And yes I understand that the constant number of coins issued does mean holders pay for hodling and not only transacting. To do it the way Bitcoin does it instead is more of an incentive to hodl, but not so much that no investment would ever happen, nor so much that markets would become harmfully hampered from growth or whatever.
Discussion
If growth in high tech stuff is delayed, so be it. The rest of the market is shit. We need better low tech and medium tech stuff.
Hard money like this helps people to save, helps them to have the capital to invest in better products. And the predictable issuance schedule and low cost of transactions, tail emissions or not, and lack of counterparty risk or recourse thereof, that allows them to be relatively more free of aggression, allows them to create things that people actually value highly and to economize efficiently.
As long as someone is paying for it to an eladequate level (hodlers WILL pay for it when it becomes important to them to do so) and as long as UTXO holders are, by and large, accountable to the security of their own coins, there is no "free rider problem," and there is no injustice in hoarding.
you dont know where the equilibrium will fall
and you're basically admitting I'm correct in being concerned that the most deflationary environment is likely not the most ideal.
Ideal...
https://blosstr.com/471b11463fb02c3409d3d9ba80afba3f6bb64b91d1c64de2e2ca2d733800122e.webp
If you are chiefly a utilitarian with specific goals for the future orientation of the production apparatus of the market, then yeah, you are correct in being concerned about it. But you never stated what your goals are. And you project your goals onto bitcoiners who do not share your goals.