Masternodes are 60% of holdings

[demo]

I suspect if evolution comes out with "savings accounts" (i.e. simple UX wrapping around protocol level partial participation in a masternode bond), we might masternode bonds as a proportion of the total supply increase, maybe to 90%. Most people will find it beneficial to "earn interest" by moving Dash to the fore mentioned "savings account", keeping only small amounts in their cash accounts to pay for stuff.

Could you please provide some links on the terminology you are using in the above quote. What is UX wrapping?

 

[Willy Woo]

Could you please provide some links on the terminology you are using in the above quote. What is UX wrapping?

One of the proposed features for Evolution that Evan talks about is having a "Savings Account" where the account holder can move Dash into that type of account and earn interest. In essence the UI is providing a familiar interface to the user (I call that a UX wrapper, hiding the real complexity). What's really happening is the user's wallet is sending Dash to participate partially in a Masternode bond and getting payouts which look like "interest".

 

[demo]

ΝΕW RESULT

Masternodes are 60% of holdings
<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
10% 1 vote(s) 7.1%, 20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%, 30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
40% 1 vote(s) 7.1%, 50% 2 vote(s) 14.3%, 60% 2 vote(s) 14.3%
70% 5 vote(s) 35.7%, 80% 1 vote(s) 7.1%, 90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 2 vote(s) 14.3%
</vote history>
<double vote history> (this vote is hypothetical, I will to create it later but lets fill it with results for the example)
What the selection process of the above (and this one) vote should be?
mean average 7 vote(s) 58%
mode average 5 vote(s) 42% (I assume those who voted 70% they like this selection process)
other 2 vote(s) 0.0%
</double vote history>
<selection process>

• The selection process is currently defined to be the mean average according to the rule :"Each selection process in order to be selected should initialy respect itself, then the most loved selection process is selected "
• The other option has 2 votes and the rest votes are 12. The "other" option is not the most loved one, so a decision can be made.
• The optimal % of dash being locked up in masternodes is currently defined at (10+40+2X50+2X60+5X70+80)/12=58.33%.

</selection process>

In this vote, for the first time in dash history, a double vote of the form <number, selection process> has been used, in order for people to be able to decide without someone to impose the selection process. (actually the correct vote is the "triple vote" <number, selection process, minimum participation percentage> but I will explain this later on) This is yet another practical implementation of vote using numbers.

 

[BenTucker]

Optimal...not sure this can be answered in the arbitrary percentage sense, but perhaps instead in the abstract sense.

Suppose you had 90% locked up in MNs...that would mean 10% was used for "regular commerce", or whatever we want to call it. Advantage of this is like it is with the gold market...it creates some relative level of stability to the price because the gold bugs don't sell at every trading indicator. Reverse that to 90% regular commerce and 10% in MNs, we probably get much wilder price swings, which discourages keeping it locked in MNs to some degree (compared to the flipped percentage in the first example). So, there is likely some tipping point for everyone but true believers in the tech ("Dash bugs") where if not enough is locked in MNs as a percent of the total, the price will fluctuate too wildly, discouraging MN counts from rising unless the number of Dash needed for a MN is reduced, or regular commerce recedes (not a good thing) to come into some equilibrium again with the MN share of the available DASH.

So, we can deduce that there is some moving target based upon several variables, but not some set percentage. Instead, the "optimal" percentage at any moment is the percentage which allows for MN runners who aren't Dash bugs (ride or die) to feel comfortable enough in relative price stability to keep their investment in place, or to add new MNs to that investment (or, alternatively, invest in their first MN due to relative price stability). The other side of this optimal percentage is enough Dash in circulation for regular commerce to keep liquidity high and allow for steady expansion of the user base, but not so low as to mess with liquidity and expansion, but also not so high as to cause relative price instability.

Of course, there are other factors which could change this view of "optimal". For example, if Dash were to implement some Keynesian (oh no!) mechanism like some central bank, where it used some amount of Dash to shift between MNs and Dash available for regular commerce, which would be like a central bank manipulating interest rates and money supply to cause artificial (and unsustainable!) stability, then obviously what it optimal and how to achieve it would change to a degree (as the intervention causes its own unintended consequences - see the failure to peg to the dollar in other crypto projects as a "sort of" example of this failed concept).

