Again, I never said POS chains just "give away tokens". You said DASH gives away 50% of its coins for "free". I used your logic and applied it to POS chains and asked you to explain that given your position on DASH's masternode rewards, how do you explain how POS chains don't "give away" 100% of their coins. You said dapp use yet they have so little of this it certainly doesn't offset these staking/delegation rewards.
Ok, lets look at this another way.
It isn't me that's needing to defend anything here. According to the analysis I presented (and started expressing over a year ago) we should be losing marketcap ranking against 100% mined coins, all else being equal and that is exactly what's happened.
According to the orthodoxy perspective, "we don't need" the hashrate that other coins have and our reduced mining reward should be GAINING us marketcap, even before the last protocol change. In other words making us more competitive, not less. The market has been at liberty to price that in for a year and hasn't. It has favoured our competitors even if they have zip features.
Yet the only explanation you can offer for this is "it isn't our time" or similar. Do you realise how slightly paultry this is as an investment offering - specially long term ? You're basically saying that all Dash's distinction - technical, mining ratio, treasury, masternodes - counts for nothing and we just have to wait to be swept up by the tide.
Too many things don't fit here. As an example, when Ryan presented the 10% reward ratio change as his "solution" to Dash's store of value problem, he said that we didn't need all this hashrate but we DID need to be the highest hashrate coin in the "masternode sector". So we don't need it but we do need it. Even according to his view, hashrate IS competitive in a subset of the market but not in the broader market. Why did no-one question this ? That type of unresolved ambiguity is a signal that something is fundamentally wrong about the basic thinking and there are plenty more of those examples, not least that the approach is losing us market share, that we attract far more statutory selling pressure than any other coin (due to extreme network operation margins), that we can't hold a line against bitcoin etc.
I don't think anyone on here is in any position to dismiss any explanation that purports to address these issues, even if you may find them counter-intuitive.