More power to the rich?

Kim Koldtoft

New Member
Mar 23, 2017
21
5
3
42
@Dandy it's pretty common that you get a higher interest if you deposit more, at least in Europe. I would be surprised if this was different in other places, but I don't know.

However, this was back before the interest went to negative. Now having money in the bank, costs interest....
 

Kim Koldtoft

New Member
Mar 23, 2017
21
5
3
42
@Vedran Yoweri
The argument is not that choices will be hard. The argument is that some choices will give MNO's a direct financial incentive to vote in a way, that might harm the overall Dash economy.

To stay with the interest on locked funds example..

Let's assume some users will be displeased and chose another Crypto, if they feel the that it's unfair that they earn 2% on their 10 Dash, while others earn 4% on their 1000 Dash. And that extra 2% extra benefits me directly as a masternode, and does not harm the total Dash economy enough, to have the rest of my Dash lose 2% of their value.

So clearly my financial incentives are not aligned with the health and growth of the Dash economy.

And this is just one pretend example I just made up. In the real world, every decision have many variables, and I dont think it's resonable to assume, that they will always be aligned
 

Dandy

Member
Mar 1, 2017
276
99
88
46
Belgrade, Serbia
It's not in the interest of masternode to do anything that will hurt the Dash value, just the contrary.
A few percent bonus is worth much less then if the base price of the Dash coin raises. Remember that any raise in the Dash value is multiplied by that 1000 Dash that the masternode holds. So logically masternode will always do the thing that is the best for the long-term interest of the whole network.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dima

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,293
1,370
1,183
I don't think it will actually pay interest, I think the idea is "interest-like". MNOs must be paid more to uphold the original intention; incentive to support the network.

The thing no one has mentioned yet is that the reward to end-users must start very low because otherwise there's a real danger a lot of MNOs will sell their MNs and simply dump some of the capital gains into the newfangled wallet! If the newfangled wallet was paying the same as an MN (or anything close to it), then why the hell would they sit on all that capital?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dandy

Kim Koldtoft

New Member
Mar 23, 2017
21
5
3
42
@GrandMasterDash
I think those are two different things. Dash paying interest is as far as I have understood, an upcoming feature of Dash evolution, and a completely separate thing from what Masternodes are being paid for..

But it's a very good and valid point that the interest payment of locked funds should not be higher than the reward for Masternodes. Which makes this example kind of mute. But it was just an example I made up..
 
Feb 25, 2017
165
13
78
I am new to Dash and at this early stage, very excited about the project. So excited even, that I exchanged half of my bitcoin to Dash. To a great extend, thanks to the great work of Amanda and her DASH: Detailed videos. Very informative.

However
I am curious as to what the community's thoughts are on the mechanism, that allows master nodes to vote on changes to the protocol, as well as allocation of funds. (If I have understood this correctly).

My concern is 70% in the perception this could give and 30% the practical challenges it could cause.

If Dash picks up, it's very likely, that the funds required to run a master node, could be (and would have to be) out of reach for the typical (non early investor, non tech geek) consumer, who I believe is the target consumer.

So I suspect, the question that everyone will be asking, is...
What prevents this rich minority, to vote in changes that is to their own advantage, at the cost of the average consumer, exactly like the so called 1% does now, by using their resources and influence to affect the law makes

In these early phases, this is not a problem, as the master nodes are economically motivated, to have Dash becomes a commercial success, but once that has been achieved, won't this become a widely spread concern, among regular users?


Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated

Kind regards,
Kim Koldtoft
Masternodes are just smart people that risked and risk they're money everyday for a project that may or may not work out.

You do with your money what you like, I do with my money what I like.
 
Feb 25, 2017
165
13
78
Could someone explain this to me: "But I specifically mentioned that once Dash becomes main-stream, those values might no longer align."
How or why would these values no longer align?
He makes an argument that, once Dash becomes too expensive say each Dash goes in the thousands or tens of thousands (hopefully) then each masternode is basically part of the 1% of society, and thus will overtime fail to understand the needs of the 99%.
 
Feb 25, 2017
165
13
78
Let me try to explain the logic that I am advocating a little better then. Imagine a future where 1000 people own 1000 dash each, which is valued at 1 billion USD in today's money. The average user use Dash as their main currency. They get paid their salary, pay their bills ect. and obviously they will never come anyway near 1000 dash. But if they all pool together, they might outnumber the 1000 masternodes.

The interest of the 1000 billionaires are clearly not perfectly aligned with the interest of the common users. So what is to prevent them from adding fee's that goes to the Masternotes, or some other measure of that sort, that benefits them, but harms the users.

I understand that the users could then change to another Crypto, but that Masternodes don't care, because it's not in their interest to keep Dash alive. It's in their interest to maximize their own income. So it makes sense to have a system in place that keeps the Masternodes in check or in some way makes sure that the Masternodes incentives are always aligned with the majority of the Dash community (users).




I apparently did not make myself clear enough. Sorry about that. I was not trying to communicate that Masternodes was not tech-geeks. I get that they are.
It's called capitalism and it's called competition.

Cryptocurrencies are now competing with the Federal Reserve, bout damn time.

If the desires of the MNOs at some point do not align with the 99% then eventually a competing cryptocurrency will take over. Just like you are seeing now that the market share of Bitcoin is going down in relation to the market share of Dash. We are competing with Bitcoin because we do not agree with the things Bitcoin Devs are doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lynx
Feb 25, 2017
165
13
78
Yeah, @Vedran Yoweri , that's because it makes no sense.

It's like a restaurant owner that managed to please his costumers so well he became a billionaire owner of a chain of restaurants. All of a sudden, he will buy a top hat and monocle and stop caring about the quality of his food. Then he can just add water to the beer and serve rotten food, as long as he doesn't overdo it.
McDonald's?
 

walletmonster

New Member
Aug 30, 2016
7
2
3
42
There's more than 50% of all coins in masternodes, so if smaller coin holders had voting rights, they are still outvoted by master node holders. If your concerned about interest earned by large coin holders (master node owners) that is not available to small coin holders, then look into the interest you can potentially earn at an exchange, it's possibly every bit as good as what master node owners earn (and it's not inflationary).

I'm far more concerned about the outcome of voting if small coin holders had the power to effect the outcome of the process than the current voting process.
 

Kim Koldtoft

New Member
Mar 23, 2017
21
5
3
42
There's more than 50% of all coins in masternodes, so if smaller coin holders had voting rights, they are still outvoted by master node holders. If your concerned about interest earned by large coin holders (master node owners) that is not available to small coin holders, then look into the interest you can potentially earn at an exchange, it's possibly every bit as good as what master node owners earn (and it's not inflationary).

I'm far more concerned about the outcome of voting if small coin holders had the power to effect the outcome of the process than the current voting process.
That's good to know. Do you know if the scaling plans, are for the masternodes to hold the majority of funds, in a "main stream" model? If so, that would mean that there should be a lot of masternodes, or that the masternodes will be very very rich :)