So, my answer is: The "optimal" percentage of Dash in MNs versus regular commerce is a moving target that differs from moment to moment, but based upon what I know now about Dash, and what variables I can therefore consider, the optimal percentage is X, where X is neither 0% nor 100%, but some non-zero percentage for both MNs and regular commerce. These two optimal percentages (MNs and regular commerce) are likely to be weighted more toward MNs than regular commerce, based upon how relative price stability is achieved (short and medium term) in present fiat currencies and commodities, like gold. The important considerations are a high enough MNs percentage to create relative price stability and maintain MN investment and facilitate steady growth proportional to user growth, and yet high enough percentage for regular commerce to keep high enough availability to maintain liquidity relative to user growth.

I'd venture a guess that as the project stands, 60% isn't a bad number, and I wouldn't worry at even 70% or 80%. As the user base grows, and the interest bearing accounts in Evolution come into being, the optimal percentage will likely drop, as parking your Dash, like say 100 Dash, will earn you interest like current MNs, so that will perpetuate stability in price naturally, even without the consideration they are indeed a partial MN, for all intents and purposes, at that point. Gold, for example, saw a bottom for the market at about $1050 per troy oz. It has bounced off that bottom and is now at about $1300 an ounce. It's gone to almost $1400, and hasn't (yet) dipped below $1300 since reaching that mark some months ago. At $1050, it was mostly governments and gold bugs holding gold, as it is not used as a form of money much these days (digital fiat or paper/coin fiat are mostly used worldwide). You can relate this to MNs and their holdings. This created price stability, relatively, for gold (hence, the bottom was found and it hasn't approached it since). As more people began to invest in gold after the bottom was in, for panic reasons or for inflation hedging to some degree, the price began to rise, but so did the volatility (as there was a lot more daily trading going on). This added trading and relative price fluctuations can be related to Dash for "regular commerce". What would be optimal, so to speak, for gold, is the same as for Dash, in theory...you want long term holders of gold to reach an equilibrium with short term traders of it to create A) relative price stability and available liquidity no matter how many people use it or not, which will inspire further trust in it and therefore further growth of the market. In other words, the "bugs" and the "users" are locked in a sort of ever-changing balancing act, or dance, and the "optimal" percentage for each is based upon user volume and demand, growth or recession rate in this regard, etc. Assuming we reach such an equilibrium, if more people suddenly want in Dash for just short to medium term commerce uses, then we suddenly need some proportional drop in percentage of Dash stored in MNs (or increase in the speed at which new coins are mined, I guess). If demand suddenly drops from the reached equilibrium, then the percentage stored in MNs need to increase to maintain that optimal price stability, optimal liquidity, and optimal incentives for further proportional investment and growth (and to maintain current investments and growth rate).

Long winded enough?

Honestly, I think the market will regulate this just fine on its own. Unless we see some major liquidity problems, or major growth problems (stalled or recession), or major MN sell-off, I wouldn't worry about it. Just monitor it, find Standard Deviations, establish Confidence Intervals (of say 95% or better), and look for signs of extreme Variance that signal a problem.

 

[Willy Woo]

Ben makes a great point on price stability that MNs offer. I've been bearish on Bitcoin as a payments network as it seems we are like 3-5 years away for it to have price volatility low enough for people to truly hold their coins for spending. I've seen comments around a $40b market cap for Bitcoin to have stability low enough as a store of value for ordinary people.

Likewise I've been nervous about Dash because it's aiming at the payments market at a market cap of below $100m. But the MNs locking up Dash does provide a much needed stabilising function and you can see how the volatility of Dash is much lower than Bitcoin for its given size.

I think >90% is optimal right now to maximise stability but as the market cap grows we can afford to go lower.

I do have a "wait a second" moment here. Does locking away Dash create reduced volatility? Say there's 18m Dash. 18.999999m Dash is locked away. There's only 1 Dash to trade on markets, I don't see how this is stable. I think it would be the distribution of that last Dash among traders and the amount of traders bidding on it that would form the variables in the volatility equation.

 

[demo]

It is wrong to compare dash with gold.
You have to compare dash with fiat money.

So you have to measure the transactions, and not the liquidity.

Dash is not a commodity, it is cash!! If it isnt, then it is a failure.

 

[stan.distortion]

Optimal...not sure this can be answered in the arbitrary percentage sense, but perhaps instead in the abstract sense.

