Interesting thoughts, I think halving the supply rate simulates the finding of a physical scarce non-renewable resource and it’s mining. At first when the resource is widely available the money supply based on it, increases relatively quickly. Then the resource becomes harder to find or more expensive to extract. Until all the known resources have been extracted and you have a constant supply. It looks no different than other non-renewable metals as a currency. The long term expectation would be deflation and the mentality of “not spending a coin today that could otherwise be saved and worth more tomorrow”. I think that may be countered somewhat by the effect of fractional reserve banking adopting Bitcoin as their reserves. Then issuing a “paper” IOU redeemable, for Bitcoin. Then the lending practices of fractional reserve banking could increase the money supply of the IOUs by multiples based on Bitcoin without increasing the Bitcoin supply itself. But with a constant reserve requirement that too would eventually reach its maximum supply increase I think. And then we would just use the “paper” IOUs as currency. If that sounds like gold that was the point. Some of the problems with gold as a currency are recurrent in BTC. It might be useful for a time, or forever better than some other alternatives out in the world like those that have a country with a wildly unstable monetary policy / credibility. And a tool for anti censorship. But is BTC ideal perfection? Perhaps not. And that fact may prevent it from becoming THE only money. Milton Friedman thought the FED should just have a constant supply rule of growing 3% every year. No matter what. He recommended that as an alternative to the FED making policy up based on current events with a fiat currency. That could be a future fork.