Wrong.

The miner has to acquire the coin first at a cost. The masternode acquires theirs at zero cost. What you're doing is looking at the secondary market only and pretending the primary doesn't exist. That would be like analysing a currency broker's books and only looking at the sell side and ignoring the entries where they had to purchase the currency first and saying "look ! they always have to sell to cover their costs". True, but that cost is the cost of acquisition so it's a fraudulent if not insane analysis.

Even half right we'd still be reasonably competitive with Lightcoin, Monero, Dogue et al because relieving that much sell pressure would make a massive difference to price. Instead we've cratered into the distance.

The analysis is precisely 180 degrees out of whack because you're only looking at the sell pressure in one selected market segment instead of the NET sell pressure. The NET sell pressure is calculated thus:

Buys minus Sells

Or another way of looking at it numerically is the profit made by the seller. For example if I acquire a Euro for $10 and sell it for $5 I've contributed $10 of "buy pressure" and $5 of "sell pressure" so $5 of net buy pressure in all markets. From that you can see that a mined coin genreates the least net sell pressure and a masternode the most.

That's why we've been on a continuous slide down the rankings compared to our fully-mined comperitors.