Suppose you had 90% locked up in MNs...that would mean 10% was used for "regular commerce", or whatever we want to call it. Advantage of this is like it is with the gold market...it creates some relative level of stability to the price because the gold bugs don't sell at every trading indicator. Reverse that to 90% regular commerce and 10% in MNs, we probably get much wilder price swings, which discourages keeping it locked in MNs to some degree (compared to the flipped percentage in the first example). So, there is likely some tipping point for everyone but true believers in the tech ("Dash bugs") where if not enough is locked in MNs as a percent of the total, the price will fluctuate too wildly, discouraging MN counts from rising unless the number of Dash needed for a MN is reduced, or regular commerce recedes (not a good thing) to come into some equilibrium again with the MN share of the available DASH.

So, we can deduce that there is some moving target based upon several variables, but not some set percentage. Instead, the "optimal" percentage at any moment is the percentage which allows for MN runners who aren't Dash bugs (ride or die) to feel comfortable enough in relative price stability to keep their investment in place, or to add new MNs to that investment (or, alternatively, invest in their first MN due to relative price stability). The other side of this optimal percentage is enough Dash in circulation for regular commerce to keep liquidity high and allow for steady expansion of the user base, but not so low as to mess with liquidity and expansion, but also not so high as to cause relative price instability.

Of course, there are other factors which could change this view of "optimal". For example, if Dash were to implement some Keynesian (oh no!) mechanism like some central bank, where it used some amount of Dash to shift between MNs and Dash available for regular commerce, which would be like a central bank manipulating interest rates and money supply to cause artificial (and unsustainable!) stability, then obviously what it optimal and how to achieve it would change to a degree (as the intervention causes its own unintended consequences - see the failure to peg to the dollar in other crypto projects as a "sort of" example of this failed concept).

So, my answer is: The "optimal" percentage of Dash in MNs versus regular commerce is a moving target that differs from moment to moment, but based upon what I know now about Dash, and what variables I can therefore consider, the optimal percentage is X, where X is neither 0% nor 100%, but some non-zero percentage for both MNs and regular commerce. These two optimal percentages (MNs and regular commerce) are likely to be weighted more toward MNs than regular commerce, based upon how relative price stability is achieved (short and medium term) in present fiat currencies and commodities, like gold. The important considerations are a high enough MNs percentage to create relative price stability and maintain MN investment and facilitate steady growth proportional to user growth, and yet high enough percentage for regular commerce to keep high enough availability to maintain liquidity relative to user growth.

I'd venture a guess that as the project stands, 60% isn't a bad number, and I wouldn't worry at even 70% or 80%. As the user base grows, and the interest bearing accounts in Evolution come into being, the optimal percentage will likely drop, as parking your Dash, like say 100 Dash, will earn you interest like current MNs, so that will perpetuate stability in price naturally, even without the consideration they are indeed a partial MN, for all intents and purposes, at that point. Gold, for example, saw a bottom for the market at about $1050 per troy oz. It has bounced off that bottom and is now at about $1300 an ounce. It's gone to almost $1400, and hasn't (yet) dipped below $1300 since reaching that mark some months ago. At $1050, it was mostly governments and gold bugs holding gold, as it is not used as a form of money much these days (digital fiat or paper/coin fiat are mostly used worldwide). You can relate this to MNs and their holdings. This created price stability, relatively, for gold (hence, the bottom was found and it hasn't approached it since). As more people began to invest in gold after the bottom was in, for panic reasons or for inflation hedging to some degree, the price began to rise, but so did the volatility (as there was a lot more daily trading going on). This added trading and relative price fluctuations can be related to Dash for "regular commerce". What would be optimal, so to speak, for gold, is the same as for Dash, in theory...you want long term holders of gold to reach an equilibrium with short term traders of it to create A) relative price stability and available liquidity no matter how many people use it or not, which will inspire further trust in it and therefore further growth of the market. In other words, the "bugs" and the "users" are locked in a sort of ever-changing balancing act, or dance, and the "optimal" percentage for each is based upon user volume and demand, growth or recession rate in this regard, etc. Assuming we reach such an equilibrium, if more people suddenly want in Dash for just short to medium term commerce uses, then we suddenly need some proportional drop in percentage of Dash stored in MNs (or increase in the speed at which new coins are mined, I guess). If demand suddenly drops from the reached equilibrium, then the percentage stored in MNs need to increase to maintain that optimal price stability, optimal liquidity, and optimal incentives for further proportional investment and growth (and to maintain current investments and growth rate).

Long winded enough?

Honestly, I think the market will regulate this just fine on its own. Unless we see some major liquidity problems, or major growth problems (stalled or recession), or major MN sell-off, I wouldn't worry about it. Just monitor it, find Standard Deviations, establish Confidence Intervals (of say 95% or better), and look for signs of extreme Variance that signal a problem.

