So, my kneejerk reaction to this deceptive use of open source is to just say "no" and move on. However, I read through your philosphy, and I have a question.
> considering the substantial R&D resources required for the application layer, we believe that businesses and networks utilizing our software for commercial purposes should contribute towards its ongoing development, allowing maintainers to support and enhance the platform.
That seems to be the crux of the concern here. I can respect that. So, why do existing open source licenses not suit you? For example, you could release the software under the AGPL, and still dual-license it as you wish.
Rather than assume bad faith, I'm going to give you the chance to correct yourself. At the very least, calling yourself open source at the moment is deceptive, whether you realize it or not.