Idea: Lower the barrier to entry by introducing the Masternode Variable Collateral Requirement

Nthelight

Nthelight

Member
Regarding discussions on trustless masternode shares and lowering the collateral to bring new investment money in.

Specifically about the option to lower the collateral:

Why does it have to be one specific value? Why can't we have several values?

Someone with a 250 collateral MN should be able to join the network, but someone with a 1000 collateral MN as well.
  • You don't dilute the profit margin in a linear manner as is the case with a change to a new single lower collateral requirement.
  • You don't artificially inflate the number of nodes and you lower the entry barrier.
Obviously the payments then have to use a collateral weight based formula.

E.g. options for MNOs : 250 Dash MN, 500 Dash MN, 1000 Dash MN.

I'd also like to hear from anyone who can give a more in-depth analysis of what increasing the number of masternodes does to the network in terms of performance (block propagation, latency, IS functionality, ...). If you are knowledgeable about what effect a doubling of the number of masternodes would have, please reply to this post.

In either case, if this could be implemented, the instant rise in number of masternodes would not be as explosive as a linear change, which seems to be the main argument against it as it changes the network dynamics somewhat no doubt. With the MN Variable Collateral Requirement you get very little of the downside, but all of the upside imo.

Aside from the complexity to implement this, do you think that would be a good solution to the problem?
 
This would be a great idea, I think lower entry is great but maybe 500 to start, but that still is unaffordable to me. I would like to see 250 dash node.

Each MN is not connected to ALL other nodes so I don't see how the common argument that it would slow down the network holds water until we have larger blocks. Btc has 10k nodes but we know that's not why it's slow...
 
Miner237 said:
Each MN is not connected to ALL other nodes so I don't see how the common argument that it would slow down the network holds water until we have larger blocks. Btc has 10k nodes but we know that's not why it's slow...
Click to expand...

Agree, I think it was just used as bullshit to scare the discussion away since it favours the super whales to keep the collateral requirements high.


Nthelight said:
Aside from the complexity to implement this, do you think that would be a good solution to the problem?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is enough to put me off the idea in general, for example, under this system we would need to adjust the voting too such that if you vote with 1000 DASH, you are actually casting 4 votes, we would need to adjust the payments, as you noted and that I believe would make the emission no longer deterministic, ie the final number of mined coins is not fixed.

The best argument I had from community members so far against the 250 Collateral reduction is that it would take 4x as long to get paid, this means a POSE ban would really impact a node's revenue since it would miss out on 1 of the 12 payments it would get in a year!

I have given this some thought and come to the conclusion that the payment cycle is already too long at 8 days. So, here is a possible solution, pay 8 nodes in each block, 1/8th the block reward, this will speed up the payments by a factor of two when we drop the collateral reqs to 250 DASH and help garner support from the masses. That means, the logic will seek 8 ENABLED nodes that have the longest time since the last recorded payment for payment in each block.
 
xkcd said:
Agree, I think it was just used as bullshit to scare the discussion away since it favours the super whales to keep the collateral requirements high.
Click to expand...

This was an answer provided by Ryan Taylor on lowering the collateral:
It dates back to 2019 already. It's time for an update on this point of view.

There's alo this, but that already dates back to 2014!

The problem was already obvious in 2014.

Would be good to get an objective update on the 'lowering the collateral' option (in whatever form, linear or variable).

The trend is obvious:
MN1.png



xkcd said:
Yeah, that is enough to put me off the idea in general, for example, under this system we would need to adjust the voting too such that if you vote with 1000 DASH, you are actually casting 4 votes, we would need to adjust the payments, as you noted and that I believe would make the emission no longer deterministic, ie the final number of mined coins is not fixed.

The best argument I had from community members so far against the 250 Collateral reduction is that it would take 4x as long to get paid, this means a POSE ban would really impact a node's revenue since it would miss out on 1 of the 12 payments it would get in a year!

I have given this some thought and come to the conclusion that the payment cycle is already too long at 8 days. So, here is a possible solution, pay 8 nodes in each block, 1/8th the block reward, this will speed up the payments by a factor of two when we drop the collateral reqs to 250 DASH and help garner support from the masses. That means, the logic will seek 8 ENABLED nodes that have the longest time since the last recorded payment for payment in each block.
Click to expand...

Not sure if the introduction of weighted masternodes is really that complex. More complex than changing one constant obviously, but it does also provide the benefit we are looking after without the disadvantage of artificially inflating the MN count, which is the case with a linear change.

You know, most of what we hear is probably just reluctance to change anything to layer one. It's what happened to Bitcoin, after some time, people just don't dare to touch it anymore.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, we couldn't get Adaptive Proposal Fees approved, how can we get adaptive masternode collaterals off the ground?

Couldn't get Set Your Price Proposals approved, was "too complex / DCG too busy doing other things".

And then a bunch of people turn up and start discussing even more complex solutions to problems that don't exist.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
I don't know, we couldn't get Adaptive Proposal Fees approved, how can we get adaptive masternode collaterals off the ground?

Couldn't get Set Your Price Proposals approved, was "too complex / DCG too busy doing other things".

And then a bunch of people turn up and start discussing even more complex solutions to problems that don't exist.
Click to expand...

Stay tuned, bud, Adaptive proposal fees are going to get one more chance to fork in. We will be raising a proposal on the matter soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top