Interesting point of view, could've been even longer winded imho Probably the first time I've seen Keynesian principals mentioned in the land of crypto and not been horrified and outraged too, there does seem to be a natural price stabilising effect from a very small amount of variance in the MN count and there could be something big in figuring out how to encourage and support it.

Something else few seem to realise is the collateral tied up in the masternodes is a huge resource for Dash to tap into at some later date and I've absolutely no doubt the devs are well aware of it. One example is a lending market but that can't really happen until the network is able to quantify risk in some way, the social wallet functions are a step in that direction but basically anything the network can handle that offers a better return than the masternodes can potentially be used to tap into that huge resource, basically more than half of Dashes total market cap.

 

[rustycase]

Here's my interesting number of the week:

60.5% of Dash supply is locked up in masternodes. ​

What would be the optimal healthy range?

I am unsure, yet it would seem to be a good indication of stability.
rc

 

[camosoul]

It meted out as a volume of resource, it could work. But reducing MNs to a fog of Proof of Hoard seems to me, nullifies the ability to enforce Proof of Service... The only thing one could accurately gauge in that environment is storage space...

 

[camosoul]

Ben makes a great point on price stability that MNs offer. I've been bearish on Bitcoin as a payments network as it seems we are like 3-5 years away for it to have price volatility low enough for people to truly hold their coins for spending. I've seen comments around a $40b market cap for Bitcoin to have stability low enough as a store of value for ordinary people.

Likewise I've been nervous about Dash because it's aiming at the payments market at a market cap of below $100m. But the MNs locking up Dash does provide a much needed stabilising function and you can see how the volatility of Dash is much lower than Bitcoin for its given size.

I think >90% is optimal right now to maximise stability but as the market cap grows we can afford to go lower.

I do have a "wait a second" moment here. Does locking away Dash create reduced volatility? Say there's 18m Dash. 18.999999m Dash is locked away. There's only 1 Dash to trade on markets, I don't see how this is stable. I think it would be the distribution of that last Dash among traders and the amount of traders bidding on it that would form the variables in the volatility equation.

I've had this thought as well. Any stabilizing force seem to be brought by proxy of spike discouragement; buy in at any considerable volume and the limited supply will spike you out of your own market order. So don't buy.

For the moment, all it really does is amplify the time and resources needed to manipulate. And for anyone paying attention, that hasn't been super effective for the last month or so...

 

[camosoul]

I am unsure, yet it would seem to be a good indication of stability.
rc

Its a metric of confidence, but a metric to which the typical ponzi-trader is oblivious.

 

[demo]

ΝΕW RESULT

Masternodes are 60% of holdings
<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
10% 1 vote(s) 5.9% 20% 0 vote(s) 0.0% 30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
40% 1 vote(s) 5.9% 50% 2 vote(s) 11.8% 60% 2 vote(s) 11.8%
70% 7 vote(s) 41.2% 80% 2 vote(s) 11.8% 90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 2 vote(s) 11.8%
</vote history>
<double vote history> (this vote is hypothetical, I will to create it later but lets fill it with results for the example)
What the selection process of the above (and this one) vote should be?
mode average 9 vote(s) 60% (I assume those who voted 70% and those who voted 80% they like this selection process)
mean average 6 vote(s) 40%
other 2 vote(s) 0.0%
</double vote history>
<selection process>

• The selection process is currently defined to be the mode average according to the rule :"Each selection process in order to be selected should initialy respect itself, then the most loved selection process is selected "
• The other option has 2 votes and the rest votes are 15. The "other" option is not the most loved one, so a decision can be made.
• The optimal % of dash being locked up in masternodes is currently defined by the mode average selection process to be at 70%.

</selection process>

In this vote, for the first time in dash history, a double vote of the form <number, selection process> has been used, in order for people to be able to decide without someone to impose the selection process. (actually the correct vote is the "triple vote" <number, selection process, minimum participation percentage> but I will explain this later on) This is yet another practical implementation of vote using numbers.

 

[demo]

According the current result of vote1 (70%) A NEW VOTE appears .

