Agreed. I'm planning to submit an alternative
proposal that's very similar to what you described; the only caveat is that it would be coupled with timelocking the 1,000 DASH stake, for various reasons that I will expound upon if I formalize the proposal.
That post was preliminary. I've refined it a bit since then, but it's still the same general idea. Thanks for spending some time explaining your modeling. I wouldn't propose something I think has an "obvious issue". The potential to "hurt the project" exists in every scenario at this point, so that's not saying much.
Whale takeover chances in my model are not high. I'll share it with everyone when I have some more time to present it properly.
The 10k option is relatively secure because, like you say, most MNOs can't participate at that level. Unfortunately that's the same reason it's very risky to the project in various other ways. We need to find a way to launch securely without introducing problems associated with increasing collateral requirements. I think timelocks solves this. Binance isn't going to launch 270 platform nodes if they require a timelock, and Binance is the main risk.
Under timelocks what's more likely?
A) all the large whales convert every single one of their nodes into platform nodes, immediately, or
B) various dedicated small MNOs convert, and some large whales convert a small portion of their nodes.
I think B is more likely (with timelocks), and that's exactly what we want. Not everyone will love this, but I think more will find it acceptable than the alternatives.
Running platform should be accessible to all MNOs who believe in the project. Timelocks allow for that in a way that 4x/10x collateral increases don't. Keeping the 1,000 DASH requirement should be a design constraint.
One more thing: Everyone should keep in mind that not all DCG devs/staff feel the same as Sam. I know of at least one dev who doesn't think that launching with 1,000 DASH collateral is a big risk.