@bigrcanada - Here's another way of looking at it that may help you to see the point.
Try ditching the obsession with trying to limit the amount of Dash that finds its way to market. We have no control over it regardless of reward ratio. Instead focus on maximising the value for money that the coins that DO get sold provide to that market.
When I talk about the "primary supply" I'm referring to the "mined" supply - i.e. the very first time a block is bought. (It's also what Ryan's proposal is concerned with because it ring-fences mining rewards as the target for limiting supply to markets).
Where I differ from Ryan is that he sees only the mining reward portion of the block as the problem. i.e. his thesis is that the need to cover mining cost drives that reward to market, so if there's less reward less Dash will go to market (and we don't have to worry about masternodes because they apparently hodler for the most part).
All I've done differently is ditch the suppositions and look at it from an accounting perspective. The starting constraints are slightly different but just as relevant. (They are also "known" as opposed to speculated). Those are:
1. a block has a mining cost. The cost covers the mining of the WHOLE block, not part of it
2. that ENTIRE mining cost is borne by the miner (if they hodl) or the investor (if the miner continuously sells)
Analytically therefore miners that hodl can be considered as the "market". (The miner in that case has dual roles - a mining role and an investor role. They buy their own rewards).
3. the mining cost doesn't just cover the cost of the mining rewards, but the masternode rewards also (because there's a cost of mining through the chain to invoke the block rewards that are sent to masternodes)
CONCLUSIONS
Some significant conclusions emerge from these observations:
A. the entire primary supply is
always bought. Either by the hodling miner (in investor role) or the exchange markets (in investor role). (Conversely, this means that the entire primary supply is
always sold)
B. Point "A" remains true independently of the mining/masternode reward ratio
C. the entire primary supply is
not returned to the investors covering the costs at point 1 above
The implications of points "2" and "C" are that investors in the primary supply only receive half the coin they pay for relative to other chains. This sets up a marketcap pressure gradient away from us. (Or put another way, Dash has to recover twice the amount of fiat from a finite market liquidity than our competitors do to cover mining costs).
This is what makes us different from the other clones. We've given ourselves a huge overhead to deal with that acts as an insurmountable headwind to all the technical innovations that are delivered.
The original basis for the split reward was that the utility value added by the masternode network would more than offset the diminished returns made to investors covering the mining costs. That can still be the case but not with such a ridiculously high margin as we have at the moment. Perhaps with a 10% or 20% masternode reward ratio. Even that is a challenge - to convince the market to take 20% less Dash in exchange for the added features and utility. The market wants coin for its buck, not jam tomorrow features which get instantly priced out on a "sell the news" basis.
It becomes more of a challenge every time we lose a ranking place because Dash is seen as less of a "premium" coin.
IMHO the situation's recoverable by following the steps I outlined at the end of
this post.
