You state things too simplistically, that value can only be derived from the cost of mining. And you continually insist masternode holders dump their rewards... do you have evidence for this?
The perspective applies whether masternode dump their rewards or none at all.
It's simply a formal approach to verifying the anecdotal claim that sliding the reward scale away from mining is effective in drawing less net liquidity from markets. From the responses I've received on here I don't think anybody actually bothered to understand
the analysis and let it sink in. They generally make an intuitive interpretation instead in which case they always end up re-enforcing their original assumptions.
Is gold valuable and a store of value purely due to the cost of mining new supply of it?
No, but it can't be created out of "thin air" either. You need a handy cosmic explosion which ostensibly occurs once per universal creation event around these parts. So when scarcity is synthesised by electronic assets, cost of production cannot be ignored. I put it to you the other way around: if the cost of mining bitcoin was zero and holding it was the only way to generate more supply, would that represent a store of value on its own ? Obviously not because the archetype is faulty and doesn't implement certain essential properties in the synthetic asset. It's simply a numerical redenomination exercise.
Redenomination of the base supply on its own is ok if you're adding value in
some other way. But it's a fiat archetype where the store of value function only works if the supply growth represents a growth in underlying value of the economy. It doesn't work the other way around (growing the money supply to grow value) which is why I contend that Dash loses competitiveness against its archetypal peers.
I don't necessarily agree that we're going to see the 2017 type spike where we "out-FOMO" the market on a reversal. That happened because of pricing in a speculative rotation to Dash out of bitcoin and hedging due to prospective bitcoin forks. We now have several well established decentralised "payment rails" on the market - instant, private, stable coin and otherwise which makes it even more crucial for Dash to stick to its original archetypal space: a versatile version of bitcoin with as high as possible mined element unless its needed to pay for the "versatility".
I was pretty clear what date range I selected for comparison... September 2016 to January 2017, just before the last bull run started. I believe we're close to that time now so the comparison seems relevant.
Ok I stand corrected on that range. You're right that Monero was above us in marketcap for longer than I had remembered. I think I just spent too much time jousting with Monero trolls for years before that during which it remained at 1/5th to 1/3rd of out cap. However, it still overtook us on supply growth, not by limiting it. All these coins - BTC, LTC, BCH, XMR, whatever - ALL have protocols which deliver the entire supply into the hands of miners, yet they manage to capture more of the total cryptocurrency marketcap than we do.
This doesn't support the theory that throttling mining supply makes you more competitive as a store of value.