Assume you are correct for the sake of argument
It's bad faith to think Monero bros "want" inflation. They believe tail emission is necessary to secure the chain going into the future. They think your blockchain eventually wont exist without it.
After all even gold has a small amount of inflation and has been the money of civilization for thousands of years. We have precedent to to point to while Bitcoin doesn't.
It’s bad faith for Monero advocates to repeatedly claim that Bitcoin’s hard cap will spell economic disaster through deflation. Historical evidence and economic theory both show that mild, productivity-driven deflation isn’t destructive — it’s often associated with growth and rising living standards.
Raising these fears ignores the real-world success of sound money periods and overstates the risks of Bitcoin’s approach, especially when both systems aim to empower users and preserve freedom of choice. Both systems offer real value and choice, there’s no need to attack one to legitimize the other.
The argument is more about incentivizing miners to secure the blockchain going into the future. Not that deflation in isolation leads to economic disaster. Crypto is not like precious metals that still continue existing even if miners stop mining it.
Whether you disagree with their conclusion or not is a different conversation. Both sides do attack you're right, I'm guilty of it sometimes, but I think both sides also have people with fair criticisms. I think both have different advantages.
You are one of the most coherent and honest debaters I've come across here.
Thank you.
Gold’s “inflation” was always diminishing, not fixed, and its credibility came from new issuance becoming negligible over time, not from a permanent tail.
And yes, Monero’s tail emission is a practical approach to miner incentives, and Monero itself is a strong contribution to freedom tech and financial privacy. There can never be too much of freedom tech.
FYI:
#Gold natural (PoW?) inflation is the source of Fed 2% goal.
