Your prediction: Dash goes to $6 (do you wish to take that back yet?) because you believe the masternode rewards are too high vs the costs of running a masternode... the same incentives which led Dash to a high above $1500 the last time.
I don't see it.
I'm simply accounting for the value that goes into the market and what happens to it. None of what you write addresses this, yet we're forced to do it for bookkeeping purposes. We have revenue, therefore there's a cost. The question therefore arises of who bears that cost and where ? It doesn't matter whether the coins get sold or not, it's still the same bookkeeping cost impact because debits must equal credits.
So you're basically saying that 2+2 can equal 8. That Dash can take pure revenue from the chain at zero difficulty week after week and still expect its capital value to grow while all the other mined chains have to hash out every block. Do you realise how ludicrous that works out to any serious new investor who sits down to do some due diligence on Dash as a long term investment ?
At a price of $3500, masternodes are at a pure profit of $4500 per week - for performing no economic work. Margins like that simply get repriced into oblivion in no time which is what happened at the last ATH which lasted a matter of days.
There's got to be some fundamentals of the coin economics that square for the thing to be investible. It isn't enough just to talk about market cycles because there's far more Peercoins and Bitshares out there then Litecoins and Moneros. If BCH blows up the natural successor is Litecoin, not Dash because we're talking about store of value not utility. The chain doesn't have to be useful to be a good store of value but it does have to be a good store of value to be investible. The only thing you have in that regard in the absence of mass adoption, is mining.