True, but I feel low masternode count could be an issue for privacy coin? It's true that when there are low number of masternodes then the rewards are better. However when to get those rewards would need milloins of dollars at risk it would be an issue itself. Even if the ROI could be really good the problem would be that very few people even have that kind of capital to invest in first place. Secondly are those who have that kind of capital, ready to invest that kind of money in long run into one coin? Year at crypto world is really long time.
I'm not familiar to shared masternodes.. Do you need to give your capital to 3rd party to participate? Isn't that huge risk? How do you know they don't just disappear after a year? If dev's could code shared masternode options into the walled then it's obliviously different story. If you could just lend your coins to masternode owner (who can't access or withdraw those coins and coins are there only to activate the masternode) it might work out.
Yes, I see what you are saying, and to a certain extent Masternodes are uncharted territory, as they haven't been around that long. Current shared masternodes indeed require you to give the coins to a third party, which is not ideal, but depending on the reputation of the third party I feel this is similar to using an exchange, which also requires sending funds to a third party. I am not involved in the development of PHR, so I'm not sure if in-wallet shared MN are possible, but obviously this would be great.
At the moment we have about 350 MN, which is a lot. Yes, if the price rises, MN owners might be tempted to sell, but at the same time, unless you urgently need cash, why sell, if you can just keep the MN and continuously get rewards? I think most current MN holders will keep theirs. Yes, it would be difficult for someone starting from scratch to acquire a full MN, but you can accumulate over time and you still get POS rewards, even if you hold much less than 10k. For people looking to make a quick buck that is a different story, but PHR is probably not the right coin for that anyway...
Yep this is my biggest concern. Other than that project look very promising. It's just that 1000 phore masternode could have been better solution for long run. Specially when there are only ~12 millions of coins. That would have keep masternode affordable longer time period, make masternode count healthy even if price would be something like 100$ (which is only 1b market cap?). Right now I don't see it could reach that price without reducing masternode counts to really low. Also affordable masternode would have made price go up faster. Now 10$ would probably have been 100$ with cheaper masternode.
Other solution could have been to made 100 million coin supply. (It would have made coin more stable and easier to trade.) In price point higher amount of coins is actually better. It's easier to get high market cap when there are more coins. People are more willingly to buy 10$ coin than 100$ or 1000$ coin. Even if it doesn't matter price wise. Like if you now have 10 000 coins then if supply was 100 million you would now have 100 000 coins in same price. However psychologically it matters. I think it's one of the reasons why example verge is now close to 1b cap and It's not even good privacy coin! (it just look cheap when it's only 5 cent a coin, when market cap wise it's really expensive.)