Amanda B. Johnson posted a comparison of Zcash vs. Dash. To me, it looks like STEEM is getting close to Dash, under Amanda's criteria. And if the STEEM roadmap gets an update, it'll be at least on par with Dash. #### Zcash vs. Dash: How Do They Compare Across the Board? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=591J9KcKgHM --- # Governance So far, STEEM has had a stellar implementation of Governance. Witnesses have done a great job of protecting the platform. Discussion of each change has even resulted in the precision excise of certain unfavorable features in past proposed hardforks, almost like a line-item veto. While it could still be debated whether or not these vetos would have benefitted the platform, it was clear *what* the stakeholders wanted and didn't want. The unpopular changes were removed, and the hardforks proceeded without a hitch. In fact, theoretically, STEEM cannot even be forked into a "STEEM-Classic" chain like Zcash and Dash could. Personally, I'm not privy to the exact mechanism that prevents this kind of fork. But supposedly, it's resistant to the idea right in the protocol. All this to say, STEEM has a very good Governance. It's certainly not rudimentary like Zcash. Personally, I think it's at least on par with Dash. But if you include the fully threaded discussions on-chain, it should get two checkmarks. But I'll stick to one, like Dash, because Dash can at least have the proposed changes on-chain with cryptographically provable votes by stakeholders, even if it doesn't have a fully threaded discussion directly on-chain like STEEM. # Trajectory of Infrastructure Over time, the STEEM infrastructure will expand and become even more decentralize. [ChainBase](https://github.com/steemit/chainbase) alone will ensure this, and it is clearly defined as part of the STEEM roadmap. The hardware requirements for ChainBase will drop so that more hardware can be dedicated to the platform. Economic incentive is already built into the platform. The advantage for STEEM over Dash is that STEEM witnesses do not personally require a huge stake to get started. Stakeholders can vote for particular witnesses. Unlike Dash, the STEEM witness nodes do personally not require locked up collateral. There's still a collateral model, but its owned by the stakeholders who vote for the witnesses (via Delegated Proof of Stake). They can change their vote at any time. Witnesses that "go rogue" are risking an instant backlash from stakeholders. STEEM is pool resistant since private keys are required for signing blocks. A pool manager must take a risk that the keys will not fall into the wrong hands. The roadmap for STEEM includes smart contracts. One of the side-effects of implementing smart contracts is that mining will become more time-complexity-bound than it already is, since mining will only be allowed to take 10 times the smart-contract execution time, making ASIC and GPU mining completely pointless. For the above reasons, the STEEM trajectory of infrastructure is at least on par with Dash. # Independence of Development STEEM development takes two distinct paths. One path involves the announcement of projects in discussion threads. These announcements pay from the reward pool by upvotes by stakeholders. The other path involves running witness nodes. Witnesses get paid to sign blocks. If they power down, they can fund development of the platform. These paths can even complement one another when bounties come online, so unlike the previous criteria, independence of development on STEEM is far beyond Dash. # Privacy for User There are murmurings of `zkSNARKs` being implemented on many blockchains other than Zcash. Dash has hinted at it. Ethereum has hinted at it. There's no reason STEEM can't implement some kind of `zkSTEEM` solution. But it's not officially on any published roadmap yet. You can have privacy in STEEM now if you keep your identity a secret. But that kind of pseudonymization is true for any cryptocurrency. # Double-Spend Protection in Real Time STEEM uses Graphene, which has a 3 second block time. This really isn't an issue, especially since transactions are free. On Dash, their "Instant Send" implementation costs extra. # User Friendly at Protocol Level Under Amanda's criteria, STEEM is already better than Dash in terms of being user-friendly. Also, under her criteria, the roadmap can be considered. But she also considers the usefulness of the currency. Dash is already useful, being accepted at a myriad of locations. So STEEM, being user-friendly but not accepted anywhere compared to Dash being accepted many places but not as user-friendly, Dash wins. And the user-friendly roadmap for Dash is more impressive than STEEM's current "user-friendlyness". And on this topic, the roadmap for STEEM hasn't been updated. I think all STEEM has to do is define a roadmap to get a half checkmark in this area. --- Using the above criteria, how does STEEM compare to Zcash and Dash? # 6 Prediction Metrics for Long Term Success This is Amanda's chart *except* for the STEEM column. I added with what I believe are appropriate values based on her assertions. I feel like this is how Amanda would evaluate STEEM, if she ever took a look at it. | | Zcash | Dash | STEEM | |:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:| | Governance | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | | T. of Infrastructure | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | | I. of Development | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | | Privacy | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | | Double-Spend Protection | 0 | 1 | 1 | | User Friendly in-Protocol | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | | | 2.5 | 5 | 4 | Remember, this is a comparison matrix defined by a Dash supporter. Of course, STEEM currently has features that neither Zcash nor Dash will ever implement, like threaded blogging with a reward pool and a superior DPOS implementation. Also, STEEM will likely have smart contracts. I think the fundamentals of STEEM are impressive and will continue to improve. An expanded set of metrics would undoubtedly reflect this.