its a great question and I dont know the answer.
nostr:npub1m5s9w4t03znyetxswhgq0ud7fq8ef8y3l4kscn2e8wkvmv42hh3qujgjl3 is great at explaining that since we can't track it in any meaningful way
and a hard cap and exponential growth are dumb policy
a simple linear growth is best.
I have been summoned.
It can't be done. No matter what metric you use to track, it will be to some degree inaccurate and will be gameable. Especially if you want a decentralized currency, suppose you say "the supply increase must track the price of table salt" well now any firm that can control salt production can manipulate the money.
This is why we make these decisions about how money supply should work and say "as long as everyone knows how this works it won't shock the market." There are 5 primary ways to manage supply. Hard cap, linear emission, geometric emission (percentage supply increase per period), self regulating increase and the government decides. The last one is obviously bad, the others each have their pros and cons. Self regulating increase, where increase in purchasing power leads to people creating new co,ns, is the best. Gold has this, if the value of gold goes up people mine more gold. We don't have a way to do that with cryptocurrency, you need an oracle for purchasing power, which is a central point of failure. There could be some schemes, something like Monero's adaptive block size but more like an adaptive block reward, I haven't thought on this or come up with any schemes and haven't heard any. Seems pretty complex and probably not accurate and gameable.
Besides that I think linear emission is better than the other two, it is predictable, and it aligns incentives on the network. I have a whole write up or two in my public bookmarks about this if you're interested. It also helps to understand this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_archetype
My go-to for the perfect issuance schedule (in a vacuum, if I were to reinvent Bitcoin) has always been a constant number of units every block until recently when I'm not even sure about that. But constant issuance does not at all increase the supply steady with the expansion of productivity. It increases the supply in step with how well people avoid losing coins until people are losing that many coins per block again on average, and it therefore tends to only replace lost coins on average. Still a very very hard money. The quantity of money remains fixed with tail emissions, given a certain set of practices for coin loss mitigation. As soon as those practices improve, some slow increase in the money supply happens and this causes less deflation, which incentivizes people to be more loose with their money and spend or invest a little less carefully, or use alternative monies without tail emissions or alternative investments.
In short, a money with tail emissions does not increase with the growth of the economy.