<code>
IF THE DECISION OF VOTE1 > current dash beeing locked by MO (=60.91%) THEN SHOW VOTE2

<vote 2: depends and appears whenever the result of vote1 fullfil some criteria>

VOTE TITLE: We have to increase the dash being locked by MO to reach the result of vote1(=70%), so what shall we do?
Each masternode in order to remain a masternode should cost more than 1000 dash. 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Decrease the price for NEW masternodes, in order to attract new masternodes and reach 70% limit. 1 vote(s) 50.0%
other 1 vote(s) 50.0%
</vote>
<double vote history>
VOTE TITLE: What the selection process of the above (and this one) vote should be?
OPTION1: most voted option
OPTION2:majority
OPTION3:strong majority
OPTION4:unanimity
OPTION5: other
</double vote history>
<selection process>

• The selection process should be decided according to the rule :"Each selection process in order to be selected should initialy respect itself, then the most loved selection process is selected "
• If the "other" option is NOT the most loved one, a decision can be made.
• According all of the above, a decision can always be made.

</selection process>

ENDIF

</code>

This is a demo(nstration) of the interdependent votes, together with vote using numbers.
If I had 5 dash, I could add this as a proposal to the budget, for the dormant whales to wake up and vote for it.

 

[demo]

According the current result of vote1 (70%) A NEW VOTE appears .

<code>
IF THE DECISION OF VOTE1 > current dash beeing locked by MO (=60.91%) THEN SHOW VOTE2

<vote 2: depends and appears whenever the result of vote1 fullfil some criteria>

VOTE TITLE: We have to increase the dash being locked by MO to reach the result of vote1(=70%), so what shall we do?
Each masternode in order to remain a masternode should cost more than 1000 dash. 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Decrease the price for NEW masternodes, in order to attract new masternodes and reach 70% limit. 1 vote(s) 50.0%
other 1 vote(s) 50.0%
</vote>
<double vote history>
VOTE TITLE: What the selection process of the above (and this one) vote should be?
OPTION1: most voted option
OPTION2:majority
OPTION3:strong majority
OPTION4:unanimity
OPTION5: other
</double vote history>
<selection process>

• The selection process should be decided according to the rule :"Each selection process in order to be selected should initialy respect itself, then the most loved selection process is selected "
• If the "other" option is NOT the most loved one, a decision can be made.
• According all of the above, a decision can always be made.

</selection process>

ENDIF

</code>

This is a demo(nstration) of the interdependent votes, together with vote using numbers.
If I had 5 dash, I could add this as a proposal to the budget, for the dormant whales to wake up and vote for it.

And of course there is more code
IF THE DECISION OF VOTE1 < current dash beeing locked by MO THEN SHOW VOTE3
<vote3>
In this vote3 we are about to decide what measures shall be taken in order to decrease the current dash being locked by the MNO, so that the dash being locked to reach the decided (in vote1) number (which is smaller of course).
bla bla
</vote3>

In case the condition (vote1_result < current_dash_lock) is true, then an appropriate voting tree appears to the voters. This tree is pre-designed by those proponents who believe that the result should be below the current number (currently 60.78%), and this tree remains hidden to the default view until the condition becomes true.

And of course our code should also take into account the rare case where...

IF THE DECISION OF VOTE1 = current dash beeing locked by MO THEN DONT WORRY, BE HAPPY AND DO NOTHING.

 

[logicalmayhem]

It is wrong to compare dash with gold.
You have to compare dash with fiat money.

So you have to measure the transactions, and not the liquidity.

Dash is not a commodity, it is cash!! If it isnt, then it is a failure.

Im in the same boat, DASH seems to be pitched as one thing and used as another. Im getting a bit worried about the low volume and whats going to happen in the future.

 

[demo]

Im in the same boat, DASH seems to be pitched as one thing and used as another. Im getting a bit worried about the low volume and whats going to happen in the future.

This is the case, but unfortunately most of the people here are stupids, and they fail to undestand it.

They are also irresponsible because although they voted here in this poll for the 70% of the dash to be locked up in masternodes, they do not take the responsibility of their vote. They do not participate to the next vote where it is about to decide what to do in order for this 70% to be reached.

This community is full of stupids, unreasonable and irresponsible, and as long as the majority remains like that, there is no future for dash.

 

[t0dd]

I don't think there is an optimal percentage. Not 100%? Ok... maybe that. Maybe. But I don't see that happening. But if it did, the currency would merely have a different character.

If 40% is liquid (though, technically, 100% is liquid at any given time), then we are talking approximately 2.7 million Dash. And that goes to 8 decimal places right? That's a lot of unit liquidity.
If the number of masternodes goes to something like 80% holders of Dash... that means, approximately 1.35 million Dash... still plenty to go around. Mind you, in USD that represents $15 million dollars (as of today's price around $11.50/Dash). That is either a lot or a little depending on how you look at it. But of course, anyone with a masternode can cash out at any time.

