amanda_b_johnson
Well-known member
The announcement begins at 2:55:
Cheerz.
Cheerz.
Announcing: Decentralized Masternode Shares (forthcoming)
- Thread starter amanda_b_johnson
- Start date
this is the full list of "hosting services"
some were not mentioned in the video
(in fairness and equality to all
)
https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=1867885
some were not mentioned in the video
(in fairness and equality to all
)https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=1867885
Last edited:
BolehVPN
Well-known member
I am very concerned about this development and hope everyone can hear me out. I believe it's detrimental to the health of the economy to make decentralised masternode sharing happen unless a few things are done (which I will elaborate later).
To provide context to the issue I'll quote Amanda for those who aren't clicking on the video:
"...allow anyone with any amount of Dash, be it 5 or 1, to set aside any amount they desire to what will appear to them as an 'interest bearing savings account' within their wallet, and then this Dash, all the while keeping the private keys in the hands of the owner without relinquishing control of it to any third parties, will be entered into a pool on the Dash blockchain from which an entire class of decentralized masternode operators can then pool from to then launch more masternodes."
The Effect of Masternodes on the Dash Economy
Having masternodes is a stabilizing effect on the economy. It locks up large amounts of Dash and this is why price movements of Dash are generally quite gradual since there is psychological element in liquidating a masternode.
For e.g., let's use a traditional example, if you invested into a traditional investment product like a unit trust at a bank that requires a minimum investment of let's say USD50,000, you're not likely to dip into that money even if it went up or down a bit unless you really needed the money. Currently masternode setup is not seamless and there's a long 'lag' time before masternodes receive their first payout and you gotta setup a server or subscribe to a masternode hosting service. Hence there is some friction in moving your funds in and out of a masternode and you would only touch the masternodes if you were making a big purchase, needed the money, wanted out from Dash or other reasons.
As a masternode holder, you would probably only use the Dash that you generated from your masternodes to actually buy things in the economy unless you're someone like Otoh with hundreds of masternodes who generates enough returns to make a new masternode very quickly.
This means that although it provides stability, masternodes also lock up liquidity of Dash. Some may argue that technically, Dash masternode holders can liquidate at ANY TIME and yes this is technically true but because of the steps required to withdraw and recreate that can be likened to let's say early withdrawing a fixed deposit account, it has a definite negative effect on liquidity.
A side note is that liquidation of Dash masternodes involve a relatively big amount, and because of Dash's already low liquidity (395 BTC total exchange volume in last 24h), even liquidating one masternode on an exchange would be 2.78% of daily volume and affect prices. This means that Dash masternodes when liquidating or building them are still best to do off the exchange (which affects public liquidity too and also reduces chances of exchange adoption).
Why allowing decentralized masternode sharing on a larger scale is not a good idea
Given the already poor liquidity of Dash, I think opening a shared masternode ownership to smaller amounts and making this seamless is a mistake. Now even people with 10-20 Dash will want to lock up their Dash too to earn interest. I also understand that there is a 'minimum period' in which to lock these funds up since they need to be joined with other people's funds to form a masternode.
This makes 'shared masternode' people worse than full masternode holders which can still technically liquidate at anytime.
You might argue that there are already masternode pooling services but as long as there are hoops to jump through (signing up, paying, finding other people to pool with), these people already see their Dash as long term holdings anyway and won't spend it so readily. By making it much more easy and automated to do this, this will encourage other small holders to further lock up and not spend their Dash. This combined with the 'minimum period' will have an even worse effect on liquidity of Dash.
This is actually similar (and probably worse) than Proof of Stake coins in that it further encourages people to hold their coins instead of using it in the Dash economy by introducing even greater friction. Note that in a real world savings account, you can use these funds at ANY TIME without any minimum hold period.
I understand that having more masternodes strengthens the networks but do we really need more nodes at the moment? I think this is already adequately provided and supported by the masternode network as it is. The liquidity issues are however real and we really really need to make it easier for people to buy and sell Dash instead of further encouraging efforts for people to lock it up and hold. It's all fine and dandy if we get premium merchants on board but if no one spends, support will drop off.
Or if regular people find it hard to buy Dash off exchanges because there is hardly anyone selling.
Also if the masternode hosters get to VOTE on these shares, then that's a huge issue centralizing decision making to these people which is not the idea since it's supposed to represent the wishes of those HOLDING Dash not those who are holding it on trust for other people.
