Another "sell your Dash and the problem is solved" answer :/
Lowering masternode collateral to 100 pre proposal
- Thread starter MizzyMax
- Start date
Sorry, I was only saying that because I think the implications of what you are saying are far greater than you realise. A lot of long term dash users have come to realise that core are quietly working on things that address some of the issues you talk about.
Your experience of who you met is irrelevant. That's bar talk. That's why a branch called sociology exists and studies that kind of stuff so they can make objective conclusions on more than just a few observations from @camosoul during his sunday walk. Please, bring some studies that support your claims.
M
MangledBlue
Guest
The thing some of you folks don't UNDERSTAND, it that WE [some of us here] ARE part of the community that has been HERE FOREVER!!!
A decision was made and you were not here - cry me a fucking river - BOO HOO!!! BITCHES!!!
1000 DASH per Masternode is the NORM - DEAL WITH IT !!!
AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN - ...............................
I WILL ALWAYS VOTE NO FOR THIS TYPE OF PROPOSAL !!!!
IF YOU WANT A MASTERNODE - THEN BUY ONE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DID!!!!
UNDERSTAND .....
- WE ARE HERE FOREVER !!!
- TILL DEATH, WE ARE HODLING !!!
[edit] - you can troll me all you want @MizzyMax - IT WON"T CHANGE A THING !!!!
A decision was made and you were not here - cry me a fucking river - BOO HOO!!! BITCHES!!!
1000 DASH per Masternode is the NORM - DEAL WITH IT !!!
AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN - ...............................
I WILL ALWAYS VOTE NO FOR THIS TYPE OF PROPOSAL !!!!
IF YOU WANT A MASTERNODE - THEN BUY ONE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DID!!!!
UNDERSTAND .....
- WE ARE HERE FOREVER !!!
- TILL DEATH, WE ARE HODLING !!!
[edit] - you can troll me all you want @MizzyMax - IT WON"T CHANGE A THING !!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, it's been a while I hadn't seen somebody getting that crazy and agressive instead of calmly talking. Seeing such few of this kind of behavour actually reminded me on how respectfull and open-minded community we are. I actually think that is one of our greatest strenght, tolerance and respect of the other's idea !
Thanks everyone !
Thanks, I was hoping to just raise awareness on this topic really. Not to get completely bashed.
But I just wanted to share that masternode shares isn't as appealing as it may seem. And that there are other options or routes we can take instead. That's all I wanted to share and get us thinking about.
It's alright we are cool and I understand, fixing how masternodes work is a pretty big task it's not like flicking a switch and I totally agree. But my point is we shouldn't waste time on creating masternode shares if the system really doesn't work great and has flaws that would need constant work and will never be perfect. Our time would be so much better spend finding other solutions i think.
I thought maybe if we happen to come up with a good possible solution for decentralizing nodes that is agreed upon by the majority, we would simply put in a proposal and allow masternodes to vote on it. if it passes we hope that core changes their game plan and creates a better solution.
Always remember the Dash community is always the ones running the show. If we see something we want changed altered or done we can always propose these things to the network to control how these groups develop if necessary.
I just thought it was a very good point to bring up to discuss and needed some thought put into it before we go down the wrong route possibly.
You're right. From what I hear it will be in due time.
The challenge is timeline. You said perfect, and I agree. That takes time to make the best solution with the best economic incentives possible, and I hear with Evolution that will be the case.
So to summarize, yes there might be a problem, yes a solution would be good. In this case, the solution is probably simply to wait.
No, and you either misunderstanding or twisting my words.
My point is that everyone has a voice and voting power. Even if it's not encoded in the protocol.
No, it's not an obvious problem, because at least one person - me - doesn't see the problem.
With evolution a saving type account will be possible. You will be able to get a return on your Dash
I think if you have more than 100 Dash you should be able to vote, but your vote would of course be counted at 1/10 of a masternode vote.
I would not vote for any change in payouts at this time nor would I vote for a change in collateral requirement.
As always, thanks for raising the issue!
I think if you have more than 100 Dash you should be able to vote, but your vote would of course be counted at 1/10 of a masternode vote.
I would not vote for any change in payouts at this time nor would I vote for a change in collateral requirement.
As always, thanks for raising the issue!
I don't like all-caps. I don't like the argument from "it's always been that way" so we can't change it.
I do like this quote:
I do like this quote:
I have been a MNO for years. I bought in a $2. Watched the price hit $200 and I am still holding. I will not be going anywhere any time soon
Yea the problem I see is there is 1 vote with 1 masternode. So depending on how others vote within your masternode, your vote could be displaced. But maybe if that vote was casted in another node it might have been a yes.