I have seen estimates for Bitcoin. Estimates range from 5% to 50% of bitcoins... have been LOST! Only 10% of the supply has been in circulation since 2012. That's it! 10%. Most Bitcoin just sits in a wallet somewhere... not used at all.

Is this a problem? Thus far, no. If Dash or Bitcoin get more popular usage, their value goes up, more goes into circulation, and deeper into the fractional numbers will we be distributing day to day.

I think the real challenge looking really long term is lost coins. Will we have to change the protocol to add more decimal points someday to increase the divisibility? But if Dash becomes, say, the equivalent to $10,000,000 per Dash someday... does it really matter that much. Dunno.

One nice thing about the masternode network. We can tell what masternodes are active and therefore note that roughly 60% of the coins are not lost! Masternodes do shrink the expected liquid market which does put a smidge of upward pressure on the price. But I think (I may be wrong here) that the masternodes also add some institutional stability to the price. Upward pressure, but less volatility (in theory). Kinda like mutual funds stabilize a stock's price.

Anyway... Maybe if 95% of Dash were in masternodes and the price fell to $5USD/Dash would I be more concerned. Right now... *meh*.

 

[t0dd]

Comparing Dash or Bitcoin to Gold is not really ...it really is not the same thing. People don't use Gold as day to day money because it is a PITA. Handing someone a silver coin? Oh wait, you only need a tenth of that? Please. Precious metals are only useful as a store of value or for transferring very specific amounts of value.

People (most people) don't use Bitcoin or Dash or any cryptocurrency for day to day money because it is not well understood and people don't know if they can trust it. It is a *bit* user unfriendly, but it is easier than say... Google or Apple Pay (and no one uses those either). In some ways it is easier to use than Paypal. But people understand fiat currency so those payment options have lower overhead for adoption.

Bitcoin is used by hardly anyone really. And Dash by a smaller subset even further.

But I also remember what it was like to use the internet in the late 80s... and thought "This is going to change the world." It took another 10 years for that take off. And another 10 for it to really hit its stride. Some of you will remember when hardly anyone had a credit card. It was "too much magic" for folks. People were terrified of it! (they probably still should be)

Dash *is* cash. You can store cash in a vault. You can hand it to someone and it is fungible. And now you can send it to someone effectively instantly.

Dash will succeed or fail. Bitcoin will succeed or fail. Or... they will just persevere and operate in their worlds of cyptocurrency and be some of the lubrication of an alternative market. I mean, is adoption by literally everyone the only path to "success"? I don't think so. But who knows? I'm optimistic though. Just like I was optimist explaining email and unix talk to my mother in 1988. She *couldn't understand it*. It took a long long time before she did.

 

[demo]

<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
10% 1 vote(s) 5.0%, 20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%, 30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%,
40% 1 vote(s) 5.0%, 50% 2 vote(s) 10.0%, 60% 4 vote(s) 20.0%,
70% 8 vote(s) 40.0%, 80% 2 vote(s) 10.0%, 90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%,
Other... 2 vote(s) 10.0%

Voters turnout: 20 voted out of 5405 registered members
</vote history>

 

[demo]

</vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
10% 1 vote(s) 4.5%
20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
40% 1 vote(s) 4.5%
50% 3 vote(s) 13.6%
60% 4 vote(s) 18.2%
70% 8 vote(s) 36.4%
80% 2 vote(s) 9.1%
90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 3 vote(s) 13.6%
Voters turnout: 22 votes out of 5415 registered members 0.4%
</vote history>

 

[demo]

<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
*10% 1 vote(s) 4.3%
20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
40% 1 vote(s) 4.3%
50% 4 vote(s) 17.4%
60% 4 vote(s) 17.4%
70% 8 vote(s) 34.8%
80% 2 vote(s) 8.7%
90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 3 vote(s) 13.0%
</vote history>

 

[demo]

<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
* 10% 1 vote(s) 4.2%
20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
40% 1 vote(s) 4.2%
50% 4 vote(s) 16.7%
60% 4 vote(s) 16.7%
70% 8 vote(s) 33.3%
80% 2 vote(s) 8.3%
90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 4 vote(s) 16.7%
Voters turnout: 24 votes out of 6427 registered members
</vote history>

 

[demo]

