• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Temporary Measures / Quick Wins

strophy

strophy

Administrator
Staff member
Dash Core Group
Dash Support Group
Key Questions for Discussion
  • What are some temporary and/or quick-win solutions we can implement to address the observed economic issues and improve Dash as a store of value?
Lire en français
 
Last edited:
Small % saving reward for every month for wallets which have 1 to 100 dash end of the month.

Example 1: wallet have 100 dash last day of the month, 2% reward -> 2 dash.
Example 2: wallet have 1 dash last day of the month, 1% reward -> 0.01 dash.

Edit: correction 0.1 -> 0.01
 
Last edited:
A quick-win solution could be adjusting the block reward allocation split from 45 (miners) / 45 (masternodes) / 10 (budget)
to another block reward allocation split, for example 40 / 50 / 10 or 35 / 50 / 15

Not sure if this is fair to miners though. Although one way or another, miners are currently our focus point it seems.
 
We could just lower the mining reward, keep MNO rewards and budget the same, and burn the rest. That would effectively raise the value of all Dash in circulation, impacting holders.
Of course, that's just until we can implement some smarter long term solution.
 
As others have mentioned, just tweak it to reduce the POW awards and increase the MN & budget awards.

This should reduce the continual market selling by miners, while still keeping the essence of what Dash is.

Going to POS would be a knee-jerk reaction, one that is poorly thought out and will just make Dash another irrelevant POS coin where everyone gets a participation prize...
 
qwizzie said:
A quick-win solution could be adjusting the block reward allocation split from 45 (miners) / 45 (masternodes) / 10 (budget)
to another block reward allocation split, for example 40 / 50 / 10 or 35 / 50 / 15

Not sure if this is fair to miners though. Although one way or another, miners are currently our focus point it seems.
Click to expand...

Measures must be effective enough to change the balance of market forces.

10 / 70 / 20
 
I speak from a greater Store of Value focus .

The fastest way is to reduce the mining reward and give more % to the treasury and the MNO Network.

It is evident that the MN nodes have not been reduced until 1 month ago, so we can deduce that the miners are flooding the Dash market 2 years ago.

1 mining node only does 1 task that is IMPORTANT.
1 Master Node does several tasks that are IMPORTANT.

If the miners are not interested they can turning off machines or forking.

Also, if they (2 dominant mining pools) 'CAN and WANT ' to avoid that change, they just have to pump the Dash value. Easy..
 
the way I see it, it is a lack of demand and interest from the market.

1) reduce the emission rate, and prolong the emission period.
2) changing the block reward ratio to 35:55:10 for miner:MN: budget.
the unused budget goes to a locked treasury fund that later can be used.(future voting to release or burn the fund)
 
It would seem that if I understood correctly that the MN shared a solution would be quickly implemented.

With the information provided by Ryan, who if one day we replaced POW mining with a service solution with Dash collateral, the % profitability would be much higher than that received by MN to date.
And this even if we imagine that all available Dash will be assigned to the collateralisation of this new service.

It seems possible to me to imagine transferring a % of POW rewards to shared MN

If our object would be to have 1000 MN shared, it would decrease the profitability of the entire MN by 20%.

A distribution to support this objective would be:
35% POW
10% Budget
45% Full MN
10% Share MN

If the objective were to have 2000 MN shared in addition we would move on to:
25% POW
10% Budget
45% Full MN
20% Share MN

For simplification purposes we can do without dissociating the MNs, whether they are Full or Share

It would appear that Kraken is considering proposing a solution with trust outside the chain to enable it to become share of MN

It seems interesting to me that exploring this possibility on the Dash chain in a trustless way can only be a plus for dash and hes users in terms of a service that will exist anyway.
 
The point of a first change is make an assertion and test it. The market tells us if the assertion is right/wrong.

Testing an assertion about mining buying/selling requires a % reward change. This needs to be committed to over a longer time period for miners to be confident in the change, and the market to price accurately.

A test on a shorter timeline is staking via trustless MN shares. The market will price this more quickly -- whether that's sell or buying pressure. Either the market uses it or it doesn't. MN rewards and 'staking' rewards are at forced equilibrium, which may highlight differences in demand more quickly.
 
Unallocated treasury funds were never created, so I don't see what is there to talk about.
 
If this network expands the treasury which is something Core seems to be suggesting I would highly recommend we expand the percentage of yes votes in the same direction. As example, if the treasury budget expands to 20% I think the yes votes needs to be 20% of the MNs. That way only the most essential proposals will pass and the rest would be burned. Core gets a boost but the very few other proposals will be paid thereby reducing the circulating supply from both miners and POs
 
This announcement has caused a huge rift in an otherwise extremely well aligned community, and everyone knows why...and they know why their 'side' is right and the other 'side' is wrong.

...wait a minute...how and why did we go from all being aligned to being on a particular side? Well Ryan's identified a problem and proposed a couple solutions. I put some thought into this and followed the chats for a little while and realized that I really didn't know as much as I thought I knew about exactly how crypto-currencies work. That was a pretty painful process, and in the process I was really pissed off that these people could be so silly/dumb. I was using metaphors and the principles of economics to educate my audience, and they wanted to use unrelated or false metaphors/economics to educate me...and of course nobody was interested in being educated. Sound familiar? Sound silly?

