2% of coins lost per year seems like a very wild statement. What calculations are you basing this on?
1 Like
There was a paper published somewhere once. As UI gets better 2% is probably too high an estimate.
Wow that’s awesome! This put a big smile on my face, thanks bud!
1 Like
Hello everyone, this is my first message over here. First of all sorry for my english, is not my mother language.
I see most of people in this thread worried about the inflation rate and its impact on holding as a mean to earn money. Please, just a little bit of common sense and do simple maths. If Grin becomes moreless adopted -just in the current crypto community, not the whole world- and demand increases, a market cap of 1 billion dollars is perfectly achivable -and an extremely conservative estimation, i think- but let’s get that 1 billion marketcap as benchmark.
If Grin reachs 1 billion in one year, by then there will be about 49.590.360 Grin, so that that would be $21.93 each Grin.
If Grin reachs 1 billion in two years, there will be 80.694.360 in August 22nd 2021, that would be $12.39 each Grin.
If Grin reachs 1 billion in three years, there will be bla bla bla…$8.94 each Grin.
Inflation rate is lineal, adoption would be exponential. Supply can be infinite, but your lifetime is finite, so scarcity is guaranteed. If you’re a young millenial and you have 6 decades of life in front of you, by the time you’re dying, there’ will be less, very very less grin in circulation than dollars are circulating nowadays.
It’s this monetary policy who brought me here. Is brilliant due to its simplicity. And it will work.
Regards.
11 Likes
那现在买不是要亏本:joy:
I just want to say that your english is very good. English is my primary language, and your writing is more clear/concise than mine. lol, also I love your comment. Thanks.
1 Like
Same ideas with you.
Many people do not ask about ETH’s emission rate (today $165) but Grin, it’s ridiculous 
Lol. Ordinary people hate inflation, so they are not interested in GRIN.
They are ordinary noobie… nah you should tell them truth… educate them…
Reward is constant.
Emission is linear.
Yearly inflation rate is 1/years, tending to zero.
(The word “inflation” is somewhat ambiguous, but I think that’s the most common interpretation)
6 Likes
The most common interpretation in crypto and Austrian circles, but not otherwise. So in reality, actually an uncommon interpretation.
1 Like
Why do you say what Tromp wrote is “an uncommon interpretation” of inflation?
1 Like
A non-Crypto, non-Austrian interpretation of inflation is a decrease in purchasing power, ie an increase in prices of goods. But Tromp’s usage of the term to mean increase in money supply is far more valuable when discussing emission rates of coins.
2 Likes
Thanks for the reply. Aren’t the two things linked though? Suppose the total supply of a currency increases by x% year-on-year, then all things being equal, you have x% more money chasing the same amount of goods, so the price of the goods will rise by a commensurate amount? (Notwithstanding that Grin is still effectively a theoretical currency, since it is not really used to purchase anything yet).
2 Likes
Linked yes, similar to how weather is linked to climate. But “all things being equal” is almost never true, and fails to take into consideration distribution. 50% of all XLM tokens were just burned, and aside from a brief, temporary price spike, it had no real effect. The reason there’s not always an immediate, proportional price correction is because it takes time for monetary inflation (the actual printing of money) to fully affect prices. This is largely due to the newly printed coins going to a disproportionately small group of people (for USD, that means bankers), and it then takes time for those coins to circulate, and for markets to adjust to those new coins. Austrian economists actually blame this for the boom bust cycles we see every 10 or so years, but this community is so painfully Keynesian (aka wrong 
), I’m not going to open that can of worms.
4 Likes
Hmm… thought-provoking…since price inflation is equivalent to a decrease in purchasing power (for the same quantity of a currency) if it’s true that supply inflation doesn’t necessarily lead to price inflation, then neither does it lead to a reduction in purchasing power and thus supply inflation should not weaken the value of Grin. This is even more the case as the supply inflation tends towards zero. Taking account of lost or destroyed coins, equilibrium could be achieved even earlier. So it seems some folks are unnecessarily concerned about inflation in the supply of Grin.
Based on your viewpoint, another potential benefit is that given the fairer distribution of Grin i.e. not favouring a narrow cohort of banksters etc it seems reasonable to assume that the newly minted supply (supply inflation) would get into the hands of consumers in a more uniform manner which could mean that supply inflation does not result in boom-bust cycles, in the case that Grin had the status of a national or global reserve currency 
(…though that presupposes that boom-bust cycles are a bad thing, notwithstanding that many natural events proceed in a largely regular manner but punctuated by the occasional catastrophic event or substantial perturbation that drives things forward… food for thought and many rabbit holes here…)
3 Likes
More like “then neither does it always lead to a reduction in purchasing power and thus supply inflation might not weaken the value of Grin.” But the opposite is always possible too. All I’m saying is monetary inflation does affect purchasing power, but not always directly, universally, and immediately. I generally agree with the rest of what you said there though. Exciting stuff 
3 Likes
how many grin would a bagholder need to be considered a whale? are there any huge grin wallets?
1 Like
