Nostr Web Client

Discouraging unnecessary spending and investment is desired for a good society. The fiat debasement which encourages all manner of unnecessary fuckery such as financial engineering, share buybacks etc is not desired.

One could argue about the right amount of monetary deflation and there is nuance there.

Central bankers in the 90s adopted a 2% inflation target but there is zero trust there and also this inflation target is targeting changes in the price of goods and services, not increase in the money supply.

If they had actually adopted a strict 2% per annum cap on the increase in the money supply that would be something but instead everytime humans get more efficient at producing goods and services at lower cost they use that as an excuse to print more money and "target inflation".

That is to say any system which enforces strict limits on the increase in the money supply (on the order of the increase in Gold supply) is preferable to the current unlimited money system in place with the Fiat Standard.

Hanshan 7mo ago

I agree that something algorithmic and known is better than the status quo.

a hard cap is a *design flaw*

for several reasons

this is one of them.

Maxis need to stop pretending that deflation is only positive.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Ape Mithrandir 7mo ago

I think the hard cap is not as bad as it might seem today but not for a particularly positive reason.

By the time increase in supply from the block rewards drop off substantially (+2050), the world population will be in decline as birth rates fall.

This will mean GDP will be falling too, so a money that isn't increasing in supply will better match a global economy that is no longer growing.

Hanshan 7mo ago

maaaaybe

mister_monster 7mo ago

That is a terrible thought, especially when you consider the geriatric nature of a declining population.