Why don't we halve the Masternode collateral requirement now?

halso

halso

Active member
Q. Why does a network with incentivized nodes (i.e. Dash) have less nodes than a network with no incentives (i.e. Bitcoin) ?

Is our master-node collateral requirement too high?

I previously read somewhere that the plan is to ultimately decrease the collateral requirement as the network grows.

But why don't we do it now?

We are competing with Bitcoin on a number of fronts and we are winning on quite a few (i.e. privacy, speed, governance).

But what about network security? We could become a more secure network with more active nodes.

This seems like an easy win. If we halve the Masternode collateral to 500 dash, we will likely see at least a doubling of Masternodes on the network.

That we give us more active nodes than Bitcoin. 7664 dash nodes (currently 3832) to 5758 bitcoin nodes.

Summary of advantages:
  • Media bonanza - Dash now has the most nodes of all the cryptos.
  • Technically more secure network
  • New users attracted to Dash
  • Likely price hike
Possible disadvantages:
  • The % return per node may decrease (however this is likely to be offset by the increase in price)
I think the media benefits can't be under estimated. The only reason i decided to take a second look at dash (and ultimately invest in MNs) was because of a Cointelegraph article on the 2MB limit increase.

The media associated with beating bitcoin on security would be awesome.

What do others think?
 
So wouldn't this theoretically give current node owners the ability to double up on their node count? Seems rather weird....
 
Vedran Yoweri said:
Why should existing members vote yeah for this? It'll double their costs.
Click to expand...
Could actually make cost more than 2x higher because:
1) you would need to host 2x nodes;
2) 2x nodes on network in total would cause ~2x mem/traffic requirements i.e. you would probably need more expensive nodes of a higher tier for your MNs.

And moreover, current node count is pretty much enough for our current size imo. What we really need is people using Dash.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/nodes-transactions-btc-dash.html
 
Miner237 said:
Yeah but double nodes means they would have lower ROI because of the additional costs.
Click to expand...

Yea but they would have 2x the votes?

Don't we already have enough of a problem with certain people owning 200+ nodes each? I know it's not a popular topic but damn... do we really need most of the nodes controlled by so few people?
 
so if you lower the cost to ownership of masternodes is it like a tax on the rich? People with many nodes still have same vote power but a higher cost to operate.
 
Would a safer, less disruptive way to see if more people are wiling to operate more nodes be to introduce a variable rate of return between 10% and 100% of the current return for operating a node with a stake between 100 Dash and 1000 Dash?

btw Does the Dash block reward halve every few years like Bitcoin? If so, I'm assuming the masternode return halves as well - how does that affect the operators? Will there be enough incentive for them want to continue?
 
Yes, existing MN operators would see a doubling of costs if they doubled down on the number of masternodes.

And potentially experience a lower ROI on dash volume.

But, the net result could be a much higher real monetary ROI.

Basically im hypothezing that this action would create a much larger increase in the Dash price to offset any increase in costs or lower ROI on dash volume.
 
Miner237 said:
so if you lower the cost to ownership of masternodes is it like a tax on the rich? People with many nodes still have same vote power but a higher cost to operate.
Click to expand...
In case of (2) everyone will have higher cost.

Voluntary said:
Would a safer, less disruptive way to see if more people are wiling to operate more nodes be to introduce a variable rate of return between 10% and 100% of the current return for operating node with a stake between 100 Dash and 1000 Dash?

btw Does the Dash block reward halve every few years like Bitcoin? If so, I'm asuming the masternode return halves as well - how does that affect the operators? Will there be enough incentive for them want to continue?
Click to expand...
Smaller nodes would just increase network load without any added value imo e.g. 10% of current ROI is smth like ~1% - would be ok for real world investment but in crypto... nah, I don't think anyone would be interested.
Block reward is reduced by 1/14 (i.e. ~7.1%) every 210240 blocks which is ~1 year for Dash. You pay for MN hosting in $/eur/whatever so if we do mostly right things DASH/$ should go up and everyone should be happy, including MN owners :)

halso said:
Yes, existing MN operators would see a doubling of costs if they doubled down on the number of masternodes.

And potentially experience a lower ROI on dash volume.

But, the net result could be a much higher real monetary ROI.

Basically im hypothezing that this action would create a much larger increase in the Dash price to offset any increase in costs or lower ROI on dash volume.
Click to expand...
My guess is that there could be only short term price increase/pump on news like that and MN owners should be targeted at long term price increase/organic growth instead. Imo node count means nothing if there are no people using them so tweaking node count isn't really a way to bump ROI.
 
UdjinM6 said:
In case of (2) everyone will have higher cost.


Smaller nodes would just increase network load without any added value imo e.g. 10% of current ROI is smth like ~1% - would be ok for real world investment but in crypto... nah, I don't think anyone would be interested.
Block reward is reduced by 1/14 (i.e. ~7.1%) every 210240 blocks which is ~1 year for Dash. You pay for MN hosting in $/eur/whatever so if we do mostly right things DASH/$ should go up and everyone should be happy, including MN owners :)


My guess is that there could be only short term price increase/pump on news like that and MN owners should be targeted at long term price increase/organic growth instead. Imo node count means nothing if there are no people using them so tweaking node count isn't really a way to bump ROI.
Click to expand...
Technically, the additional node count wouldn't mean much. But neither did the 2MB capacity increase.