Questions
1) Is there a minimum hold period and if so what is this period? How long does it take to withdraw your money from the 'Savings Account' and how easy would it be? This is the most critical question. If there is a minimum hold period or if it's difficult to withdraw, I would be very against this.
2) What happens to masternodes when people want to pull out their funds? For e.g. if you have 20 people sharing a masternode and one person pulls out then the masternode has to be rebuilt again?
3) Is there really no minimum amount and you can use amounts like 1 Dash to pool?
4) Who determines the rates charged by the decentralized masternode hosters? Is this centrally decided or is there a bidding system?
5) How easy is it to become a decentralized masternode hoster?
6) Who controls the masternode votes of these pooled nodes?
To provide context to the issue I'll quote Amanda for those who aren't clicking on the video:
"...allow anyone with any amount of Dash, be it 5 or 1, to set aside any amount they desire to what will appear to them as an 'interest bearing savings account' within their wallet, and then this Dash, all the while keeping the private keys in the hands of the owner without relinquishing control of it to any third parties, will be entered into a pool on the Dash blockchain from which an entire class of decentralized masternode operators can then pool from to then launch more masternodes."
The Effect of Masternodes on the Dash Economy
Having masternodes is a stabilizing effect on the economy. It locks up large amounts of Dash and this is why price movements of Dash are generally quite gradual since there is psychological element in liquidating a masternode.
For e.g., let's use a traditional example, if you invested into a traditional investment product like a unit trust at a bank that requires a minimum investment of let's say USD50,000, you're not likely to dip into that money even if it went up or down a bit unless you really needed the money. Currently masternode setup is not seamless and there's a long 'lag' time before masternodes receive their first payout and you gotta setup a server or subscribe to a masternode hosting service. Hence there is some friction in moving your funds in and out of a masternode and you would only touch the masternodes if you were making a big purchase, needed the money, wanted out from Dash or other reasons.
As a masternode holder, you would probably only use the Dash that you generated from your masternodes to actually buy things in the economy unless you're someone like Otoh with hundreds of masternodes who generates enough returns to make a new masternode very quickly.
This means that although it provides stability, masternodes also lock up liquidity of Dash. Some may argue that technically, Dash masternode holders can liquidate at ANY TIME and yes this is technically true but because of the steps required to withdraw and recreate that can be likened to let's say early withdrawing a fixed deposit account, it has a definite negative effect on liquidity.
A side note is that liquidation of Dash masternodes involve a relatively big amount, and because of Dash's already low liquidity (395 BTC total exchange volume in last 24h), even liquidating one masternode on an exchange would be 2.78% of daily volume and affect prices. This means that Dash masternodes when liquidating or building them are still best to do off the exchange (which affects public liquidity too and also reduces chances of exchange adoption).
Why allowing decentralized masternode sharing on a larger scale is not a good idea
Given the already poor liquidity of Dash, I think opening a shared masternode ownership to smaller amounts and making this seamless is a mistake. Now even people with 10-20 Dash will want to lock up their Dash too to earn interest. I also understand that there is a 'minimum period' in which to lock these funds up since they need to be joined with other people's funds to form a masternode.
This makes 'shared masternode' people worse than full masternode holders which can still technically liquidate at anytime.
You might argue that there are already masternode pooling services but as long as there are hoops to jump through (signing up, paying, finding other people to pool with), these people already see their Dash as long term holdings anyway and won't spend it so readily. By making it much more easy and automated to do this, this will encourage other small holders to further lock up and not spend their Dash. This combined with the 'minimum period' will have an even worse effect on liquidity of Dash.
This is actually similar (and probably worse) than Proof of Stake coins in that it further encourages people to hold their coins instead of using it in the Dash economy by introducing even greater friction. Note that in a real world savings account, you can use these funds at ANY TIME without any minimum hold period.
I understand that having more masternodes strengthens the networks but do we really need more nodes at the moment? I think this is already adequately provided and supported by the masternode network as it is. The liquidity issues are however real and we really really need to make it easier for people to buy and sell Dash instead of further encouraging efforts for people to lock it up and hold. It's all fine and dandy if we get premium merchants on board but if no one spends, support will drop off.
Or if regular people find it hard to buy Dash off exchanges because there is hardly anyone selling.
Also if the masternode hosters get to VOTE on these shares, then that's a huge issue centralizing decision making to these people which is not the idea since it's supposed to represent the wishes of those HOLDING Dash not those who are holding it on trust for other people.
Questions
1) Is there a minimum hold period and if so what is this period? How long does it take to withdraw your money from the 'Savings Account' and how easy would it be? This is the most critical question. If there is a minimum hold period or if it's difficult to withdraw, I would be very against this.
