Observing that half the supply is issued without a bidding process and that this might affect marketcap is not "overthinking". It's just stating the bleeding obvious. The elephant in the room.


It isn't actually. I already pointed out here that the alt market has been reflating against bitcoin and Dash is not being carried along with it. So there's good reason for "overthinking" and re-appraising if our protocol priorities (which are now supposed to be targeting store of value) are working.


Then what's the point of the Dash protocol ? If I'm "overthinking it" then the protocol settings are even more guilty of redundant thought since they're having the opposite effect to what was intended. Your contention seems to be simply to ignore that fact and assert if we experience market success then that shows our priorities are right whereas if we tank in competitively that's just "general market trends". This b.s. thinking. You can't have competitive governance with that approach.


And how would you define scarcity ? It first manifests upstream of exchanges, at the very supply source itself. That's why the protocol is important. It isn't just a "distribution tweak", we're talking about half the supply here. The only way I know how to formally define scarcity in the primary market (which is where it matters) is by the marginal cost of extraction from the chain. In other words the more scarce the coin is, the more expensive it is to mine.