There's a lot lost in the semantics. This fight is about PoS vs PoW. PoW is technically one cpu, one vote, right? Some forms of PoS require having a node running 24/7, so wouldn't that qualify as PoW? Could we just CALL it PoS / PoSE (like the MN Layer)...and hence PoW? Even if the PoSE requirements are extremely low (or just enough to run a node initially) wouldn't both 'sides' of this get onboard with that?

DASH has been focused on building a community environment and that's the only thing that's going to get us through this...there's already countless forks and founders who've left in super selfish ways....there's not a lot of places where guys have their decision making figured out enough to keep the community together. So if we can do this and make a decision in a relatively short amount of time ...that would be really freaking impressive.
 
Last edited:
p5yc071c said:
This announcement has caused a huge rift in an otherwise extremely well aligned community, and everyone knows why...and they know why their 'side' is right and the other 'side' is wrong.

...wait a minute...how and why did we go from all being aligned to being on a particular side? Well Ryan's identified a problem and proposed a couple solutions. I put some thought into this and followed the chats for a little while and realized that I really didn't know as much as I thought I knew about exactly how crypto-currencies work. That was a pretty painful process, and in the process I was really pissed off that these people could be so silly/dumb. I was using metaphors and the principles of economics to educate my audience, and they wanted to use unrelated or false metaphors/economics to educate me...and of course nobody was interested in being educated. Sound familiar? Sound silly?

There's a lot lost in the semantics. This fight is about PoS vs PoW. PoW is technically one cpu, one vote, right? Some forms of PoS require having a node running 24/7, so wouldn't that qualify as PoW? Could we just CALL it PoS / PoSE (like the MN Layer)...and hence PoW? Even if the PoSE requirements are extremely low (or just enough to run a node initially) wouldn't both 'sides' of this get onboard with that?

DASH has been focused on building a community environment and that's the only thing that's going to get us through this...there's already countless forks and founders who've left in super selfish ways....there's not a lot of places where guys have their decision making figured out enough to keep the community together. So if we can do this and make a decision with at least 70% Yes votes in a relatively short amount of time (4-15 months) ...that would be really freaking impressive.
Click to expand...


We could have a two tiered MN system like Horizen, the secure node requires 42 ZEN, the super node requires 500 ZEN, the rest is PoW mined, each MN layer has its own specific tasks it works on, I think super nodes have been set side for the ZEN DEX. Dunno. But we are launching Dash Platform with a dropping MN count and expecting them to do more work for falling rewards? Adding another MN layer to specifically address the new work being put in for Dash Platform seems like a possible solution.
 
Last edited:
qwizzie said:
A quick-win solution could be adjusting the block reward allocation split from 45 (miners) / 45 (masternodes) / 10 (budget)
to another block reward allocation split, for example 40 / 50 / 10 or 35 / 50 / 15

Not sure if this is fair to miners though. Although one way or another, miners are currently our focus point it seems.
Click to expand...
I would be reluctant to make an abrupt change unless the consensus mechanism changed with it. We've seen what happened in the past... unless it changes SLOWLY to allow for market forces to adjust, reward reallocation can have unintended consequences.
 
If
Bitedge said:
Define what will be done with unallocated treasury funds.Right now they may or may not be generated in the future. These are much larger amounts than most forces that Ryan suggested have big economic impacts

https://bitedge.com/blog/reclaiming-unallocated-dash-treasury-funds/
Click to expand...
If we moved to a system that simply deducted approved budgets from the block reward for the following month, the coin supply would be fully utilized either for budget or provided to MNs and miners. In other words, if we did away with the 10% allocation and allowed that to flex and directed everything else toward mining / MNs, that would solve the issue of "rollover" because it wouldn't go "unused".
 
EUsouth said:
According to the DIF, its legal structure allows it to receive external funds ... although they discarded it after some initial suggestion. (Meanwhile, we attend announcements such as BTCCash's that will have 200 million dollars - I think I remember - for its expansion).

I would have a couple of questions, if you were so kind:

1- Beyond what is legally possible ... would this involve risks in the field of regulation? Do you see a possibility that could be valued? (I do not say adopted, but valued)

2- To what extent are there options to disregard the entry of resources in a context that greatly conditions the financing of the project in its most basic aspects? (more so in measures that do not imply cuts in the current distribution or possible enemeistades between groups?)

Thank you.
Click to expand...
1) I'm not sure if by "this" you are referring to the DIF idea or the idea I posed. I personally wouldn't support the DIF, DCG, or any other entity getting all the "unused" funds. It sets up some weird situations like MNOs voting for things they don't support because they don't want the DIF to get it, for example. Also, in an ideal world, I'd like to see competing DIFs in the future so that poor performing ones wouldn't be funded. To answer the question asked, though, I don't think either option would be enough to label Dash a security from a regulatory basis because there are many reasons why it isn't a security. However, it would "nudge" things in that direction for any automated allocation to an entity like the DIF or DCG. On it's own, that wouldn't be sufficient in my opinion however.

EDIT: 2) I'm not sure what you meant... could you clarify?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top