<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
* 10% 1 vote(s) 4.2%
20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
40% 1 vote(s) 4.2%
50% 4 vote(s) 16.7%
60% 4 vote(s) 16.7%
70% 8 vote(s) 33.3%
80% 2 vote(s) 8.3%
90% 1 vote(s) 4.2%
Other... 3 vote(s) 12.5%
Voters turnout: 24 votes out of 6427 registered members
</vote history>

 

[demo]

<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
*10% 1 vote(s) 4.2%, 20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%, 30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%, 40% 1 vote(s) 4.2%, 50% 4 vote(s) 16.7%, 60% 5 vote(s) 20.8%, 70% 8 vote(s) 33.3%, 80% 2 vote(s) 8.3%, 90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 3 vote(s) 12.5%, Voters turnout: 24 votes out of 6427 registered members
</vote history>

 

[TanteStefana]

Here's my interesting number of the week:

60.5% of Dash supply is locked up in masternodes. ​

Is this a good number?

100% = Dash is a store of value, not used as payments

0% = network is dead. No nodes.

60% = majority of holders are long term bullish as a store of value and are actively engaging in it’s governance. (tested by action, not sentiment)

What would be the optimal healthy range?

You know, I don't know the optimal %, but I trust it find's it's balance naturally. It's strange, because it's almost always stayed around 60% since the start, so I'm guessing it must be the optimal? The other thing, and it'll be interesting to see how this changes - IF it changes - is that Evolution will allow people to clump their funds together in "savings" accounts, which will be put into MNs and earn interest. I'm not sure how long this feature will take to implement, as it's a pretty sophisticated proposal, but if it works, will the 60% change? Currently it's around 62% or at least the last time I looked a couple of days ago, not sure how fast that fluctuates.

It might actually stay the same. People with a MN, may want the flexibility of using some of their Dash, and don't mind the cost / loss of profit since someone else will be taking care of all the technicalities. And if that's so, they don't have to have the full 1000 coins. Especially those who already use services.

IF Dash survives long term, and I think it will, it'll surprise all of us in many different ways. I'm certain of it. It's already changed in ways I never would have predicted years ago. (OMG, YEARS! It seems like yesterday, seriously!)

So I voted "other" because I think it's something that should be left to nature, not coerced into some arbitrary number. That's what crypto Bitcoin is was about. Letting market forces run free

 

[demo]

You know, I don't know the optimal %, but I trust it find's it's balance naturally. It's strange, because it's almost always stayed around 60% since the start, so I'm guessing it must be the optimal?

It will not find its balance naturally, as long as the core team has initialized the system with unnatural initial values. If you want a natural balance, then all the hardcoded magic numbers with no theory behind, should be voted, by all actors. This is nature, to respect all species.

The system balances around 60%, because of the unnatural magic numbers of 45% (miners reward), 45% (masternodes reward), 10% (budget). Change those hardcoded numbers, and this 60% will change.

You behavior is like forcing the temperature to be 0 degrees, then saying that the natural balance is only for the penguins to survive. This is not a natural balance, this is rough interventionism in favor of the penguins because you are the one who set the temperature constantly to 0 degrees!

So I voted "other" because I think it's something that should be left to nature, not coerced into some arbitrary number. That's what crypto Bitcoin is was about. Letting market forces run free

Let the market forces run free, while you enchained them with the 45/45/10???

This is how you should vote @TanteStefana . Avoid the "other" option, think whether this 45% magic number (which caused the current 60% unnatural balance) should be increased or decreased, then with your numerical vote here try to indirectly fix this initial 45% magic number (that has been imposed to you and to the community and caused an unfree market ) to whatever you think is the wisest value.

So I voted 10%, because I think this 45% initial magic number (which caused the current 60% unnatural balance) is too high. If they give 45% of the money only to the 10%, this will cause complains to the rest actors, and then this will force the core team to decrease the 45% magic number. When the 45% will be decreased enough, then I will increase my 10% vote on this poll to 32.45%, which I think is the optimal number. Of course a better scenario would be for the core team to let us vote this 45%.

<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
*10% 1 vote(s) 3.8%, 20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%,30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%,40% 1 vote(s) 3.8%, 50% 4 vote(s) 15.4%, 60% 6 vote(s) 23.1%,70% 8 vote(s) 30.8%, 80% 2 vote(s) 7.7%, 90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 4 vote(s) 15.4%
</vote history>

 

[halso]

Ben makes a great point on price stability that MNs offer. I've been bearish on Bitcoin as a payments network as it seems we are like 3-5 years away for it to have price volatility low enough for people to truly hold their coins for spending. I've seen comments around a $40b market cap for Bitcoin to have stability low enough as a store of value for ordinary people.