But totally agree not to change anything yet, it's just so depressing seeing 200 Dash not gaining recognition lol. And crypto is crazy it's the only place anyone could earn 100x on their money like you did haha.
If I don't like coffee shop, I don't visit it or (if it's the only one) I spend less there. I don't lobby for "inclusion" or "fair rights" or any other SJW stuff.
If I don't like something happening in a coffee shop, I discuss this - and most of the time things happen. I don't demand to include myself to a board/owners meetings.
The amount of collateral, required to run Dash Masternode is a technical requirement, related to the number of 2nd tier nodes, required for the network to function properly. Right now we have 4k+ 24/7 collateralized nodes, which is more than enough to handle current load. Masternode owners are incentivised to run those nodes and to manage network budget.
So, what's the goal of lowering the collateral?
If it's technical, publish the reason why the network needs 10x of current amount of nodes.
If it's financial (you'd like to earn %%), then current answer are (centralized) masternode shares and upcoming Evolution savings account.
If it's about "having a voice", then you're heavily underestimating the influence you have got right now: you're more vocal (and influential) than 2/3 of masternodes.
This is funny that not long time ago, there was exactly the same discussion on the Polish forum
Let me repeat my conclusion from that discussion (let me point that this is my private opinion, not an "official" statement of the Core Team member).
I think that the system designed by Evan works PERFECTLY and there is no reason to change it. Let me explain why.
We need smart MN owners, being capable to make wise decisions - I guess this is something to which we all have an agreement. Being MN owner means being an investor but also being responsible for the network development. And this is a big responsibility.
There was a time when MN costed couple of thousands of USD and that was a time when real enthusiasts and visionaries bought their MNs to support the network. At that time the monthly treasury budget was tens of thousands of dollars and majority of people were capable of make decision on how to distribute the budget.
Last months our situation changed. Some people sold their MNs, new investors came and paid much more money for their MNs. Is it bad or unfair? Not at all. This system was never designed to allow everyone become a MN owner at any time. MN owners should have knowledge and experience to manage budgets by making good and wise decisions. At the moment our monthly budget is more than $1M. Could you imagine a person who never owner more than $100k managing $1M+ budgets? In my opinion, we simply need budget managers with a relevant skills, experience and knowledge to develop our network in the right direction.
Let me repeat my conclusion from that discussion (let me point that this is my private opinion, not an "official" statement of the Core Team member).
I think that the system designed by Evan works PERFECTLY and there is no reason to change it. Let me explain why.
We need smart MN owners, being capable to make wise decisions - I guess this is something to which we all have an agreement. Being MN owner means being an investor but also being responsible for the network development. And this is a big responsibility.
There was a time when MN costed couple of thousands of USD and that was a time when real enthusiasts and visionaries bought their MNs to support the network. At that time the monthly treasury budget was tens of thousands of dollars and majority of people were capable of make decision on how to distribute the budget.
Last months our situation changed. Some people sold their MNs, new investors came and paid much more money for their MNs. Is it bad or unfair? Not at all. This system was never designed to allow everyone become a MN owner at any time. MN owners should have knowledge and experience to manage budgets by making good and wise decisions. At the moment our monthly budget is more than $1M. Could you imagine a person who never owner more than $100k managing $1M+ budgets? In my opinion, we simply need budget managers with a relevant skills, experience and knowledge to develop our network in the right direction.
I think it would be helpful for everybody if core could define in clear plain text what dash is, what it will become and how to get there. In their own perception and vision. I have a feeling a lot of people have their own thoughts about this and reason from that. Clarity is essential for making the right decisions and constructive discussions.
We should first hammer out what we are and what we should be doing.
This would make discussions about what we would like to change more effective, help judge proposals and get everybody on the same train.
Thanks for all your work.
Who wouldn't want to lobby for fair rights? Remember how the blacks had no rights? They protested along side Marthan Luther king. And you can bet they didn't say well this is impossible back to Africa we go lol. No they were not going to leave just because they kept getting shut down. They started a movement. Without that movement, there would have been no black president (highest position in the government system).
In the example of Dash, if we want to seem appealing to rich people, we only let rich people vote and receive incentives. If we want to be accepted by the common wealth we need them to have the same rights. Without voting power for the common wealth, we create a currency meant for only rich to use. They will only pass and implement features that benefit them selves.
For example as I have said, I don't think the node network now will ever decrease the 45% network payout they receive because then the people who can't own a node become stronger. If it's completely decentralized and everyone owns a node it becomes of equal incentive to possibly vote to lower it for whatever reason.
