We can certainly agree on this point.


Then why are DCG focusing so heavily on it ?

The entire premis of the proposal (to lower mining reward) is based on what they claim happens to the so called "primary supply" and that if the protocol gives less to miners then they'll sell less compared to masternodes. But I agree with you - that this hypothesis is based on assumptions of behaviour that is in fact "irrational and unpredictable".

What isn't "irrational and unpredictable" however is the relationship between a given mining cost, the fiat value required from markets to support it and the marginal overhead of masternode revenue. These are entirely "rational and predictable" because the protocol makes them so.

The problem with this debate is that we're marketing the coin to ourselves. The market does not value chainlocks...we do. It's a technical concept that's redundant in a coin where mining competitivity is high. We can easily have lots of great utility features and still drop to Nº 300 in ranking because technological innovation is cheap and just needs a few programmers for a year or two to produce. This is what will happen if we don't value the core business model that makes any mined coin work - competitive mining. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

We can have both because the beauty of the Dash protocol is that it only needs a tiny staking element to add huge amounts of value to the mining model. The service layer can multiply this value, but not if it kills the engine that drives it. The phrase "we don't need all this hashrate" is equivalent to an airline becoming so focused on the in-flight service that they forget they need to make the plane go anywhere.