I said banking is its own can of worms to preempt such a comment but either you ignored or didn’t get the memo 
Not exactly. I am only talking about inflation and I assume interest rates don’t change over time.
I think it all comes down to whether you believe an economy with multiple monies can work. Money velocity is orthogonal to store of value when there is only a single currency in circulation but Gresham’s law is probably haunting bitcoin maximalists.
Also, the more I think about it, the more I believe fixed supply is a red herring and with a constant emission you can still use Grin as a store of value because as I said before, you know the value of your money in the future (holding everything else constant apart from inflation obviously) so the price of Grin is going to be stable over time. Added benefit: Grin is going to be valued solely for its utility as a token and not for having a fixed supply.
The invention of Bitcoin IS inflation free value comparative.
If you believe in inflation, you don’t understand physics.
Grin has to be 1) inflation free and 2) Secure (SHA-256)
If you release with any inflation and Cuckoo Cycle there will
be a clone setup in 2 seconds that has no inflation and SHA-256.
Be warned, you will loose control of you work.
You have confused a couple of things, most importantly physics have nothing to do with economics. Off-topic but re SHA256, an argument can be made that a Grin clone w/ SHA256 is actually less secure because it’s much easier to 51% attack it.
With respect to this whole thread and future ones, if you want to provide constructive criticisms on the emission curve, at least give it some decent thoughts. Repeating what you read on Reddit doesn’t count.
To be more specific:
The grin team is earnest, if you can provide well substantiated real research that shows a different supply curve would be be better for grin, we will most definitely listen. But don’t think you can flyby post your knee-jerk reaction 5 min after having heard of grin, which we’ve spent the last 2 years building, and expect us to listen to you.
if you can provide well substantiated real research that shows a different supply curve would be be better for grin
Whats well substantiated real research in the context of the speculation orgy that is crypto?
This is the last I’ll say on this topic, I accept if consensus disagrees:
I’ve described above a tangible benefit to reaching a lower inflation rate faster:
It brings forward one of the potential usages of Grin, namely a way to store value in a censorship resistant, private, fungible medium. I suspect Grin may have one of the best (read: lasting) claims to both privacy and fungibility. As such, I (and I suspect others) would like so save wealth in this medium.
Reducing the inflation rate more quickly will allow this usage, which is not otherwise possible with a high emission rate.
There can be an argument for encouraging newcomers to mining the coin at the same rate in 40 years, but they have a benefit that those of us now do not have; the ability to store value in this medium whilst having the advantages of everything we currently have plus a low inflation rate.
*Note - I am not arguing against an eventual linear emission. I agree with this aspect of the emission rate.
I sympathize with your struggle on this matter.
You can’t possibly know that. Is it a good store of value if emission stops but price collapses? Or conversely, while most people seem entirely happy with it, a good store of value isn’t supposed to increase price by 10x. How can you not consider cryptocurrency a highly risky “store” of value regardless? There’s plenty of empirical evidence to show that price fluctuation dwarves dilution as well.
good article on emission:
Bitcoin has been inflationary for most of its existence. Seems to be doing fine.
If anon cash adoption is the goal, mining distributions are a more meritocratic and decentralized distribution system than an ico. This cash has to expand much farther than just this small community, and that won’t happen from people not spending it nor having trouble acquiring it.
What matters is getting the balance right. To weigh public distribution with long-term price stability (to accumulate wealth).
My personal opinion favors a longer-term approach than short-term hype. I’m in favor of 1 grin per second because it’s a self-evident answer to the question of how the maintainers of the network are rewarded. In terms of inflation, 1 grin a second is static and becomes negligible compared to the total supply on a longer-term horizon.
In the short term, we can surely put in the hustle to generate enough demand for grin that exceeds 1 grin a second.
As a computer geek I’d like to make an example of effects of inflation not from economics, but from a popular game called WoW.
If you played WoW you noticed that over time people are getting better items with more stats and damage. This continues to the point where everybody in the end game is dealing millions of damage per hit. So Blizzard has to reset item stats every couple of years or so (every other expansion).
However, they still keep it inflationary. The reason is because it helps new players to get up to speed quicker. So inflation tends to level off the playing field and doesn’t punish new players too much. The problem is that it has to be reset regularly to not become too ridiculous.
Keep in mind that the history of fiat is covered in graves of failed overly inflated currencies. At some point every fiat has to be reset.
The argument I see here is that inflation will help drive adoption and medium of exchange. Look at Monero, it has nice inflation and good privacy features. I don’t see it been used more than Bitcoin though. So perhaps having inflation is not that important for adoption and use as people think.
This is a complicated question and I believe there is no simple answer. I can only hope grin makes the right decision, because I really like it and want it to succeed where other cryptocurrencies failed – mass adoption.
Just my 2 satoshis.
actually there are currencies like the US-dollar which are inflationary but haven’t failed as a means of payment without any sort of reset. I think the comparison is difficult to draw.
Has anyone considered using the inflation of natural systems as a model, for example the cosmic inflation rate?
The inflationary epoch lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds after the singularity.
I do not understand why you always associate inflation with the policy of creating new coins? It is not a problem to create inflation in an already 100% emitted coin. Can you guess how?
The USD has reset:
" A gold-standard 1928 one-dollar bill. It is identified as a “United States Note” rather than a Federal Reserve note and by the words “Will Pay to the Bearer on Demand”, which do not appear on today’s currency. This clause became obsolete in 1933 but remained on new notes for 30 years thereafter."
Thank you! I’m surprised it took someone so long to point this out. Inflation may not exist on the blockchain, but it’s all but inevitable off the chain. What percentage of Coinbase users actually withdraw their bitcoins after buying them? Do you think Coinbase even needs any bitcoins in their possession in order to “sell” them? How many exchanges would you assume operate fractional reserves behind the scenes?
RE: Emission: If adoption increases exponentially but supply only increases linearly, why would anyone expect coins to lose value over time?
you keep talking about the delivery of coins! I can give you an inflationary model for a 100% coin already delivered! why do you want to have inflation?
A never ending supply incentivizes never ending mining which is paramount for clearing transactions and for the chain’s security.
It’s also paramount for a fair distribution of coins.