We can argue for ages about this. My takeaway from the events is that better contracts with clearer expectations and incentives for both parties are needed. I don’t agree it was well spelled out by motion, it was one of the reasons why I didn’t join FLOT. Having FLOT trying to sort out things on the way was not a good idea imo. Nagalim basically says the same in your quote. Shareholders and FLOT were clearly not on the same page.
The other part is to prevent people from jumping ship when it gets too hot in the kitchen they will need to have a stake in it. Some FLOT participants probably only had marginally small stakes or none. The only way to have stakes is at least prove ownership of significant shares when entering the contract AND have them partially locked up in a way tied to the contract. Ideally there should also be funds locked from contract holders (shareholders) when they are not playing by the contract. It sounds simple, but this type of contract is not yet simple to set up.
Re performance we all know that the fees are not covering expenses by any means. The same is the case for Bitcoin. The gains are being made on the asset itself. Eventually the fees should cover the expenses and you would have a sustainable blockchain, but we are years away from that, not only for NSR but also for BTC and many other coins.
So Xspec might win because their asset will increase in value when more people start buying because there is a believe than eventually some money might be made (BTW I have no idea what Xspec is about). NuBits will be stable, that is the point of it. When the money supply needs to shrink because demand is low providing an incentive to park Nubits is one of the options. Whether the provided rates are enough to have people parking the coin over selling it is a matter of markets. When BTC is increasing rapidly it will be hard to compete when it is on a downslide it will be easy and low rates might be adequate. Over time other methods for shrinking the money supply should be introduced imo.