
Proposal “change-block-reward-allocation“ (Active)Back
Title: | Changing the block reward allocation |
Owner: | pmbf |
One-time payment: | 1 DASH (21 USD) |
Completed payments: | no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining) |
Payment start/end: | 2025-07-08 / 2025-08-07 (added on 2025-07-09) |
Final voting deadline: | in 1 month |
Votes: | 59 Yes / 12 No / 0 Abstain |
Will be funded: | No. This proposal needs additional 293 Yes votes to become funded. |
Manually vote on this proposal (DashCore - Tools - Debugconsole): gobject vote-many 9ae50083c67430b5b23d348d36ef889d1987a04cb43017c60bd9dba23b8b8898 funding yes Please login or create a new DashCentral account for comfortable one button voting! |
Proposal description
Hi,
This is a decision proposal:
"Change the block reward allocation to 10% (miners) / 20% (budget) / 70% (MNs)."
(Today it’s 20/20/60.)
If it passes, DCG will implement it, and I’ll probably go one step further in
about 1 year with a proposal for 5/20/75 (or perhaps 5/25/70 if the value of
Dash will be low).
Thanks to chainlocks, there is almost no more risk of double spending or
similar attacks. That means, that the PoW system can work with less hashrate.
Today the rewards for the miners are mainly used for electricity. I think that
this is a waste because a high hashrate is no more needed. I prefer not
wasting resources, that can be used elsewhere.
There was some discussion on
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/changing-the-block-reward-allocation.56058/
but it was mostly OT. Just to be clear: This proposal is not about removing
PoW and not about changing the mining algorithm. It is about reducing the cost
for electricity and reducing the impact on the environment.
Of course, there would be a drawback for miners, who have invested in mining
hardware. I don’t know the profile of the majority of the miners: Highly
invested in Dash, real Dash lovers? Or rather just mining for the coin with
the highest return, whatever it is, just as a business to generate some income?
If you think, that the priority should be the preservation of the income of
the miners, then please vote NO here.
If you think, that resources, that can be used for the MN-network (and perhaps
the DAO), should not be used for electricity, then please vote YES here.
I hope, that I’ve taken into account most comments, that I’ve got from the
forum, reddit, discord and my deleted proposal.
Kind regards, Peter
This is a decision proposal:
"Change the block reward allocation to 10% (miners) / 20% (budget) / 70% (MNs)."
(Today it’s 20/20/60.)
If it passes, DCG will implement it, and I’ll probably go one step further in
about 1 year with a proposal for 5/20/75 (or perhaps 5/25/70 if the value of
Dash will be low).
Thanks to chainlocks, there is almost no more risk of double spending or
similar attacks. That means, that the PoW system can work with less hashrate.
Today the rewards for the miners are mainly used for electricity. I think that
this is a waste because a high hashrate is no more needed. I prefer not
wasting resources, that can be used elsewhere.
There was some discussion on
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/changing-the-block-reward-allocation.56058/
but it was mostly OT. Just to be clear: This proposal is not about removing
PoW and not about changing the mining algorithm. It is about reducing the cost
for electricity and reducing the impact on the environment.
Of course, there would be a drawback for miners, who have invested in mining
hardware. I don’t know the profile of the majority of the miners: Highly
invested in Dash, real Dash lovers? Or rather just mining for the coin with
the highest return, whatever it is, just as a business to generate some income?
If you think, that the priority should be the preservation of the income of
the miners, then please vote NO here.
If you think, that resources, that can be used for the MN-network (and perhaps
the DAO), should not be used for electricity, then please vote YES here.
I hope, that I’ve taken into account most comments, that I’ve got from the
forum, reddit, discord and my deleted proposal.
Kind regards, Peter
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
![]() |
No comments so far?
Be the first to start the discussion! |
Just some quick feedback, stick to this proposal only. Better to focus on this one only instead of picking up more opposition IMO.
You should NOT stick to hardcoded numbers!
You should vote the numbers. Endlessly!
https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/
But with some clever tweaks in the Base3 voting procedure, we can do it.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-%E2%80%9Ctreasury-reallocation-60-20-20%E2%80%9C-active.54063/#post-236330
SO YOU HAVE TO CAST 6 PROPOSALS (2 bundles of 3 digits each) THAT WILL PUT THE BLOCKREWARD ALLOCATION TO AN ENDLESS VOTE.
Anyone who wants to offer 6 dash and solve this issue once and forever?
