- Why is this called interest rate? shouldn’t this be addressed as emission rate?
- Bitcoin will eventually encounter itself in the same situation, and it’s users suppose that the transaction fee will be enough pay for the miners.
I disagree. There is actually no need for “reprints”. Just putting some loss of precision aside, any amount of money is enough for a monetary system.
This is a concluding quote from von Mises:
Whoever got their grin “burned” or lost simply kind of donated purchasing power to other grin holders. There may be, relatively, less grin on the sell-side and therefore it’s price may be higher than otherwise. This is very natural to happen, and there are no disadvantages on such situation.
But considering a 50% yearly burning rate, for the sake of the argument, then I agree the situation is different because the precision is severely reduced (cannot be put aside anymore). The solution is very simple, and I actually have talked about it in another topic.
Simply duplicate the whole grin blockchain data (Ctrl+C Ctrl+V) and do a split which avoids replay attacks. This way you double the quantity, and that precision loss from the 50% burning rate is gone (for that year).
I don’t know if it would be feasible, but a forking increase in the data length for quantities could also deal with the precision loss.
Any way, both of those inflation methods would be relatively “neutral” (without wealth transfer).
No good, including a money-good, is free from that risk. But sure, merchants and consumers will look for some money-good which actually helps with their savings and calculation, their life/daily planning overall. But this is a task we all must do on all of the decisions we make. This is not a given for any money-good. We all take the risks, and those who correctly predicted the future will get some profits.
Holding US Dollars and US bonds may seem like a common and reasonable thing to do. But as I said, one is taking the risks, whether they notice it or not.
Sure all else equal, earlier adoption is preferable. But it’s not like the currency will have an expiration date - it has time.
But I agree that a lower early adoption means lower “hashrate” power, which relatively lowers early security. So idk if there would be a “practical minimum adoption” level for a given time.
I noticed that you used [grin’s] “deflation” as [grin’s] “price decrease”. I use deflation as [grin’s] “quantity decrease”, so I’ll comment in the meaning that I use (I’m assuming that you are referring to Grin’s inflation increase, which would tend to make it’s price be reduced).
I agree, inflation is bad but there must be some of it in some for, at least for some time.
Do we? Deflation is love, deflation is life.
(kidding aside, again, I use inflation differently, so I’ll comment in the meaning that I use (I’m assuming that you are referring to Grin’s [practical] lack of inflation (practical lack of quantity increase), which would not tend to make it’s price be relatively reduced than otherwise).
Sure everyone would accept something that relentlessly tends to be more valuable in the future. If Grin price won’t stop increasing for a long period, then let it be, let it keep increasing before spending it. It would be making US Dollars circle around the world faster and faster, like a hyperinflated, desperated cash trying to look for some holders in order to not die, to avoid it’s crack-up boom.
So holding it helps with the US Dollar implosion, so it’s fair (in my opinion) to profit for doing it (holding a Grin).