Let's suppose that Dash Platform/Evolution attracts so many new users (thanks to its InstantSend/PrivateSend/Dapps virtues, all things you agree with) that MN operating costs hugely and quickly inflate: urgent need of faster, larger servers, protection against Ddos attacks, etc., you name it.
In your ideal model, MN are supposed to get 10 or 20% of the block reward instead of 50 or 60%. So what happens if the operating costs are wildly increasing, and the small reward part is suddenly not enough to pay those costs? After all, AFAIK, there is much uncertainty surrounding the technical specifications that will be necessary for each MN in the real world, if Platform gains some recognition and usage.
(Honest question, as I do not consider you a troll. A troll is stupid and rude, and you're neither stupid nor rude.)
That is a good question and one that I thought about quite a lot.
Lets say price was at $3000. I doubt masternode operating costs would be significantly higher than now since it doesn't require any more hardware performance to accommodate a $2 million transaction than a $2 one. (It's miners that do all the expensive work in that department anyway).
When Dash platform comes along a most expensive hosting configuration might be required, but the costs are still miniscule compared with mining. They are still fixed so masternodes will always be at a profit above operating costs. This is distinct from miners who need to keep their investment catching up with coin price since competition will increase as soon as there's a disparity between primary and secondary markets.
So lets say you set mining reward back at 80%. That would attract back a huge amount of competition for Dash's primary supply (since we would be twice as competitive as we are at the moment compared with other coins at the current Dash price). At the same time masternodes would still receive around $150 or more per month which is 7 times average hosting cost. That profit would only increase then with coin value but it wouldn't eat into the mining competitively nearly as much as it does now, we'd still have a DAO budget and we'd still have all out features.
The thing is, masternodes would probably look at a $150/month revenue and say it's too paultry to be incentivised from. But the point of it is it's far more scaleable than what we have at the moment. (Why ? Because it leaves the majority of the chain mined. Their cost is variable so far more of the chain gets invested in as price rises than does at the moment).
One of the reasons for the antagonism with my perspective on here is that when I use the work "invest" I'm referring to how much effort is invested into the chain to raise the opening price of new blocks. But other people tend to think of "invest" as meaning the secondary market - i.e. exchanges - and controlling price on there. That is too late. It's too far upstream to make a difference because the chain has already issued the coins by that time and the "accounting" for price has started, i.e. half the chain is "issued" at zero price.