Here is where we disagree. If the price of the token rises as a result of virtual mining then it's pumping value into the network. Computation resources are a form of wealth and thus if they are spent in the right way they create value. Additionally with virtual mining we can mine storage, bandwidth, or anything so we are not limited to computation if you think it's wasteful.
I do think some forms of computation are more beneficial than others but that is a different debate. Protein folding for instance is clearly of value to society yet we could mine with it and use it as an on-ramp into Bitshares so why not?
Ultimately value comes from the opinions of other people. Proof of Work in it's current form is wasteful but it's valuable because in people's minds they give it value. The same reason protein folding is valuable.
It seems like you and toast are talking past each other. Toast is trying to explain how mining does not provide any value for the services a DPOS DAC provides. You are (I think) trying to say that computational resources can be used to generate valuable services or public goods (I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but it isn't really relevant to DPOS).
Perhaps an analogy can help. Virtual (hash-based) mining in DPOS is like paying people to dig holes and fill them back up again. Sure, the diggers might support the system that made this initiative possible since they are getting paid a salary, but it is not providing any value to the world. If people really wanted to get the diggers to support the system (for some reason) it would be more efficient to just give them a fraction of the money without requiring them to do useless work for it (essentially bribing them to support the system). Now it is true that you can do protein folding with your computational power, which is a public good for society, instead of hashing; that would be like paying the workers to build a useful bridge instead. But I don't think it is fair to call protein folding mining. That is just paying people to provide a service, namely using their computers to solve a useful computational problem. Their computational work has no effect on securing the blockchain.
In any case the people who intended to mine Bitcoin/Litecoin spent millions of dollars on computing resources. They need an exit. So what can happen is their electricity bill can buy their Bitshares. In other cases though such as with Storj integration I think it could be beneficial to mine that because Storj is a DAC itself which Bitshares could later take advantage of.
If Bitcoin miners spent their money on ASICs, then I am sorry for them but that was a misallocation of resources (assuming the world adopts DPOS over POW). The hashing ASICs are not going to be capable of solving useful computational problems like protein folding. If the equipment they invested their capital in are general purpose computers, then at least they can make use of those computers for a variety of useful services, such as protein folding, file storage, etc.
So hypothetically I would like to mine Storjcoins but receive payout in BitUSD. I think that is easily possible and mutually beneficial for both DACs. In that example I'd be selling my storage space for BitUSD using the Storj Driveminer.
Why would you need to "mine" to provide a file hosting service? I don't know about the specifics of how Storj works, but there is no reason it could not work with DPOS and use BitUSD to pay the people who are actually providing the file storage service. Even if you really wanted to use Storj as it is currently designed, nothing prevents you from mining on it to get Storjcoins and then trading them for BitUSD on the open market.