I look at successful coins and a majority of their users are NOT miners. So chasing more miners to me is not the path to success (although as the coin becomes more successful, more miners will also come), the path to success is finding a use-case for it (utility) then allowing BBP to fill the use-case space. What that is, I'm unsure.
I very much agree that it isn't worthwhile to chase more miners. Higher prices attract more miners. The demand side is our problem.
While I really like Aikda3k's thinking of the BBPD, a problem I see is there would have to be an organization guaranteeing the value, and that would make it a borderline security (or pseudo currency like Tether).
There doesn't have to be an organization that guarantees the value; the value just has to be set at $1 in the code. BBPD is worth $1 as long as BBP is tradeable: the fact that BBP is tradeable makes BBPD worth something. If BBP ceases to trade, then BBPD ceases to have value unless BBPD is in a trading pair with the USD. If BBPD is in a USD trading pair, BBPD can trade independently of BBP and have the value of being easily transferrable in less time than is required for a wire or ACH transaction. BBP should keep and increase in value because BBP should decline in supply as people choose to convert BBP to BBPD, for whatever reason: locking in gains, making purchases, merchants locking in value, etc.
And I don't think it makes it a security because it is not ownership of something other than a currency. A currency pegged to another currency is about the most pure form of currency I can think of.