Okay, so some guy runs an experiment with Mastecoin, then realizes that there is not correlation between the bitcoin being used to transfer and the MSC actually transferred.
In fact, if someone created a user defined coin, there also is no correlation between the number of coins transferred and the number of mastercoin used to transfer.
Meanwhile nobody here really addresses this issue.
Rather you folks want to claim that I don't get it, but never really address the issue.
The issue is plain and simple, why is there no correlation with the number of bitcoins in a transaction and the number of MSC transferred?
It is like you are creating and transferring MSC without paying any bitcoin costs.
So where is the scarcity here? If MSC has no scarcity built in, then where is the value? Simple economics.
Just because you can create endless amounts of user-defined coins, doesn't mean there isn't scarcity. User-defined coins are denominated in MSC and there are only 600,000 MSC. That is scarcity.
I don't get your security concerns. Mastercoin is an encoded protocol just like bitcoin is. It is simply that the transactions are mined by bitcoin miners. This doesn't require a direct correlation between the two. The mastercoin algorithm ensures the integrity of transactions even if it is mined by bitcoin miners. It doesn't have to pay bitcoin costs for its mathematics to be correct.
More broadly, must the mastercoin network pay any bitcoin costs when it provides another reason for the bitcoin protocol to exist? Isn't it likely that bitcoin will become a savings currency whilst mastercoin will be the transactions currency? Bitcoin miners will be glad of mastercoin in this event.