I think it would have been pretty the same. A fair and predictable emission schedule, subjet to open market-competition is the killer feature.
Predictable inflation is exactly the same as costant inflation in long run.
Different is the case of a growing inflation, cause it revents the incentive to partecipate earlier in the network and collide with the other forces that move bitcoin-actors.
constant emission is a type of growing inflation... in order to be something like a constant ratio it has to decay... the stair step halving has some flaws about it, i think, but they aren't so bad that it wasn't worth the simpler code, "tail emission" is the funny word for a token issuance scheme that is simply a constant static percentage all the time, to do this it has to be exponential decaying
mmm tail emission is constant emission as "constant value", like "n fixed bitcoin every block". And it represent a decreising percentage-inflation cause the inflation/supply ratio is something like n/[n(b)] where n is fixed and b is growing number of blocks. So inflation is going asimptotically to zero, with different speed depends on how the tail emission is designed.
Yeah, I agree that constant-percentage emission, like "1 % of supply every year", is a form of ever growing inflation "in value" and it bring bad incentives and time-preferencies.
tail emission is not any different to halving, both are deceleration of emission... tail emission lets you continue to mint new tokens but after the size of them shrinks below 1 sat you have to increase precision
thats a kind of tail emission, the one implemented in Monero, for example, is progressively decreasing unless the new emission is something like 3 xmr every block, and from then it will be 3 xmr every block forever (unless shitcoin dies).
I think constant-value-emission like that is still another way to tend with different paces to ~0% inflation, so still pretty the same functions.
Is more a question of "numbers choosed to put in the functions" that "determines the speed" and makes the differences.
monero's market cap has stayed flat though, even though its supply rate is constant. this means its losing users as fast as the printer go brrr
mmm yeah but because it is a shitcoin, its how they works, I dont think the tail emission is determinant in this
you mean, the devs are buying lambos?
No, it means CEX have been weaponized against it to suppress prices. And Bitcoiners failing to notice that when screaming ngl are not yet prepared for the coming fractional reserve era in Bitcoin. Where 99% of its users, individuals and institutions alike give a fuck about self-custody.
Every shitcoin with much higher inflation performs better than Monero. What's your explanation for that?
After all you might have figured out that the Monero crowd are the only people also seeing value in Bitcoin and Nostr for its unique properties.
Monero hashrate is at ATH.
Real transactions (not from CEX to HWW to CEX) are growing.
Where Monero is directly accepted by a merchant it usually ranks #1 or #2.
Ruling the only free market (darknet)
There is a huge difference between holders and users. Bitcoin is held, not used. Monero is used, not held (for now).
