One thing about a larger stake (which again, monetarily is pretty low by comparison to other MN coins) is you reduce the number of casual miners (see above) that will try and run a MN. As m4tsby notes, you need the MN holders to be invested in the success of the coin and it's mission, not just invested monetarily. The MN governance system needs a majority of the MN to be active and reading and intelligently voting on proposals. Too low a stake in my mind gets too many people involved that have little real interest in the coin.
the mega miners right now are the only ones who can give away 1 million bpay without any real fiat risk. everyone else has to pony up the $800. in that equation its the ones who pay real money that will have more at stake and involved because their investment is real. the millionare hashers can just walk away with several master nodes because it didnt cost them any real effort. so the equation is backwards IMO
i understand the economic motivation of the project. devs need to turn the tokens into real world fiat so they can be rewarded (justly so) for their effort. i just wish there was a mechanism that was more equitable.
how bout just throttle the number of hashes someone can produce? or having the pool cap out what someone can mine. that would prevent the megahashing with just a few lines of code on the pool side right?