2) What happens to masternodes when people want to pull out their funds? For e.g. if you have 20 people sharing a masternode and one person pulls out then the masternode has to be rebuilt again?
3) Is there really no minimum amount and you can use amounts like 1 Dash to pool?
4) Who determines the rates charged by the decentralized masternode hosters? Is this centrally decided or is there a bidding system?
5) How easy is it to become a decentralized masternode hoster?
6) Who controls the masternode votes of these pooled nodes?
Last edited:
rustycase
Active member
Very good points for consideration, reuben.
If I were a shareholder in a MN Pool, the best I could hope for might be that the operator be active here on the forum and occaisionally view my thoughts on various topics presented.
It's apparently quite EZ to host a MN... 1,000 DASH should do it.
Do all holders of DASH enjoy an appreciation when the crypto community at large perceive DASH as worthy of increasing value in the market ?
Would that not be similar to 'interest' ?
Best
rc
If I were a shareholder in a MN Pool, the best I could hope for might be that the operator be active here on the forum and occaisionally view my thoughts on various topics presented.
It's apparently quite EZ to host a MN... 1,000 DASH should do it.
Do all holders of DASH enjoy an appreciation when the crypto community at large perceive DASH as worthy of increasing value in the market ?
Would that not be similar to 'interest' ?
Best
rc
TroyDASH
Well-known member
At first glance, I think that if someone wants to build a for-profit service in which people can contribute towards a masternode while effectively maintaining control of their coins, then great if that is possible to do with some form of smart contract, but I don't see a need for core development to be working on this.
If people want to buy Dash as an investment, growing Dash itself will reap returns that will absolutely dwarf a 5-8% annual interest (after the MN operator's cut), so why are we focusing on attracting people for the interest?
If people want to buy Dash as an investment, growing Dash itself will reap returns that will absolutely dwarf a 5-8% annual interest (after the MN operator's cut), so why are we focusing on attracting people for the interest?
rustycase
Active member
True enough. This is not a matter for core devs. It's a P2P kinda thing...
Depending upon terms of the contract, a person would necessarily reliquish control of their coins to participate in a healthy/substantial MN system.
...perhaps a penalty for an early release ??? ...IF the MN pool controller wished to assume that degree of responsibility over and above the management duties, or, perhaps, a buyout by some third party, which would also increase management workload, and warrant a fee/penalty ???
It would seem to me the MN's constitute significant strength of DASH, over and above other crypto, and participation would need to be substantial and not allow withdrawal on a mere whim. (Loss of control by contract.)
Best
rc
are we ?
honestly this is the first I ever heard of this
I wonder where this info is coming from
rustycase
Active member
...it was not so long ago I watched a yellen vid where she announced 1/2 %...
A newbie such as myself can do better than that, with DASH.
It seems more people will be noticing that, as each day passes.
Best
rc
Solarminer
Well-known member
If anyone is interested in jobs from the video and can't wait for the link on the forum. Check out some community funded activities. Over $500 in volunteer funds have been pledged to get these gigs started.
http://www.dashnation.com/gigs/
http://www.dashnation.com/gigs/
Solarminer
Well-known member
Actually, I don't think this is a difficult task doing it inside the Dash code. You basically allow for more than one tx id to be used for collateral. If any of those change the node stops. So the funds still stay in the original holders wallet. The block reward payment can be split to the address linked to the tx ids. The issue will be how to vote. Maybe it will require partial votes and something around that.
The points being discussed by Reuben are valid. We should look at this for more than a 2 second spot in video before committing resources to make it happen.
I think this might be a moot point anyway, we will have debit card services paying interest on deposits. It will be much easier to just take advantage of that for most people.
1. MNs are desirable. Evidenced by the fact that people buy them (I own one)
2. MNs are expensive and -hopefully- will become more expensive over time.
3. People currently place there Dash at risk, using 3rd party services, just to own a piece of a MN.
4. Eventually, one or more of these 3rd party providers is going to go full Gox, and the people who get hurt the worst will be the one who can least afford it.
5. It can be prevented by adding protocol level support for sharing.
Therefore, IMO, it should be done. Even if they can't vote, at least protect their coins.
2. MNs are expensive and -hopefully- will become more expensive over time.
3. People currently place there Dash at risk, using 3rd party services, just to own a piece of a MN.
4. Eventually, one or more of these 3rd party providers is going to go full Gox, and the people who get hurt the worst will be the one who can least afford it.
