expenditures. No one is gaining almost 7 DASH for a $100 contribution, no matter how you splice it. To add insult to injury, you're also sitting on 1000 DASH that is ALSO gaining the 9500% valuation that you had set for everyone else - so not only are you gaining a ridiculous amount of DASH for a dirt cheap maintenance upkeep, your initial lock is also gaining along with all the holders.

That's how you calculate ROI.
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,251
794
183
You're explaining it too complex - simply put, when you did your calculations, all you did was add the 8% DASH you got into your total 1M so you could dilute the profits youre gaining as an MN, but that is NOT the case at all.

Lets say if someone wanted to buy DASH at its current price of $1000. At $1000, off of my rudimentary estimates for your server upkeep, you could pay maintenance for 10 months. A buyer would earn 1 DASH, and you would earn how many in 10 months? 69?

ROI is not based off of any value gained specifically on the currency, it is based on how much money you input to how much you have returned, and right now, the proportions are ridiculous. For a mere $100 a month and for simply entering when DASH was cheap (except for Dandy who for some reason mortgaged his house for the MN), you now gain ridiculous ROI in perspective of your actual expenditures. No one is gaining almost 7 DASH for a $100 contribution, no matter how you splice it.
You can't have it both ways, if you don't count the currency appreciation as ROI for non-masternode operators, then it shouldn't count for masternodes either. And if you do count it for Masternodes, then you need to include it for non-MNs. The fact is, for the *same* initial investment, after a year of holding, regardless of whether you denominate it in dash or in Fiat, the value of a masternode's holdings will be 8% higher than a non-masternode.
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
You can't have it both ways, if you don't count the currency appreciation as ROI for non-masternode operators, then it shouldn't count for masternodes either. And if you do count it for Masternodes, then you need to include it for non-MNs. The fact is, for the *same* initial investment, after a year of holding, regardless of whether you denominate it in dash or in Fiat, the value of a masternode's holdings will be 8% higher than a non-masternode.
That would only hold true if MNs had bought the accrued 8% additional DASH by buying them at market value, but you didn't - again, you had it distributed to you at dirt cheap prices just for being a 1000 DASH holder. If I hold 500 DASH, I don't get the additional ROI that you do UNLESS i buy more DASH at its current price. MNs don't have to do that. Does no one seriously see a problem here yet? Lol, trickle down economics on steroids.
 

TroyDASH

Well-known Member
Jul 31, 2015
1,251
794
183
No one is gaining almost 7 DASH for a $100 contribution, no matter how you splice it.
No, but a lot of non-masternodes made $10,000 on each of their $100 contributions, and the ones who bought Masternodes made $10,800 on each of their $100 contributions.
 

Checkerama

Member
Aug 16, 2017
142
75
68
29
No, but a lot of non-masternodes made $10,000 on each of their $100 contributions, and the ones who bought Masternodes made $10,800 on each of their $100 contributions.
No, the proper math is you ALSO gained $10,000 on each your own $100 contribution just like every non-MNO, PLUS an additional $7,500 (currently) for every $100 you spent (on server maintenance, lemme know if I can make this number more accurate) thereafter on a monthly basis (with no regard to current DASH prices at any point throughout the year)
 

Dandy

Member
Mar 1, 2017
276
99
88
44
Belgrade, Serbia
That would only hold true if MNs had bought the accrued 8% additional DASH by buying them at market value, but you didn't - again, you had it distributed to you at dirt cheap prices just for being a 1000 DASH holder. If I hold 500 DASH, I don't get the additional ROI that you do UNLESS i buy more DASH at its current price. MNs don't have to do that. Does no one seriously see a problem here yet? Lol, trickle down economics on steroids.
You cannot assume that all MNOs bought Dash when it was cheap. But even if that were the case, that just mean they were smart and recognized the value of Dash early on and now they are making a profit from their forward thinking. I don't see anything wrong with that

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.