I didnt understand all of that, so below might not even be what you are talking about, but...
BTS has a base value due to income derived from trading fees.
Using the example of a gold vault accessed via goldmoney.com. Normally someone looking to store value in gold buys the gold and pays a storage fee to the vault and a fee to Goldmoney.com for facilitating it. GoldMoney.com's valuation is derived from those fees.
In the case of BTS. BTS is Goldmoney.com and shorts are the vault. At the moment shorts are usually paying interest to longs and it may well stay that way till peak BitAsset demand stage. However even after that stage, if BitGold is as useful & valuable to some people as gold stored in a vault, (which it is) they will be willing to pay a fee to incentivise shorts and a goldmoney.com comparable fee to BTS. (This will be reflected by BitGold being worth more than 1-1 in future and us making longs compete on how much interest they are willing to pay shorts, which will be the equivalent of a fee paid to a vault.)
So there should be a long term market where one side is incentivising the other and BTS is receiving fees from trades happening on it's blockchain.
If we get to a point where general BitAsset demand is declining then BTS's price may fall, but only to the point where it reflects fair value for income received from current BitAsset trading fees. (In which case we might be valued similar to BitReserve/Goldmoney that had a similar amount of assets and trading fees derived from it.)
The trading fees model is essentially the BitReserve model. We are worth much more if we get it right because a decentralised way to safely store value trumps centralised. In addition to getting transaction fees the way goldmoney or Bitreserve will. The 'gold' people are temporarily buying in their case is actually BTS in our case. So we benefit from BTS demand created by rising BitAsset demand during the growth phase and future valuation of that in addition to fees.