5. It can be prevented by adding protocol level support for sharing.
Therefore, IMO, it should be done. Even if they can't vote, at least protect their coins.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
I agree that voting is a significant issue.
A few other thoughts and questions:
- If there are a hundred, or hundreds of people contributing to a masternode, I would think that any masternode set up in this manner would never stay up for very long because if even 0.01 Dash gets moved out then it becomes inoperative. This is especially a problem if there are any malicious entities at work who could potentially repeatedly take down many nodes for the cost of a few pennies. There would need to be a different way of pooling people's collateral such that *any* combination of a million withdrawals totaling 1000 DASH could only take down a maximum of one masternode, and I think this would involve much more significant coding.
- How does one become a MN operator for the collateralized pool? How are prices determined in terms of the MN operator's cut?
- If the cost of running a MN starts to reach an equilibrium with the marginal payout (big assumption, I know), why should we assume that there would be anything left for shareholders? In a truly competitive market, the MN operators who can afford the entire collateral will be advantaged, and MN operators who have to pay out to a pool of shared collateral investors will be pushed out.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Indeed, it's the first most of us have ever heard of this
According to the video, "The Dash development team reports that version two of the protocol will allow anyone to set aside any amount they desire into what will appear to them as an interest-bearing savings account." -- so I'd be interested to know the source, as well.
Indeed, it's the first most of us have ever heard of this
According to the video, "The Dash development team reports that version two of the protocol will allow anyone to set aside any amount they desire into what will appear to them as an interest-bearing savings account." -- so I'd be interested to know the source, as well.
the webpage shown in the video is
http://dash.org.ru/pages/mn-en.php
run by pouty (russian member)
I don't think that making it "cheaper" to own a masternode, in both terms of accumulated investment and effort, is a good idea. This sort of reminds me of when you could buy an "island" in second life for 6000 USD, and then one day they made that 5000, and it went down hill from there. They basically killed the economy by democratizing land ownership due to more competition with diminishing rewards. By adding pooled master nodes you will increase master node count, thereby reducing the rewards of people already invested, but more than that, you will open the network to speculation and price instability. The high expense of owning a masternode means that owners are invested and creates the proper incentives, if I can be part of a pooled masternode willy-nilly, then I don't have any incentive to be a good actor, I am out for myself.
I would venture this idea will tend to bring price down as opposed to up as well as attract the wrong sort of investors. Let the people who are currently running masternode shares do their thing and lets kill this idea.
This sort of ideas which change the core arrangement of the coin should be put to a vote at the very least.
Pablo.
I would venture this idea will tend to bring price down as opposed to up as well as attract the wrong sort of investors. Let the people who are currently running masternode shares do their thing and lets kill this idea.
This sort of ideas which change the core arrangement of the coin should be put to a vote at the very least.
Pablo.
Superdeddd
New member
Hi all,
There has been no news on the development of the Decentralized Masternode Shares (or trustless hosting using less 1000 Dash) for more then a year. With the current value of the node passing over $1m it is a challenge for most Dash owners to establish one. And trusted hosting\shares are just too much risk for many people.
Thus the Decentralized Masternode Shares concept is a much more anticipated feature for lots of folks.
Does anyone has any news on the planned rollout?
There has been no news on the development of the Decentralized Masternode Shares (or trustless hosting using less 1000 Dash) for more then a year. With the current value of the node passing over $1m it is a challenge for most Dash owners to establish one. And trusted hosting\shares are just too much risk for many people.
Thus the Decentralized Masternode Shares concept is a much more anticipated feature for lots of folks.
Does anyone has any news on the planned rollout?
@Superdeddd, First of all, you shouldn't revive old threads. And questions are probably answered more easily on http://dashchat.org/ if they don't require a discussion.
Anyway, to answer your question they are still planned but are a very complicated feature so will not be included in the first version of Evolution scheduled to be released sometime this year. So I would guess it's going to take at least 1+ years likely more.
And while I understand that a lot of people don't like the risk of sending their dash to strangers on the internet for safe keeping. Both moocowmoo and splawik21 are trusted long time member of this comunity. I know this is not optimal but it's all we will get for quite some time.
Anyway, to answer your question they are still planned but are a very complicated feature so will not be included in the first version of Evolution scheduled to be released sometime this year. So I would guess it's going to take at least 1+ years likely more.
And while I understand that a lot of people don't like the risk of sending their dash to strangers on the internet for safe keeping. Both moocowmoo and splawik21 are trusted long time member of this comunity. I know this is not optimal but it's all we will get for quite some time.