One of Ryan's objectives behind the protocol change to address "store of value" was to hoover up more of the supply into masternode collateral to offset our excess emission over competitors (like bitcoin).

So he calculated that increasing the masternode reward would do this. But this was a mis-calculation for 2 reasons:

1. he wrongly identified miners as the most corrosive to price, claiming they are biggest "sellers" when they are in fact brokers with a buy AND a sell operation. Miners generate demand for the primary supply and you have to take this into account when looking at the whole economic equation. You can't ignore it as Ryan did. This is partly why we got trounced by all fully mined competitors over the last year -he got it the wrong way around.

2. The Masternode component of the block reward does not represent ROI. You don't necessarily increase ROI by increasing the reward because ROI = (reward + capital gain on the collateral) and the latter is usually the bigger element of ROI being that the collateral is very large. There will therefore be a point of diminishing returns on MN block reward where (due to point 1) increasing the masternode reward simply corrodes the price compared with our fully mined competitors and makes them a better store of value than Dash

All the competitive characteristics of how Dash has traded over the last 18 months (AND before) indicate that we are well past that point of diminishing returns and that our protocol is actually pushing us down the rankings. I mean it's not rocket science - the protocol puts a price on extraction of a coin. If you set that "issue price" to zero on 6 out of 10 coins while your competitors issue all theirs to the highest bidder, what else do you expect ?