From Ramblers model: end at year 40 and we are good to go.
From OC's model: Increase schedule to 200 million, not 84.

Only reason I suggested adding the 20-30 million to cap was because we proved slashing everything in half would give same result except giving the holders a 100% increase in value.

Fellow oranges, reducing the cap does more damage than good or is pointless as I pointed out. Our coin would be minted too fast or we'd get too much value too quick - both instances resulting in a 'price catch up' against BTC for the next 20-30 years. It would increase the worth of our coins by too much, but if we must, I think I've found the middle ground....

Reduce cap by 1/3 to 133.33333333 million over '40' years. Gives everyone holding now 33% increase in value to compensate future PoS loss, cut PoS in half allows 83% ROI for the stakers which includes the 33% increase from cap reduction, apply 10-20% for MN 13.3 or 26.6 million which will be worth more since cap reduced. Cap = 133.3333333+13.33333333= 146.66666666 million for (10% MN) coin cap or 133.3333333+26.66666666= 160 million for (20% MN) coin cap. 'price catch up' would be less damaging, but we'd still be behind BTC price curve until BTC is finished mining.

My opinion which I haven't stated yet as to not influence others:
End PoS early to pay for Mnodes and leave cap at 200 million and leave all other specs the same. This hurts only those people now who would be holding coins for those last remaining years of PoS if they intended on holding the coins for the full 46 years. Price will remain the same, value of what's in circulation remains the same, oc:btc price curve will be on target. This way also benefits no one, versus the select holders if we reduced the cap