I am not missing the point of his charts. He stated it quite clearly in his original post - "It shows the network speed where miners would break even after 2 years using the listed assumed variables. Even in the current climate and with current efficiency, we are no were near where (industrial) mining would not be profitable. And the effect of power efficiency is quite dramatic if you consider reasonable electricity cost price ranges (~0.06 / KWh)"
Perhaps you are reading something into the chart that you shouldn't? It would be a costly mistake for anyone to purchase a miner because it lies somewhere beneath on of his curves expecting a two year ROI which he has also stated. It is my intention to make everyone aware that this data is flawed.
What is your intention? To defend his flawed data or to extrapolate some other non-existent usefulness from it?
Can you please explain how the data is flawed? I've listed a couple points about it, but the general idea is correct. At some point investment in new hardware will cease and the network will reach steady state without a change to the input parameters. Feel free to substitute it with a more accurate model if you'd like, or provide some input on the endgame variables like efficiency or deployed cost per TH/s.