Web 3.0 is the Master Nodes.
They are not the same thing. The Master Nodes are an infrastructure service that has to be paid for. Bandwidth is not for the currency to sort out. That's an issue over, err, bandwidth. Its not linked to mining. Its not linked to block chain bloat. Its hardware and routing speeds. If you pay enough, you get the bandwidth.
I think I'd be less worried about this if I was convinced that it wouldn't corrupt Evan's original equilibrium principle between masternode supply and demand so that the majority of the coin supply was kept in circulation.
That's partly what I meant by "highly controlled" in my little rant above.
Right now, this works because the PE ratio of a masternode is calculated (and fixed) purely in terms of DRK (at 20% of the mined supply). What that means in fiat depends on the value of DRK's role as a currency.
On the other hand, with the new service model, the PE ratio will be calculated in terms of FIAT and will have a fixed revenue in fiat (in $ per hour of service). This turns the whole thing on its head because 1 Darkcoin now becomes no more than a share unit in a fiat revenue model. The price equilibrium will now revolve around the fiat ROI on a masternode and all DRKs will go out of circulation at that price point.
That's where I see the huge banana skin in this whole idea.
The number of masternodes and the quantity of DRK in circulation could be automatically adjusted by (1) changing the qty of DRK required to operate a masternode and (2) the price of the DarkTor service in DRK. If there was a target of 10K masternodes and 50% currency in circulation, changing the cost and profitability of operating a masternode can maintain these targets.
That being said, there will always be investors who buy and hold DRK without operating masternodes. Nothing you can do about that but give them more opportunity and reason to spend their dark - by opening up a merchant network and reminding everyone of the transparency of bitcoin.