As a plurality of cryptocurrencies continue to attempt to coexist in a new, rapidly changing market–the community finds itself forced to draw lines that differentiate safe, stable currencies from currencies that are nothing more than fleeting stocks or temporary money-making schemes.
It can be tricky to know where we the draw the line between currencies that we can trust, and currencies that might be out to exploit those who open their wallets to invest in them.
Dash has been the subject of the ‘can we trust this currency?’ question several times in the past, and a lot of the doubt within the cryptocurrency community about the intention of the team behind the scenes stems from the same one or two general issues that have present since day one of the ICO.
You may recognize the name Dash (DASH) better by one of its former names, Darkcoin or XCoin (XCO), a currency that launched over three years ago in the middle of January in 2014. Since then, the currency has continued to be run by its creator, Evan Duffield along with the team supporting the currency’s efforts to sustain its unmistakably impressive growth.
Today, it’s impossible to deny that Dash is one of the more prominent players in the current cryptocurrency landscape, especially since Dash has an impressive market cap of over 2.5 billion USD and a value of nearly $340 per coin–as of the time of writing this article.
We live in a world where distrust for the government is at a high point, and as a society the general public have continued to fester their distrust for banks as a result of the financial crisis. Similarly, as megacorporations continue to consolidate and oligopolies continue to dominate various consumer markets, the public’s trust for corporations has taken a similar dive.
It’s important to understand this when we consider the context that have made cryptocurrencies such a powerful financial phenomenon in recent years.
One of the strongest selling points for cryptocurrencies has always been the idea of an unregulated system that would not fall victim to conflicts of interests, or the greed of controlling parties. This would be a system that was inherently transparent, thanks to blockchain: a system which serves as a public ledger of all transactions and allows for easy auditing to occur as a method of preventing fraud and keeping the currency honest.
Without this system, trusting any cryptocurrency would be arguably worse than trusting the corporations, banks and government branches that cryptocurrencies are an alternative to.
This is where the case for, or against, Dash gets complicated.
As it stands currently, a lot of Dash’s fate lies solely in the hands of its leader, Evan Duffield.
Few of the other major cryptocurrencies are known to grant the owner as much power as Evan currently has over the currency. Included in these powers, the publically viewable source code grants Evan the ability to “allow to reprocess 24h of blocks max, which should be enough to resolve any issues.”
To present the team’s side of the argument, Evan has provided a couple of solutions that will take away his ability to control the currency on his own, but even these have their criticisms.
Solution 1 – Sharing Power With The Team:
The team proposes splitting Evan’s current administrative powers with the rest of the team. Instead of Evan having complete control over this 24-hour reprocessing feature, it would be up to a larger portion of the team who will have to sign off on the decision.
Criticisms of Solution 1:
Critics of Dash have claimed that this solution does not seek to remedy the issue that they have with this feature, as it would still be in control of the team. There would be little else other than trust to prevent the team from coming together to misuse this feature, as they would be able to undo 24 hours worth of transactions.
Solution 2: Letting Users Decide:
The other solution proposed is to allow masternodes to vote in approval or disapproval of the reprocessing feature being used. In theory, this would serve as a system of self-governance where it would be up to the users–not the Dash team–to decide when and if this feature is triggered.
Criticisms of Solution 2:
As with the previous proposed solution, this solution is subject to a variety of criticisms. These mainly stem from the fact that running a masternode requires the user to hold 1,000 worth of Dash coins (to prevent sybil attacks). This would mean that the only people to vote on the currency’s fate would be those who hold over $340,000USD~ worth of the currency. Here, the validity of the criticism depends on what you consider a ‘decentralized currency’ to be.
Would users democratically voting on the fate of the currency be an example of an effective decentralized currency?
OR, does the amount of money required to hold a masternode make this system subject to the will of the rich elites–much in the same way oligopolies cooperate for their own best interests in the real world–after all, what’s stopping these users from teaming up to exploit the currency?
The Instamining Incident
In further considering the case against Dash coin, we have to also consider the fact that the currency has been subject to criticisms from within the community since the very beginning, due to the fact that when it launched, it made headlines for all the wrong reasons. The currency was victim to nearly 2 million coins being instamined only a few days after its initial coin offering. .
If we consider the fact that there are a bit over 7.5 million coins circulating (with a maximum supply of 18.9~ million coins) it’s easy to see why a considerably large portion of the currency having been immediately mined might be disconcerting for investors and for the cryptocurrency community at large.
In the team’s defence, they have consistently acknowledged this issue. After the instamining incident occurred, Evan Duffield, with the support of his team, was quick to condemn the mining as an unfortunate code error and did not hesitate to propose several solutions to remedy the situation. The team offered to relaunch the coin, or simply distribute more of the currency to offset the amount that was instamined, but the Dash community turned down both ideas.
So where does all of this leave us?
A lot of your personal trust in Dash is just that, personal. While proponents of the currency have mentioned that if the project were a scam, the team would probably have ‘cashed-in’ by now, and have also cited Evan’s dedication to the project, and that he has continued to work on it since 2014.
However, by trusting in Dash in its current state, you are essentially putting all of your trust into the team behind the scenes and unfortunate incidents, such as the instamining occurrence, are worth considering.
Additionally, the fact that Evan Duffield currently has the ability to ‘reprocess’ 24-hours worth of transactions is not something to take lightly, and even both of the proposed solutions have fair criticisms that need to be considered when putting your money, and your faith, in Dash.
This article was written by one of our guest writers
Author: Jack Filiba from deepless.com
If you would like to write for us, get in touch at firstname.lastname@example.org
Follow us on Twitter – Click here
Join The Bit Forum – Click here
Discover New ICO’s – Click here