The reason for more nodes is to allow more of the network to become involved in voting and incentives. Currently there is a masternode owner out there that owns 95 nodes. His power is immense with proposals averaging about 600-700 votes usually. With decreasing the node price it will lower his direct influence on proposals because there are more votes submitted.
And why would you like a centralized system of shares? Crypto is all about becomeing decentralized.
Actually @MizzyMax you have great points here, set me to thinking about MinorNode, or a PreNode, where Minor = 10% cost of a Master, and a PreNode works like a growth fund, So it cost 10% of MinorNode, with a 50/50 split on income half into the pot to fund a MinorNode, and Half into your wallet. Then you use these vehicles to work toward a MasterNode i.e 10 x MinorNodes can be sold out to buy a MasterNode.
That's a huge set of misconceptions. You should probably re-read what @akhavr just wrote - this is not about being fair or not, this is simply about how things actually work. I'll try to expand on that a little.
First of all, Dash is not about being a fair or a democratic voting system, Dash is about building the best decentralized payment network where techs and incentives are properly aligned. We don't need a lot of people to vote, we need the most incentivized of them to do so. Decision rights are for those who have the greatest stakes, so that they also have a huge financial risk for making the wrong decision. If stakes/risks are low, bad decisions are more likely to happen because a financial impact of such a decision might be not that significant.
Moving further... You don't use a product because you suddenly receive decision rights on how to develop a better version of it or where should the company that produced it spend the money. You use it because you have no choice (that is the only product you can use, like say your fiat money or a product of some monopoly in your area) or you use it because it's the one that suits your needs the best way possible (e.g. if you need a smartphone, you choose the one on Android because you need to have root access, or you chose the one with the most convenient design, or the cheapest one etc). But you get no decision rights because of the fact that you use it - you do not decide how to change mobile OS, or phone design, or shipping prices, only the company that produces this specific product decides. Dash is clearly not a monopoly, it tries to build the product which is easy to use i.e. the most convenient. And so, the same idea applies here as well, the fact that you simply use Dash gives you no decision rights about its future or how to spend the budget. You still can influence it indirectly however: if you don't like Dash - just stop using it and use smth else which is presumably better in some sense already or you think it could become better than Dash in the future. It's really easy to switch to another asset these days. If enough users are going to do this, that would be a clear signal to MNOs that they are probably making too many wrong decisions (or maybe not making right ones at all). Or you can make a proposal and influence Dash's future this way, there is no need to be a MNO to submit a proposal.
And finally, "MNOs are only going to vote for features for themselves"... I think you need to understand how incentives and consensus really work. The idea that shareholders who make decisions about the product design and how to spend company's money are going to design the product for themselves and going to be the only ones who are using it is simply wrong. Such company would end up nowhere but bankrupt and shareholders are going to loose all the money. The whole point of any company is to build the product which many people _outside_ of the company will find useful. If MNOs or miners are going to use their power to build a product which suits them only and nobody else, then Dash is not going anywhere, we are done here, nothing to see, everyone can go home right now. Fortunately that's not how it works. Every group I mentioned do have some extreme conditions in which they could increase their income or influence in a short period of time if they don't count everyone else. However, since they can't exist without each other (and without exchanges, community, devs too) they have to come to a compromise which moves _everyone_ forward (i.e. consensus). So the real incentive here is not to maximize your income or influence at all cost, but rather to find and follow the best solution that suits majority. That's why miners upgraded when they were asked to share their income with masternodes (slowly increasing their piece of block reward, starting from 20%). That's why both miners and masternodes upgraded when they were asked to share parts of their income with the budgeting system aka treasury (and btw, masternodes went from initially scheduled 60% of block reward down to 45%). Both upgrades required old "privileged" party to sacrifice some of their current or future income in order to move network to the next level. Both upgrades clearly were right decisions in the long term, even though in the short term they looked like quite a serious loss for some particular group. Both upgrades clearly were beneficial to end users who had no masternodes btw.
(Everything in bold is the import points)This is funny that not long time ago, there was exactly the same discussion on the Polish forum
Let me repeat my conclusion from that discussion (let me point that this is my private opinion, not an "official" statement of the Core Team member).
I think that the system designed by Evan works PERFECTLY and there is no reason to change it. Let me explain why.
We need smart MN owners, being capable to make wise decisions - I guess this is something to which we all have an agreement. Being MN owner means being an investor but also being responsible for the network development. And this is a big responsibility.
There was a time when MN costed couple of thousands of USD and that was a time when real enthusiasts and visionaries bought their MNs to support the network. At that time the monthly treasury budget was tens of thousands of dollars and majority of people were capable of make decision on how to distribute the budget.
