The mnode operators need not sell as much because their expenses are less, they have the option of hodling or compounding their rewards, miners do not.
So you're trying to assert a theory whereby giving the coin away at zero difficulty makes for a better store of value than the original satoshi model where buyers have to compete for it ? Because then the first recipients
"don't have costs and don't have to sell to cover those costs" I knew that crypto-tribalism and "love of one's holdings" could lead to some psychotic perspectives but I've seen it all now.
Let us examine what you're saying here in a little more detail:
"SELLERS" vs "NET SELLERS"
First, we are trying to get this coin
out there. So the fact that it changes hands is a
good thing, not a bad thing. We
want circulation and blockchain volume. Who buys and who sells is irrelevant, what matters is the NET capital flowing into the ecosystem and whether the Dash economy benefits from those transactions or some other economy does. So with that in mind lets look at the COMPLETE capital flow for each of the recipients in the split reward system, not just one half of the transaction as you do and as Ryan did in his faulty analysis that promoted more masternode reward at the expense of mining reward:
MINERS:
• They BUY the coin in the primary market
• They SELL the coin in the secondary market which draws capital FROM that market
• The coin ends up in the hands of a SECONDARY BUYER
• The capital received from that secondary buyer ends up in the BLOCKCHAIN as increased difficulty
Ergo: miners are not
net sellers. They are brokers who's job is to transfer capital from a market BUYER into the blockchain. This is the standard Satoshi model. It's why bitcoin now has a marketcap exceeding $1 Trillion. It's why Litceoin, Ethereum, Doge, XMR all have marketcaps far in excess of Dash despite being essentially service-free zones.
MASTERNODES
• They receive the coin at zero cost
• There is no realised capital transfer at that point
• Any non-zero sales that masternodes make draws capital that does NOT find its way into the blockchain
• So in bookkeeping terms the blockchain incurred a capital LOSS since a coin was issued and no primary market bid was created to counterbalance the secondary market sale (which is the case with mining)
Ergo: masternodes are
net sellersConclusion: to sustain and grow marketcap in our split reward system, the masternode reward needs to be handled
extremely conservatively. Perhaps 20% of the mining reward IMO. If we take it past that "sweet spot" we just tank the marketcap relative to fully mined which is what's been happening the past 3 years.
Is there ANY fully mined coin that we've exceeded in marketcap growth in the last 3 years ? There may be but I'm not aware of any. The reverse has been the case. That should worry you and every other Dash investor because the whole BASIS of our current store-of-value offering appears to be that we don't value mining. It's not working in competitive terms and shows no signs of doing so anytime soon.