Despite all the difficulties, I still continue to believe in the project

As do i. To be fair though, it is not just the case of trying to improve Dash trustless full masternodes by re-allocating more of the blockrewards to masternodes (from 45% to 54%).
There is also the case of trying to flatten Dash circulating supply during the next five years and trying to get a grip on the sell pressure (which seems to mostly come from miners
immediately selling all their mined Dash, regardless of the price).

I have masternodes myself and i have stopped selling my masternode payments months ago. I wonder how many miners are in a situation that they can afford to do the same,
or even care all that much about Dash longterm.

The way i see it, if this proposal passes Dash will be more or less returning to its original masternode payment schedule, while still being able to get funding for its decentralized budget.

Original Masternode Payment Schedule in 2014 (note : there was no decentralized budget then, just rewards for masternodes and miners and it was the main reason that made me
invest longterm in Dash) :  

if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue 20;/25.0% - 2014-10-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue 20;/30.0% - 2014-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue 20;/35.0% - 2014-12-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue 40;/37.5% - 2015-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue 40;/40.0% - 2015-02-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue 40;/42.5% - 2015-03-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue 40;/45.0% - 2015-04-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue 40;/47.5% - 2015-05-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue 40;/50.0% - 2015-07-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue 40;/52.5% - 2015-09-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue 40;/55.0% - 2015-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue 40;/57.5% - 2016-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue 40;/60.0% - 2016-03-23
 
We changed above Masternode Payment Schedule in 2015, when Evan Duffield introduced Dash decentralized budget.
So instead of reaching 60% for masternodes, and 40% for miners at some point in 2016, the schedule settled on 45% masternodes, 45% miners, 10% decentralized budget.
(current situation)

The Masternode Payment Schedule change being proposed by Dash Core Group recently (2020) will return us pretty close to that once planned 60% for masternodes 40% miners
(namely 54% masternodes, 36% miners, 10% budget), but at a much slower rate (spread over 5 1/2 years).

I can live with that, as i believe this will improve Dash economics in the longterm.

Looking back, the original masternode payment schedule had an incredibly high rate of change, a masternode reward increase & miners reward decrease of every 1 or 2 months.
That will not be the case here, it will be spread out over a long period of time.

Why was that reallocation schedule abandoned ?

I'm guessing Dash would be out of the top 100 by now if that had happened

if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue 20;/25.0% - 2014-10-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue 20;/30.0% - 2014-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue 20;/35.0% - 2014-12-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue 40;/37.5% - 2015-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue 40;/40.0% - 2015-02-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue 40;/42.5% - 2015-03-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue 40;/45.0% - 2015-04-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue 40;/47.5% - 2015-05-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue 40;/50.0% - 2015-07-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue 40;/52.5% - 2015-09-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue 40;/55.0% - 2015-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue 40;/57.5% - 2016-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue 40;/60.0% - 2016-03-23

This is how I see it as well. I just don't get it.

Here's the real problem and why messing around with masternode block reward in the manner proposed IMO is going to make zip difference other than steadily deplete Dash's quality as an investable asset (though it may still remain a technically interesting payment medium)....

You can increase the mining block reward. You can decrease it. You can do whatever the hell you want with it, but 2 aspects of Dash "economics" remain unchanged:

1. the emission schedule
2. who pays for it

The cost of the maintaining the emission schedule is still 100% borne by miners, regardless of what reward they receive. That should have formed the starting point for any "economic analysis" because it's the only quantitively known factor in Dash's economics. If it costs them $100k to mine X days of Dash's emission curve, they still have to dump $100k of Dash on markets to pay for it. (Before MN's even sell 1 single Duff).

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether difficulty goes up, down or sideways or whether coin prices lead or follow mining cost. The relationship between reward ratio and supply to markets (in fiat value terms) is clear:

1. the generation cost of the ENTIRE supply is still borne by miners and that therefore determines the potential liquidity they supply to markets
2. that potential supply is only ADDED TO by increasing the masternode reward ratio

Sociological guesswork about stakeholder demographics and "who is most likely to sell" may or may not be useful, but it's no substitute for basic accounting which is unambiguous in pointing out where the price has to go to support the spraying of free money at a gated sector of the coin holding community which has to make supernormal profits at the ultimate expense of new investors.



Finally, by depleting the mining reward, we're making Dash:

 • less scarce (because, by definition, coins mined at high difficulty are more scarce than those mined at low difficulty - it's why competitive mining was invented)

 • less efficient in markets (because more fiat demand is needed to maintain the price for each coin mined)

 • less stable (because masternodes act against the natural correcting effect of difficulty adjustments by being able to continue to sell at a profit in bear markets)

What we need to do is increase the mining reward, not decrease it and whether Dash community people see it this way or not, it's how new investors will see it IMO. (Most of them can at least count).

Join Dash Core Group’s Ryan Taylor from 6/10-6/15 as he hosts daily discussions with the community on the proposed changes to Dash economics.

The discussion will provide community members with the opportunity to share feedback and ideas surrounding Dash economics with Ryan and Dash Core Group.
Once these discussions are complete, we will take all feedback into consideration, followed by the submission of all economic proposals to the network for a vote.