Likewise I've been nervous about Dash because it's aiming at the payments market at a market cap of below $100m. But the MNs locking up Dash does provide a much needed stabilising function and you can see how the volatility of Dash is much lower than Bitcoin for its given size.

I think >90% is optimal right now to maximise stability but as the market cap grows we can afford to go lower.

I do have a "wait a second" moment here. Does locking away Dash create reduced volatility? Say there's 18m Dash. 18.999999m Dash is locked away. There's only 1 Dash to trade on markets, I don't see how this is stable. I think it would be the distribution of that last Dash among traders and the amount of traders bidding on it that would form the variables in the volatility equation.[/QUOT

Ben makes a great point on price stability that MNs offer. I've been bearish on Bitcoin as a payments network as it seems we are like 3-5 years away for it to have price volatility low enough for people to truly hold their coins for spending. I've seen comments around a $40b market cap for Bitcoin to have stability low enough as a store of value for ordinary people.

Likewise I've been nervous about Dash because it's aiming at the payments market at a market cap of below $100m. But the MNs locking up Dash does provide a much needed stabilising function and you can see how the volatility of Dash is much lower than Bitcoin for its given size.

I think >90% is optimal right now to maximise stability but as the market cap grows we can afford to go lower.

I do have a "wait a second" moment here. Does locking away Dash create reduced volatility? Say there's 18m Dash. 18.999999m Dash is locked away. There's only 1 Dash to trade on markets, I don't see how this is stable. I think it would be the distribution of that last Dash among traders and the amount of traders bidding on it that would form the variables in the volatility equation.

The amount of dash left in circulation is largely irrelevant. Suppose you only had one dash left in circulation.

It would be worth so much money and could be split into an infinite amount of decimals that anyone who wanted to trade in dash could.

For arguements sake, you could split that 1 dash into 18million new sub units.

 

[demo]

</vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
*10% 1 vote(s) 3.7%
20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
40% 1 vote(s) 3.7%
50% 4 vote(s) 14.8%
60% 6 vote(s) 22.2%
70% 8 vote(s) 29.6%
80% 2 vote(s) 7.4%
90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 5 vote(s) 18.5%
</vote history>

 

[demo]

The amount of dash left in circulation is largely irrelevant. Suppose you only had one dash left in circulation.

It would be worth so much money and could be split into an infinite amount of decimals that anyone who wanted to trade in dash could.

For arguements sake, you could split that 1 dash into 18million new sub units.

Yes..Yes...

One dash to be splitted an infinitive amount of decimals and all the people of the world to share this 1 dash. And a handfull of persons to own all the rest dash!!! If this is not centralization of power, then what is it?

Do you really believe that the rest of the world will be so stupid, to accept this kind of money as a medium of exchange?

What else are we going to hear in this forum?

<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
*10% 1 vote(s) 3.6%, 20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%, 30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%, 40% 1 vote(s) 3.6%, 50% 4 vote(s) 14.3%, 60% 7 vote(s) 25.0%, 70% 8 vote(s) 28.6%, 80% 2 vote(s) 7.1%, 90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 5 vote(s) 17.9%
</vote history>

 

[halso]

Yes..Yes...

One dash to be splitted an infinitive amount of decimals and all the people of the world to share this 1 dash. And a handfull of persons to own all the rest dash!!! If this is not centralization of power, then what is it?

Do you really believe that the rest of the world will be so stupid, to accept this kind of money as a medium of exchange?

What else are we going to hear in this forum?

<vote history>
What is the optimal % of Dash being locked up in masternodes?
*10% 1 vote(s) 3.6%, 20% 0 vote(s) 0.0%, 30% 0 vote(s) 0.0%, 40% 1 vote(s) 3.6%, 50% 4 vote(s) 14.3%, 60% 7 vote(s) 25.0%, 70% 8 vote(s) 28.6%, 80% 2 vote(s) 7.1%, 90% 0 vote(s) 0.0%
Other... 5 vote(s) 17.9%
</vote history>

You are confusing equity of dash's distribution and the effeciency of dash as a medium of exchange. You can have one without the other.

Take the US dollar as an example, there is no doubt the top 1% own a large portion of the US money supply. But I'm sure you will also agree that the dollar is a fantastic medium of exchange all of the world.

I don't begrudge the whales that got in early, they were smart. And besides, as far as I am concerned, it's still early and I'm buying as much as I can.

Do you remember we had a similar conversation when dash was $6.7?