Last months our situation changed. Some people sold their MNs, new investors came and paid much more money for their MNs. Is it bad or unfair? Not at all. This system was never designed to allow everyone become a MN owner at any time. MN owners should have knowledge and experience to manage budgets by making good and wise decisions. At the moment our monthly budget is more than $1M. Could you imagine a person who never owner more than $100k managing $1M+ budgets? In my opinion, we simply need budget managers with a relevant skills, experience and knowledge to develop our network in the right direction.
Can we agree that any person who bought Dash is smart? Obviously right we can't ignore that fact. You cannot say your not smart because you didn't buy "enough" Dash. How smart a person is does not solely depend on their wealth status within Dash.
"There was a time when MN costed couple of thousands of USD and that was a time when real enthusiasts and visionaries bought their MNs"
Every Dash owner sees our vision correct? If they didn't they wouldn't have invested. Also back then the node price to revenue price wasn't as big of a gap as it is today. Right now nodes make about 1.5k a month for just running a $10 a month server. The amount given to masternodes vs the amount of service they provide is extremely high and over paid for. Also these "smart" master nodes don't even use their voting privileges seeing that only approximately less than 1/4 of nodes ever end up even voting for proposals. We are handing money out to people who don't help the network out at all with numbers like this.
You compare masternode payout to miner payout, the miners buy more expensive equipment and are using up a ton of electricity. Now I see their payout as fair given that they are actually providing a service for us and upkeeping machinery to keep our blockchain going.
Also because of this huge gap in service vs payout masternodes can continue to sweep up everyone's Dash. masternodes are able to completely take over the network eventually having 8000 nodes owning 99% of the coins and 500000+ users owning 1% of the coins. This creates a capitalist society where nodes will end up owning everything. We don't want a capitalist society within Dash.
Allowing everyone to vote and receive the full percent incentives nodes currently do is huge. when a Cryptocurrency owner realizes he can actually have a vote on how his Cryptocurrency changes and adapts to the environment is one of our biggest strengths we could have!! It allows the user to feel like he is in full control of how his own currency will grow and what it will focus to be used for. Currently we are missing 1/3+ of consensus which are non masternode owners who are just hoping that the other 2/3 choose what they see as bringing value to Dash. Because they have no vote or say they might leave because of a proposal the other 1/3 could have swayed the opposite way. It just not right to pick and choose who has voting rights and who doesn't.
For mass adoption everyone must have the rights that are currently only given to masternodes. Would you like to be apart of a currency/society that thinks you are not intelligent enough to make a decision because you aren't rich enough? I certainly wouldn't and I'm sure the general population wouldn't either. In the end the people are your main source of income not your Masternodes. we are aiming to become a globally used currency everyone can use, everyone should have a vote as well.
Equal rights for all Dash owners
Yesss! This is a great idea and exactly the type of feedback I was hoping for.
I really like this idea and I think you might have solved the problem here. Possibly to expand on your idea, you could start a node off at 10 Dash and at every multiple of 10 you can upgrade your node. Still on the same server you originally had. So you can own a 10 Dash node,20,30,40,50 etc. with every upgrade come a larger reward. with this in mind it could even allow current multiple masternode owners to save money, running it all on the same server instead of multiple ones.
If it's possible to choose how much is rewarded to each different type of node then we definitely found a possible solution that would allow for much greater decentralization of the network. And would allow for personal resources to be used more efficiently.
In your current government you vote right? You use their currency right? Im sorry to say but Dash is not a company, it's a currency. There should be no private party that holds private meetings on how our budget should be spent. We see this now with hired officials who make plans for the people and the people don't want it.
It is much easier to allow all users to vote, then to only allow 4500(or less given some own multiple nodes) users to vote. Big reason why is maybe one of those 4500 node owners, 70% of them are over the age of 45. This could happen btw. Now with the majority of node owners over the age of 45 do you think they are going to vote accordingly with what a 20-25 year old would like from Dash? Maybe those 20-25 year olds make up 50% of our users. Now we just lost them.
There are many things that can happen that's just a small statistical example. In the end why shouldn't everyone have a collateralized vote that is given to the network. We all have opinions, why should we allow a centralized authority make the decision for us.
Btw that Marther luther king example was me saying I'm not just going to leave Dash because you don't agree with me. I can voice my opinions as much as I want, as long as I know I'm making a statement for something I feel is right, I'm going to keep to it until you all realize I'm right lol. And this is the only currency where any people have the power to make a change in network. So I'm here forever guys
I am not too concerned about a voter's IQ (there is no way to restrict voting based on this). But there is a difference between a person determining that Dash is a good investment (anyone could do this), versus having experience managing wealth or being successful at making larger business decisions.