Media exposure and new eyeballs is the real prise here.

And im speaking from personal experience. I jumped in after reading about the 2MB block vote.

The more metrics we can beat BTC on, the more new users we attract.

I guess its a chicken and egg question, what do u do first? Wait for the new users, then increase nodes, or increase nodes and attract new users.
 
I have disagreed with the OP because MN pools are available for those interested, providing an option to get involved at a lesser amount.
The number of MNs is growing, so there is no present need to spur growth in that rate.
Perhaps there may be a need to do so in the future ???
Best
rc
 
I did some modelling. If we halved the MN collateral to 500 dash. We would need to see a sustained price increase of 25% to maintain the same monetary ROI.

The media attention and new users could easily create a sustained 25% increase in price. Most likely a greater % increase.
 
Hm... I didn't realise this suggestion was intended as a kind of publicity stunt. How many times can the network rules, which ought to be long-term and stable, be tweaked for the sake of the precession of passing fads that is marketing? Marketing has its place but that place is not where serious decisions get made. That kind of reminds me of one of the popular themes from Dilbert cartoons...
 
Voluntary said:
Hm... I didn't realise this suggestion was intended as a kind of publicity stunt. How many times can the network rules, which ought to be long-term and stable, be tweaked for the sake of the precession of passing fads that is marketing? Marketing has its place but that place is not where serious decisions get made. That kind of reminds me of one of the popular themes from Dilbert cartoons...
Click to expand...
History is littered with better technology options getting trumped by marketing. Think VHS vs. betamax.

Also, it wouldn't solely be a marketing exercise. The network would significantly expand and be technically more secure.

A doubling of masternodes would collectively cost about an additional $1m a year (assuming everyone used a hosting service).

But this would be offset by a sustained 25% price increase.

Think of it as a network investment. Its a risk. But this is crypto. Surely we are all up for a bit of investment risk?????
 
halso said:
I did some modelling. If we halved the MN collateral to 500 dash. We would need to see a sustained price increase of 25% to maintain the same monetary ROI.
The media attention and new users could easily create a sustained 25% increase in price. Most likely a greater % increase.
Click to expand...
Halso, This is fascinating !

I would very much like you to present the details of your modeling exercise, for consideration by the general audience here.

What escapes me, so far, is how this concept may be pitched to those who will vote upon it, when they can clearly see it entails a significant increase in competition, coming into the workplace at half the cost which could easily decrease their return.

"We would need to see a sustained price increase of 25% "
Sir. Have you viewed a market chart, today ?
DASH is falling by 6% at the same time ETH is showing a 14% upswing for the same period !

Has your model criteria factored in circumstances in today's marketplace ?


"The media attention and new users could easily create a sustained 25% increase in price..."
Wow ! halso, your modelling program must have a Really cool
landing-page-ez-button-short-product-artwork.png


I am quite fond of that EZ Button, myself !
Again, I would suggest you post the details of your modelling program for the rest of the viewers...
Kind of the same way the ETH folks had open source programming and their DAO was also open source. It could be a bonus ! Both of them are growing in value after suffering what I might consider a rather serious setback ...
But I'm just a lowly Newbie at all this sort of stuff.
rc

halso, I'll come back for a quick edit... the DAO is presently UP 54% for the 24hr period !
.
 
rustycase said:
Halso, This is fascinating !

I would very much like you to present the details of your modeling exercise, for consideration by the general audience here.

What escapes me, so far, is how this concept may be pitched to those who will vote upon it, when they can clearly see it entails a significant increase in competition, coming into the workplace at half the cost which could easily decrease their return.

"We would need to see a sustained price increase of 25% "
Sir. Have you viewed a market chart, today ?
DASH is falling by 6% at the same time ETH is showing a 14% upswing for the same period !

Has your model criteria factored in circumstances in today's marketplace ?


"The media attention and new users could easily create a sustained 25% increase in price..."
Wow ! halso, your modelling program must have a Really cool
landing-page-ez-button-short-product-artwork.png


I am quite fond of that EZ Button, myself !
Again, I would suggest you post the details of your modelling program for the rest of the viewers...
Kind of the same way the ETH folks had open source programming and their DAO was also open source. It could be a bonus ! Both of them are growing in value after suffering what I might consider a rather serious setback ...
But I'm just a lowly Newbie at all this sort of stuff.
rc

halso, I'll come back for a quick edit... the DAO is presently UP 54% for the 24hr period !
.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, this is an empirical question. If we believe reducing the collateral to 500 will lead to at least a 25% sustained price increase, we should do it. If not, then no.

Here is a summary of my analysis:



5vHVUuW
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    44.9 KB · Views: 165
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top