You have got to be joking.

Dash's is now governed by the priorities of  "Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance" ? That's your answer ? You think that regulatory compliance is gonna be Dash's strong point now and that's why people will want to invest in it over competitors such as Monero, LTC, Litecoin, Bitcoin, Doge ? We already only have half the reward proportion donated to mining that they do and they attract investment to multiples of our marketcap so the market sure doesn't seem to be pricing in our "compliant" posture so far.

Be advised that we will always have a primary and a secondary market - right now hashrate happens to be the medium through which bids are made in our primary market. It doesn't mean that it will always be the medium but it is right now and if we want to be competitive we need as many bids as possible which means subjecting as much of our supply to that medium while leaving enough reward to support services. Even if I thought you had a point and we did want to reduce energy use, giving the coins away beyond the point of diminishing returns would still be an extremely poorly thought out way of dealing with it.

We don't have the luxury of indulging random regulatory bodies, our priority and the priority of the protocol is to investors and the optimal configuration of core monetary fundamentals. If that's successful then regulatory compliance solutions will follow. It's the job of investors and governors, not the protocol.

What you're suggesting is suicidal and inane. Nobody's gonna invest in an asset that ditched its most competitive monetary characteristics to satisfy some green regulatory body. We've seriously lost our way if these are the priorities that are guiding us now to the extent of the blockchain protocol itself.