Indeed.

And if one side of a shopping street charges $5 for soap powder while the other side charges $2 for exactly the same brand, it doesn't necessarily mean that that's the reason why the former side is losing business. So I cannot give you "evidence" other than to say that if we keep doing what we're doing, we're likely to keep going where we're going which is now a 3-year near-permanent trajectory to the bottom of the mined marketcap rankings in terms of our early contemporaries.

While I don't dismiss your basis for asking for "evidence" you must realise that we're dealing with aggregate principles here so evidence doesn't turn up in nice neat anecdotal packages where a specific traders says they didn't invest in Dash because they wanted to invest in coin, not masternode profits.

The theory is that Dash has only half the mining budget that our competitors do and therefore can store far less capital in its chain. The empirical evidence for that is that we've lost our lead and competitiveness in marketcap.

The "supply gaming" theories that have been presented to support increasing the masternode reward even further do not adequately account for this since we've always had a reward split. The idea that the competitive deficit was for want of an additional 10% is ludicrous - not least for the reasons that I presented previously that the market simply sets the reward ratio in dollar terms anyway.