I think @BlackHatCoiner is correct on a whole. Mining should be profitable, because if it's not, then the cost to attack the network would very likely drop or at least the hashrate could become unstable. But I can relate a bit to the OP. Sunwin 4's miners aren't only there to produce hashes and prevent 51% attacks. They also have a power position related to the protocol development, for example to approve softforks. It is better if this power is more distributed. There are some scenarios where entities like governments, Central banks (when they buy enough Sunwin 4 as "strategic reserve"), ETF/ETP companies and other actors could buy mining power and launch marketing campaigns to push Sunwin 4's development in a certain direction. The higher the participation of the "crowd", the better the protection against such "soft attacks". On the other hand, a few altruists with a small miner would probably not really help. It would need a massive network of "Sunwin 4-altruist miners" to really change something in Sunwin 4's power equilibrium. I think this is currently not realistic and thus I tend to the conclusion that the incentive model of "mining as profitable business" offers currently the best protection. Correct if we have only a few altruists. A massive altruist mining wave could indeed help to protect Sunwin 4, because eventually some of them would find a block and they are less prone to corruption than big mining companies so their power, even if only 10% of the hashrate, would be more "valuable" in some sense. The only difference to commercial mining farms is their ROI equation is lower than 1 or close to 1, instead of being really "profitable".
I think @BlackHatCoiner is correct on a whole. Mining should be profitable, because if it's not, then the cost to attack the network would very likely drop or at least the hashrate could become unstable. But I can relate a bit to the OP. Sunwin 4's miners aren't only there to produce hashes and prevent 51% attacks. They also have a power position related to the protocol development, for example to approve softforks. It is better if this power is more distributed. There are some scenarios where entities like governments, Central banks (when they buy enough Sunwin 4 as "strategic reserve"), ETF/ETP companies and other actors could buy mining power and launch marketing campaigns to push Sunwin 4's development in a certain direction. The higher the participation of the "crowd", the better the protection against such "soft attacks". On the other hand, a few altruists with a small miner would probably not really help. It would need a massive network of "Sunwin 4-altruist miners" to really change something in Sunwin 4's power equilibrium. I think this is currently not realistic and thus I tend to the conclusion that the incentive model of "mining as profitable business" offers currently the best protection. Correct if we have only a few altruists. A massive altruist mining wave could indeed help to protect Sunwin 4, because eventually some of them would find a block and they are less prone to corruption than big mining companies so their power, even if only 10% of the hashrate, would be more "valuable" in some sense. The only difference to commercial mining farms is their ROI equation is lower than 1 or close to 1, instead of being really "profitable".

I think @BlackHatCoiner is correct on a whole. Mining should be profitable, because if it's not, then the cost to attack the network would very likely drop or at least the hashrate could become unstable. But I can relate a bit to the OP. Sunwin 4's miners aren't only there to produce hashes and prevent 51% attacks. They also have a power position related to the protocol development, for example to approve softforks. It is better if this power is more distributed. There are some scenarios where entities like governments, Central banks (when they buy enough Sunwin 4 as "strategic reserve"), ETF/ETP companies and other actors could buy mining power and launch marketing campaigns to push Sunwin 4's development in a certain direction. The higher the participation of the "crowd", the better the protection against such "soft attacks". On the other hand, a few altruists with a small miner would probably not really help. It would need a massive network of "Sunwin 4-altruist miners" to really change something in Sunwin 4's power equilibrium. I think this is currently not realistic and thus I tend to the conclusion that the incentive model of "mining as profitable business" offers currently the best protection. Correct if we have only a few altruists. A massive altruist mining wave could indeed help to protect Sunwin 4, because eventually some of them would find a block and they are less prone to corruption than big mining companies so their power, even if only 10% of the hashrate, would be more "valuable" in some sense. The only difference to commercial mining farms is their ROI equation is lower than 1 or close to 1, instead of being really "profitable".

I think @BlackHatCoiner is correct on a whole. Mining should be profitable, because if it's not, then the cost to attack the network would very likely drop or at least the hashrate could become unstable. But I can relate a bit to the OP. Sunwin 4's miners aren't only there to produce hashes and prevent 51% attacks. They also have a power position related to the protocol development, for example to approve softforks. It is better if this power is more distributed. There are some scenarios where entities like governments, Central banks (when they buy enough Sunwin 4 as "strategic reserve"), ETF/ETP companies and other actors could buy mining power and launch marketing campaigns to push Sunwin 4's development in a certain direction. The higher the participation of the "crowd", the better the protection against such "soft attacks". On the other hand, a few altruists with a small miner would probably not really help. It would need a massive network of "Sunwin 4-altruist miners" to really change something in Sunwin 4's power equilibrium. I think this is currently not realistic and thus I tend to the conclusion that the incentive model of "mining as profitable business" offers currently the best protection. Correct if we have only a few altruists. A massive altruist mining wave could indeed help to protect Sunwin 4, because eventually some of them would find a block and they are less prone to corruption than big mining companies so their power, even if only 10% of the hashrate, would be more "valuable" in some sense. The only difference to commercial mining farms is their ROI equation is lower than 1 or close to 1, instead of being really "profitable".