He spend 2 dash (1 for the failed proposal and 1 for this one) in order to change the block reward allocation.
pmbf, WITH ONE MORE dash, he could solve this problem FOREVER.
Simply, as long as he wants to change the block reward allocation to from 20miners/20budget/60mnos to 10/20/70 , the 20budget remains stable. So he want us to vote in between miners and mnos. So he put a 3 digit numerical proposal (look here https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/), asking the percentage of the miners. The remain is the percentage of the mnos. The result is miltiplied by 0.8 (because 20budget is out of question).
So pmbf with one more dash could put a neverending numerical proposal, and solve the problem of the allocation between mnos and miners once and forever. Instead he did a hole in the water, his proposal will last one month only, more people will be required to vote again and again , and more proposal fees will be spend for nothing.
Stupid pmbf, wake up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyOSx62c2Ic
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/changing-the-block-reward-allocation.56058/page-2#post-242009
In case you are not completely stupid, you may comment here or there and ask questions.
https://mnowatch.org/encointerUBI
.... and make something similar for the change-block-reward-allocation.
You should also to announce a minimum participation threshold (in the Encointer vote it was set to 10%) for the voting outcome to be legitimate
If someone claims that your announced minimum participation should not be hardcoded but should be voted, then among all the possible minimum participations percentages that are proposed, the most voted one that respects itself is selected (the bold rule)
The bold rule in an example: If someone claims for example that 15% should be the minimum participation, then this should be supported by at least 15% of the votes.
If more than one percentage proposals pass the bold rule, then the most voted one is applied.
I would like to interrupt this happy gathering of idiots and say the following:
First of all , congratulations for voting the numbers, you may also use this tool for doing it.
https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/
But , although you are trying to vote the numbers, you still remain idiot, because you should alocate part of the block reward to Encointer.
MINING SHOULD OCCUR WHEN PEOPLE MEAT EACHOTHER.
So my proposal is:
"Change the block reward allocation to 5% (Encointer)/10% (miners) / 25% (budget) / 60% (MNs)." (Today it’s 20 miners/20 budget/60 MNs.)
Imagine the burst of Dash, when the people around the globe start meeting eachother in various cities. Dash will become the first coin, it will surpass bitcoin , even USD. Then you will launch the satelite that has been proposed in the ancient Dash times , and you will distribute Dash to the whole globe.
Yes, I know, you will never support such idea because you are completely stupid, but I have to tell you so that you will have no excuse in the judgement days.
VOTE FOR ENCOINTER!
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/encointerUBI-mean26
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/streaming-the-dash-blockchain-to-the-whole-planet-from-geosynchronous-satellites.17279/
This:
> I think that
this is a waste because a high hashrate is no more needed.
Needs justification. The PO never specifies why his "estimation of waste" is useful. The energy that proof of work uses is never WASTED. The energy cost is a feature, not a bug, and Dash already has an extremely efficient hashing algorithm in X11. So what is really the justification for changing the protocol AGAIN?
Killing proof of work like this is what kills adoption. Nobody, not even quantumexplorer, will reply to this argument of mine. Proof of work is designed to spread the coin, the selling pressure is a good thing because it makes miners sell the coin, which gets it in peoples' hands. That's adoption. Without proof of work, the size of the economy of Dash will stay the same and won't be able to grow, just like Nano which also doesn't have mining (where you are trying to send us).
The solution to our price woes is not changing the protocol. We already have an efficient hashing algorithm, there is no need to decrease the amount of energy the Dash network uses. That's like "decreasing the number of masternodes". Its counter-productive behavior wrapped up in a bow. Lipstick on a pig. You should not vote yes for this proposal, at least not without justifying and responding to my criticisms.
I've heard this all before, if miners are forced to sell, it still requires buyers willing to buy.
Even if in future there are no more miners who can sell, you totally underestimate the number of MNOs who regularly (have to) sell a portion of their earnings. It will make no difference of what you perceive to be the key to success, but it's not.
Why would you want that? Dash is a POW coin. Masternodes and platform still rely on mining and POW to serve as a base layer, we can't get rid of them in favor of Masternodes, the system won't work.
>I've heard this all before, if miners are forced to sell, it still requires buyers willing to buy.
Okay?
>It will make no difference of what you perceive to be the key to success
You are just assuming that. Masternodes are centralizing, its just a fact even if you refuse to acknowledge it. The more masternodes you own (like having an evo node) the less of your reward you will have to or want to sell, as the incentive is to seek more for yourself. The sell pressure on miners is much greater, like immediate. Aside from server costs, MNOs don't have the same pressure, so no I am NOT underestimating it. It is you who underestimates the strength of sell pressure on miners, which is what distributes the coin.
