As I've stated in the first place at p2, I know it contradicts, that's why I've suggested that the miners number needs to get lower, not inflation higher. 
So you are saying here that lower number of nodes will be better for IDNA price? Thats the oposit of what logic say. Lower amount of nodes = less secured network (creating centralized 100 node farm and attack network is easy, creating 100 000 centralized node farm is impossible). The whole point of idena is having as much nodes as it is possible to attract advertisers, to be faster and cheaper (with sharding) and many many more. First time I hear that destroying coin fundamentals (forcing nodes to quit to lower nodes amount) will benefit the price.
I agree about the nodes (more is better), but not all nodes should be miners imo. If all nodes are miners, how can you stop coin dump from let's say 100K nodes (from your example)? Let's assume 50% are selling, 50% are holders, that's a lot of coins reaching the market.
I think a mechanism can be done, to reward more the holders and less the dumpers. This can be achieved through different ways, For example, if an identity kill itself to get the stake out should get less coins (this can be done easy using the identity age) and / or if a node-miner (since on Idena is the same thing) get's out more than 25% of the wallet, should have the reward decreased, maybe introducing a minimum DNA amount to join the mining pool will help the price and will also separate miners from nodes (like some sort of masternodes), if you like.
Regarding the coin age, can be done a tier and nodes can get increasing rewards with age, stimulating nodes to not leave the network, miss validation or kill the identity. BTW, anyone knows what is the point of identity age right now?