I think you should first settle on how exactly ongoing distribution/reward will change. This proved difficult in the past because DVC rationale and goals differed.

As Ranlo's example intimated, DVC is merge-mined and therefore the floor on DVC value = minimum effort to acquire or earn them. If that effort can amount to zero, price trends to zero. This was debated some time ago and I hope now more clear.

Either DVC rewards OS development & effort (and demands more honest appraisal/compensation of contribution). Or it doesn't and joins a very long list of price-speculative alts. Or the new exists alongside the old... etc.

Given likely concentration of existing holdings, I doubt there's a universally fair way to covert old to new. But frankly, whilst important I think generation is secondary to distribution mechanics. There's not necessarily any correlation between coin supply and price or ubiquity (e.g. Ripple, Doge, Nem).

To answer your question though - I think you already know my preference, but I also think achieving non-zero price stability where implied value (average or lower bound on effort to attain them) is dynamic requires dynamic supply.