Therefore, your contention that it will make no difference is unsupported and likely false.
>but it's not.
It is. You don't have the right to disagree with me without explaning yourself. That's not what this place is for...
one day it will fully become what it truly is and always has been .. and what it is meant to be
That day has already come, Dash is POW + masternodes + platform. You're trying to take away POW, which is what Dash has been and has been meant to be since day one, please read the white paper.
If this project was truly a PoW coin then it would be the miners who would have voting rights and not the masternodes.
The miners don't really care about the project, because they own no coins, they immediately sell off.
PoW was only necessary because the masternode technology at the time did not allow for the masternodes to take over mining, but this has changed over the past years.
The masternodes are ready to take over anytime soon and nobody will be able to stop them.
Of the house of which you spoke, the masternodes are the foundation.
And PoW is not even the roof, its just the chimney which is polluting the air we MNO desperately need to breathe and it really serves no other purpose at all.
Oh come on, the whitepaper is NOT God's word set in stone.
No, I'm not, and no, you won't. Let's prove it.
>If this project was truly a PoW coin
How can you deny that Dash is a POW coin? Its in the whitepaper. Dash is just Bitcoin with changes. You have provided no evidence that Dash is "not a pow coin". How can a "non-pow coin" be based on proof of work like Dash is? Why would you even need to make this proposal if Dash were NOT a POW coin? This would be a waste of money. So thank you, you have proven by your own retort that Dash IS A POW coin. I appreciate the assist in defeating your argument.
>then it would be the miners who would have voting rights and not the masternodes.
What a non-sequitur. I mean that doesn't follow at all. No other proof of work coins have "miner voting", so why would you predicate Dash's POW status on whether or not Dash has "miner voting"?
>The miners don't really care about the project,
If that were true they wouldn't mine it. You don't have the right to speak for them.
>because they own no coins, they immediately sell off.
They own expensive hardware who's only use is mining Dash. How can you say they don't care about the project then? Its just like Masternodes, they invest and get an ROI. You have no right to say that they don't care about the project. They sell off immediately because **that's where the incentives are**. They have NO CHOICE but to do that, and it was designed that way by Satoshi. Dash is literally a fork from BTC which means once again, your own argument proves you wrong, so thank you.
>PoW was only necessary
This is wrong. Dash still uses POW for things that Masternodes cannot do. Miners distribute the coin, find the next block in a decentralized, random and fair manner (i.e. not just having money but actually competing for new Dash). Platform and masternodes both rely on the proof of work layer to function. How can you be in Dash so long, a MNO even, and not know this?
>did not allow for the masternodes to take over mining, but this has changed over the past years.
Masternodes are not meant to do mining. That's not their purpose. Separation of concerns is the guiding principle here, please look it up. Masternodes are not meant to take over miners' functionality.
>The masternodes are ready to take over anytime soon and nobody will be able to stop them.
You sound almost fanatical about this. You've clearly made your mind up, even though your position is in stark contrast to the way Dash functions now, let alone in the white paper.
>Of the house of which you spoke, the masternodes are the foundation.
That's like saying "the attic is the foundation". How can something that came after be "the foundation" for something that came before? The house is BUILT on the foundation, not on the roof. Masternodes would be the rough in this analogy (MY analogy, which you have no right to change, again you put words in my mouth and try to speak for others to make your point, which is a red flag).
>And PoW is not even the roof,
POW is the foundation. WIthout POW you don't have cryptocurrency. You clearly have anti-POW and therefore anti-Dash views and I don't think its appropriate for you to promote them here. Dash is a proof of work coin and you have no right to fight that religiously without stating a justifiable cause.
>ich is polluting the air we MNO desperately need to breathe and it really serves no other purpose at all.
You are trying to appeal to MNO selfishness so that when your plan, which you likely intended to fail from the beginning as a form of cynical gaslighting, can be blamed on us. Just like you all gaslight the growth in Latin America and then blamed their "failure" on them, when you are the ones who defunded them. Its just irrational and clearly shows that you have abandoned any semblance of being reasonable.
In other words, this is a shakedown.
>Oh come on, the whitepaper is NOT God's word set in stone.
Oh come on, without the whitepaper you don't have a project. You really are trying to dismantle Dash.
Why?
Masternodes came after POW, much later, so there's no way logically for what you're saying to even make sense. Please try again.
