The above linked chart is tracking the actual transaction fees paid to miners in BTC vs BSV.
This is fundamentally the most important figure when analyzing DAA effects under the proposed scenario, especially as the inflation halving schedule continues.
What happens if BSV reaches fee parity with the coinbase subsidy/inflation schedule?
50% of miner revenue becomes divorced from the block production rate and is instead dependent on number of transactions included in a block.
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C VerifiedBTC does not have this flexibility due to the block size limit. Q Supplied is a constant, with small flexibility for Segwit's "block weight" accounting hack.
This still doesn't account for price changes, however, BSV miners are building fiat-consistent transaction pricing contracts.
If a significant portion of miner revenue comes from such contracts, or API driven fiat-consistent fee pricing, the game changes.
Under this scenario, BSV miner revenue is much more consistent than BTC miner revenue is.
This certainly doesn't look good for BTC, but for BSV, especially given the flexible Q Supplied, there really isn't much reason to worry.
If anything, this just creates more reason to increase the chained transaction limit so that user actions don't get interrupted. That would reduce revenue flow to BSV miners after a certain amount of time without a block mined.