Please, spell out who's "we"?
Equal rights for all Dash owners
The moment every dash owner will get equal rights, I'll exit.
Hey @MizzyMax ,
In what you write, you make few completely wrong assumptions (and manipulate a lot, but I don't care). Let me share my opinion on that:
1. We can't agree that any person who bought Dash is smart. Buying Dash won't make anyone smart or dumb. People have different reasons to buy and in many cases it has nothing to do with being smart or not.
2. Not every Dash owner sees our vision. I know many who don't care about the vision at all. Many speculators simply buy and sell to earn money.
3. The cost of running of the MN vs. income has nothing to do with the lowering MN collateral.
4. We don't need more hashing power from miners - network is secured more than enough
5. The theory that masternodes are able to completely take over the network is just a theory. What would be the price of 1 Dash when we would have even 6000+ MNs? How do you think? $100k?
6. "We don't want a capitalist society within Dash." - please speak on your behalf. Who are "we"?
7. For mass adoption we don't need any rights given to everyone except the right to buy, sell and use Dash.
8. Dash is not a political system like democracy. This is a finance and IT project at the end of the day. Is everyone qualified enough to drive IT or finance project?
9. "Equal rights for all Dash owners" - As a child I was living in a country where everyone was equal (in theory of course) and had so called "equal rights". I hope I would't experience that again. Ever...
Why do you think owners of big companies hire very qualified and experienced managers and pay them a lot of money to drive their companies? According to your theory it would be much easier to give every employee a power to make a vote and let them drive the company. Why do you think it is not happening?
PS. Yes, you are wrong. Before starting "revolution" it would be good to know well what are we doing here. I strongly encourage you to educate yourself and understand our goals and foundations.
In what you write, you make few completely wrong assumptions (and manipulate a lot, but I don't care). Let me share my opinion on that:
1. We can't agree that any person who bought Dash is smart. Buying Dash won't make anyone smart or dumb. People have different reasons to buy and in many cases it has nothing to do with being smart or not.
2. Not every Dash owner sees our vision. I know many who don't care about the vision at all. Many speculators simply buy and sell to earn money.
3. The cost of running of the MN vs. income has nothing to do with the lowering MN collateral.
4. We don't need more hashing power from miners - network is secured more than enough
5. The theory that masternodes are able to completely take over the network is just a theory. What would be the price of 1 Dash when we would have even 6000+ MNs? How do you think? $100k?
6. "We don't want a capitalist society within Dash." - please speak on your behalf. Who are "we"?
7. For mass adoption we don't need any rights given to everyone except the right to buy, sell and use Dash.
8. Dash is not a political system like democracy. This is a finance and IT project at the end of the day. Is everyone qualified enough to drive IT or finance project?
9. "Equal rights for all Dash owners" - As a child I was living in a country where everyone was equal (in theory of course) and had so called "equal rights". I hope I would't experience that again. Ever...
Why do you think owners of big companies hire very qualified and experienced managers and pay them a lot of money to drive their companies? According to your theory it would be much easier to give every employee a power to make a vote and let them drive the company. Why do you think it is not happening?
PS. Yes, you are wrong. Before starting "revolution" it would be good to know well what are we doing here
. I strongly encourage you to educate yourself and understand our goals and foundations.
@MizzyMax
Our model has nothing to do with any kind of "social fairness"/"inclusion"/"diversity"/etc. Protocol doesn't care about your race/age/sex/geographic location/political preferences/etc. Those who bought masternodes and kept them running since earlier days took enormous investment risk not to mention all tech difficulties they went through, but in return they've got better risk/reward and "voting power"/"coin price" ratios comparing to those who joined later at more stable stage and higher price levels. Yes, no "social fairness" or whatever, just a simple working (capitalist) incentive model.
Our model has nothing to do with any kind of "social fairness"/"inclusion"/"diversity"/etc. Protocol doesn't care about your race/age/sex/geographic location/political preferences/etc. Those who bought masternodes and kept them running since earlier days took enormous investment risk not to mention all tech difficulties they went through, but in return they've got better risk/reward and "voting power"/"coin price" ratios comparing to those who joined later at more stable stage and higher price levels. Yes, no "social fairness" or whatever, just a simple working (capitalist) incentive model.
If we lowered the collateral by 10x, current owners would have to increase their MN count by 10 to maintain the same return. The cost and effort that would go into running an additional 10 servers wouldn't be worth it. I'd rather just vote for increased standardized server requirements than vote to increase the number of servers at this point.
Also, if you want to run a MN for much much less, look into pivx or crown. They're the same idea (copy paste) as Dash.