Hi. If the price of the coin falls below $1, I propose to discuss the correctness of the basic hypothesis of the project.
The basic hypothesis is that there will be coin holders, as inflation will be low in the long run.
The risk of confusion: everyone understands that the life of any technology is limited(ICQ is dead, Skype is dying), so no one wants to wait 20 years, taking the risks of high inflation. Just for the reason that when inflation becomes acceptable, the technology will simply become obsolete.
If long-term sellers will be more than buyers, the price will tend to 1 cent. Who will use a coin that has lost 99.99% of its value and continues to lose it?
My hypothesis is that without holders, no coin can survive. The holders compensate the cost of electricity. If no one covers the losses, the project dies.
It is probably impossible to create an analogue of cash in the current environment, as the cost of electricity is too high. I would suggest making the project not cash, but an improved version of bitcoin with limited emission, making a hard fork. In my understanding, a coin with unlimited emission and high inflation is even more experimental than a coin with limited emission, as a coin with limited emission is better consistent with the short life cycle of technology and the psychology of people.
Sorry for terrible English