When you grasp my idea, you will understand that it is not necessary. Now I explain in more detail.
All coins were created with limited supply. Later, some changed their monetary policy. All the system has always been designed to make the first investors rich. Early investors are now incredibly wealthy.
The investment will be risky for them, as not all of the later entrants will be as highly wealthy as they used to be. They are already incredibly high, the 2-3-4-5x profit you will earn is equivalent to the 500-600x profit of the first investor. Therefore, they will prefer to quit over time rather than take more risks in these projects.
Here is a thinkful thing. Specifically, the price of Bitcoin, whose inflation will soon drop to 0.8%, is at $30,000, but is it worth risking just to make 2-3x times the money. Right now the early investor is up 1000 times. IMO, they will not risk it and they will sell it. So, if savvy investors no longer invest in them, the value of the block rewards should go down because the people to give money will decrease. For example, I don’t buy anymore ltc, xmr, dash, bitcoin. If I buy now, I will contribute more to early investors with a high risk.
However, Grin has very long inflation and unlimited supply. It can’t not make early investors very rich. If it can’t make too many rich, early investors and later investors stay in the system longer. This long stay may increases the number of users of the system and therefore the amount of money given to block rewards day by day. So, in the long run, if the block rewards of other cryptocurrencies drop in dollar terms, Grin increase, this theory could become a reality in practice.
To test this, other factors are not needed. We are interested in technology, but one day the creators of that technology will be very rich and leave, or they will not have the old motivations. Therefore, for these cryptocurrencies to survive, monetary policies would have to be designed for the long term. However none of them were designed that way.