Why Do Tail Emission Advocates Sound Just Like Central Planners?

Have you ever noticed how every argument for tail emission starts with a prediction?

- “Fees won’t be enough.”

- “Miners will quit.”

- “Bitcoin won’t survive without perpetual rewards.”

- “Users will demand inflation later.”

Here’s the problem:

They’re not addressing a real failure. They’re trying to fix a problem that exists only in their imagination.

That’s not decentralization—that’s central planning in disguise.

Bitcoin already has everything it needs:

✅ Dynamic difficulty adjustment

✅ Growing fee markets

✅ Voluntary participation

✅ A fixed supply of 21 million BTC

And it’s working. Right now. Without any intervention.

The hard cap isn’t just some number; it’s the social contract that gave Bitcoin its legitimacy in the first place.

Mess with that, and you’re not just “tweaking incentives"—you’re reshaping what Bitcoin truly is.

If you believe in decentralization, you don’t demand control just in case.

Trust the free market to adapt—like it always has.

TL;DR:

Beware anyone saying, “We must change Bitcoin today to save it tomorrow.” That’s how fiat systems justify sacrificing principles for short-term gains.