The rewards are only paid out in DASH and it has nothing to with whether DASH is a stablecoin or not.
What are you talking about ? It has everything to do with it.
The "I" in ROI stands for
investment. Return on
investment, not
Ratio
Of
Initial Collateral.
So, we've already achieved the ideal equilibrium condition (masternode count saturation) way before mass adoption? If the whole world is to use DASH, 5000 masternodes is enough? That's decentralized?
I think 5000 nodes is enough and there seems to be consensus about that if you go back a few posts it was discussed.
Re. "centralised", I think that's a completely different discussion and I don't think it has anything to do with this - I described my vision in a previous post. 1 person can own 10 masternodes or 10 people can own 1 masternode. The collateral threshold doesn't have much to say about centralisation of ownership, it's to do with trustlessned or otherwise. I said it would benefit Dash economics and the ecosystem if masternode ownership was pushed into the fintech retail tier. The asset would still be "trustless" because the contracts behind the securities would be between the operator and the investors, not at the blockchain level. That's going to happen anyway if price continues to rise as we would hope, doesn't matter what you set the collateral level to.
I don't think the nodecount would reduce anyway. I don't see why you assume that. How many masternodes do you think got sold of in the calamateous crash from $1500 to $60 ? It will have been thousands, all with ROI in the negative (measured the "correct" way that means something to investors). The only thing that DID survive was the nodecount.
Masternodes churn and change hands all the time.