It had a fatal flaw which was that governance was executed according to the priorities of insiders rather than outsiders.

The governance contracts therefore had to constantly appeal to insiders - people who already had Dash - in order to get votes, rather than those who didn't have it and would have had to buy it.

Ironically it was the outsiders that were needed to support the marketcap which is why it tanked. Even more ironically, the "insiders" haven't been retained by this policy and a significant number have disinvested. So not only did we have an increase in supply (from mining) but an increase in so called "circulating supply" from masternode disinvestment. That was because the masternode reward didn't sufficiently offset the capital loss on collateral which was (ironically) caused by the excessive masternode reward being far beyond the costs being incurred by masternode operators to maintain the network.

Dash thinks that Dash protocol controls the masternode reward. But anyone who's tried to live off a masternode reward knows that that's not true. Whatever the protocol sets, the free market values it accordingly. So if Dash sets the reward high and the market values it down, then it means that we got the setting wrong. It was suboptimal and we need to change it til the market sees it as optimal. This was not done.

Which all demonstrates that the policy had - and still has - its priorities reversed in terms of what is needed to attract new investors. Dash is not the "money of the people". Doge is the "money of the people" or even bitcoin as it does not throw away half its supply at zero price as we do.

New investors want native blockchain mining supply to be restricted to those that pay for it rather than have it gifted away beyond the level that is needed to retain core network resources. Until that issue is addressed, Dash will continue to flounder.