I am trying to understand this issue. Can you please correct me if I got something wrong in the following.

The block reward follows a predictable emission rate. The inflation is known and predictable. How this block reward is distributed between miners, masternodes and treasury in the end does not change the fact that the sw (the protocol) predictably creates new dash at each block. Miners are not the ones to create the block reward to be sold, it is the software as specified in dash specification.

This newly created DASH has to be SOLD to the market, to investors. Shouldn't this be the "primary supply" as referred before by toknormal? Why should investors care about the distribution of the block reward? The investor sees the specified, known and predictable coin emission rate (the inflation). This is all that interests him (isn't it?). Who bears the cost of creating the block is irrelevant to the investor. If this is not true, than implicitly the investor values more the 'work' of one of the parties that gets the block reward over the others (for example it values more the service performed by miners than the service performed by masternodes and/or treasury in this case).

It seems to me that there are some more or less hidden assumptions behind different points of view expressed here that need to be made explicit.

For Toknormal the assumption is that it is the competitive mining (scarcity) that gives value to Dash (to any blockchain for that matter). So PoS coins are not as valuable as pure PoW ones for store of value. It is a monetary reasoning (the more hashrate the better).

For the other camp, the assumption is perhaps that mining serves the purpose of securing the blockchain (and producing much needed randomness at the same time). It is a technical reasoning (just enough hashrate is needed to be the 'dominant' coin). It is the utility of the coin that gives it value.

Perhaps we need to agree on the assumptions first to have a constructive debate.