You have not taken into account any of my comments, which is not only rude, but completely goes against how Dash's governance is supposed to work. In other words, it appears that you're attempting to railroad this proposal in.
1. You do not have the right to speak for the network and say that "our mining uses too much energy". You're supposed to do studies and present facts and figures before you make an assertion like that. Refusing to do that is a form of gaslighting (where you don't take this seriously enough to prove your assertions with evidence, instead of just "a gut feeling")
2. Proof of work is necessary to SPREAD THE COIN. Miners sell to people who BUY the coin. The sell pressure on miners is good because it increases adoption. Don't you want to increase adoption? Don't you want to spread Dash to as many people as possible? Why are you ignoring this response to your idea?
3. Chainlocks only does ONE of the things that proof of work does. But still, the point of proof of work mining is to have miners sell the coin thanks to increased pressure. By reducing the miner's share of the block reward, you are reducing the power of mining. There is no point in doing this just because of Chainlocks. Chainlocks do not present the same economic benefit that you appear to be ignoring
>Or rather just mining for the coin with
the highest return, whatever it is, just as a business to generate some income?
This is none of your business, that's what I mean. You seem to come with strong opinions on aspects of Dash that are not in alignment with Dash's original goal and purpose (which, last I checked have not changed). You have to justify these opinion with evidence and not just your own preferences. Miners only mining as a business to generate income is a great thing, as separation of concerns causes 100% focus on one's speciality and area of expertise. Just like MNOs don't care about mining at all. Your characterization of miners here, therefore, would be unfair and ignorant of how the block reward split is supposed to work.
How do you respond?
As already stated in https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/changing-the-block-reward-allocation.56058/#post-241782, I won’t respond.
Please just vote "No", if you want to keep 20% for the mining.
"You have to answer why POW is something you want to "get rid of" and decrease. Why not just leave the protocol alone? Why are you pushing for such a major change now with little guaranteed effect or result?"
It is EXTREMELY inappropriate for a PO to REFUSE to answer questions in this venue (and on the pre-proposal) yet continue to "march on anyway". Again, further proof that what I allege is correct and this person is part of a destructive cabal to make Dash less effective.
"Calling you a bad actor when you're acting in bad faith is not an insult. You do not have the right to ignore the objections of MNOs on your pre-proposal. The fact that you wish to do so indicates that you are indeed a bad actor trying to force false narratives on the Dash community ("mining is a waste of energy") and thus should be censured and prevented from creating proposals.
Stop being a bad actor!"
That's how you can tell that the people behind this push are bad actors.
Sure this current decision proposal would be better for MNO's (and not so good for miners), but is it also better for the Dash network and its users overall ?
I asked AI (Microsoft Copilot in this case) to go through a situation of changing the blockreward re-allocation to Miners 10% (-10% change), Masternodes 60% (no change) and budget 20% (no change) and simply not emit the -10% change of miners.
This is the result : https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/1xj6KYBtqN8EqGVbH1XqR
* Summary *
Reducing emissions:
Lowers inflation, potentially making Dash more attractive as a store of value.
Preserves scarcity, which could support price stability or appreciation.
But it also means less incentive for miners, which might affect network security unless offset by other mechanisms.
Effect on Masternode ROI:
Changing the block reward allocation from 20/60/20 to 10/60/20 with 10% unemitted would have a nuanced impact on masternode ROI :
Masternode share remains at 60%, so their absolute reward per block stays the same.
However, since 10% of the block reward is never emitted, the total circulating supply grows more slowly. This means:
Less inflationary pressure on Dash price
Potential for price appreciation or stability, which boosts ROI in fiat terms
Scarcity increases, making masternode rewards more valuable
Sorry but it's incredibly difficult to sell scarcity, there's an unlimited supply of scarcity! :D
It's going to take real work, actual sweat.
Reducing the emission by 10% is nothing else than fast-forwarding 1-2 years to the future.
Seems like you can't await (much) lower rewards .. guess what, they will come your way quicker than you might wish for.
Dash : 3.70%
Bitcoin : 0.84%
Bitcoin Cash : 0.89%
Monero : 0.80%
ETH : 0.40%
I rather see us discuss reducing Dash circulating supply inflation rate (which currently seems to still cause a lot of sell pressure on the Dash price) as well, then just discuss a re-allocation a portion of the miners blockrewards and move them to MNO's.
Perhaps you should be less eager playing Doctor Moreau with our emission,
and instead asking yourself the real question here:
Why does our coin have like zero - nada - demand in the marketplace?
Because everything else you come up with is just stupid distraction.