With regards to toknormal being a masternode owner and yet being negative about the way the reward allocation is split. This is not twisted at all. It is a natural reaction to the economics it all. As he has explained many times in many different ways.
There was some comparison with litecoin in a previous post. So I'm going to go ahead and compare.
Does litecoin have instantsend transactions? No
Does litecoin have private mixing builtin? No
Does litecoin have protection of chainlocks against 51% mining attack? No
Does litecoin have a treasury to fund development work and marketing and give grants to 3rd parties who may benefit its network? No
Does litecoin have much in the way of active development? No (as far as I know)
Does litecoin have a platform for dapps? No
Does litecoin have an investment foundation so that the network can actually own gold and other assets? No
Is litecoin an innovator in the crypto space? No
Dash has all this. Dash should be killing it. But wait theres a little bit more.
Are both coins proof of work? Is Dash?
Does litecoin split rewards so miners get less than half the supply of new coins and more than that is airdropped to set of wealthy owners?
There lies the difference. As far as my judgement goes dash overpays its service layer. The service layer is great. But just not worth almost 50% of the entire supply to pay for it. Most masternode owners are in utter denial of this. At this time Dash is leading the way in showing that masternode coins are not a winner. As far as I know there isnt yet a masternode coin which restrains the masternode reward. All succumb to the temptation of rewarding too much free coins to the masternodes.
Toknormal is bullish dash, despite his belief that the direction is wrong with regards to rewarding the miners, he is staying with it, still invested. This is someone who likes dash and still believes in it. But wishes to influence the thinking behind the reward split. What would his vote have achieved if he had voted anyway? Perhaps influencing the community carries more weight than that vote would have done.
All those first points that Dash has in its favour they are great. Dash could be great.
We disagree in the verb tenses. DASH WAS great already. It is internal governance itself that prevents this jewel of decentralization from showing its full potential.
It is the spiral of progressive centralization that limits the project and its spontaneous expression of Duffield's splendid design ... and it is deliberate and from within. And in addition, an in crescendo centralization, tending to an increasing concentration. Some naive Mnodes believe that the red line is the 1000 Tokens ... but it is not so: Also that range will be attacked, unauthorized and marginalized. The modest Mnodes in their greed believe they are solidifying their share of the pie ... but they are only digging their own grave.
Once the governance framework in the Mnodes network was defined (blocking Shared Mnodes, which could dilute power in favor of the general interest of the project with a QUALITY voting niche - they could never decide in their particular interest, but they could make it impossible / difficult Comprehensive abuses (and at that juncture, other modest Mnodes would ally themselves) - the whales will continue to accumulate Mnodes. That they continue to set aside beneficiaries of the pie is pure inertia. The custom rules allow it and they will.