You mean loss rate will approach emission rate
But it’s disinflationary irrespective of losses.
Actually, since the term disinflationary refers to a slowing inflation, it might not even be appropriate for a system that reaches equilibrium between inflation and losses.
Fixed the meme .
I suspected it would. I thought it would be best to educate people to not only think in terms of emission/supply but also take into account the loss rate since people who complain or question the choice of linear supply nearly always overlook there is also a loss rate (at least I did when I asked such question many years ago ).
Should I call Grin a “stable coin” instead of dis-inflationary, since it is approaching equilibrium? On the long term this might actually be best term to describe Grin. For now I think dis-inflationary is still the best by lack of a better term.
Stable coin refers to stable price. Grin is not a stable coin, although I have proposed a way it could be a half-stable coin.
Your meme is still confused since losses are not what makes Grin disinflationary. A tail emission is what makes a coin disinflationary. Grin just happens to have one since launch.
The best term to describe Grin’s monetary supply is dis-inflationary, I think you agree with that?
I think in this case you can just read the second line as describing the active supply of Grin, it will approach an equilibrium. The second line does not have to be a description or definition of what dis-inflationary is since dis-inflationary is an imperfect (but best we have) term to describe Grin. Since both are suited for explaining Grin individually I see not much harm in using them combined even though it might lead to some people confusing the exact meaning of dis-inflationary. But feel free to disagree.
The best term is (pure) linear, which describes it precisely.
Trying to disentangle and still keep the message:
Good/interesting point. The average crypto user equates “rate of emission” with inflation, but any economist would say inflation is an “increase in the supply of money vs the demand for money”. (Austrians would further argue that demand for money can’t be measured… so that becomes a dead end).
But then inflation in a monetary sense, only makes sense when talking about money. I don’t think any cryptocurrency yet has transitioned from behaving as a commodity to behaving as money, so maybe the term inflation is entirely inapplicable to cryptocurrencies until one of them takes on the properties of money. This quickly gets very philosophical, lol
Yes, economists mainly talk about inflation as price inflation, and in crypto people normally talk about supply inflation. Adding these terms will help avoid confusion.