Sats don't just magically decay. If you have a seed phrase that secures 100 sats, the chance of you losing that seed phrase is no different than a seed phrase securing 1,000,000sats _if_ the price is different enough that both seed phrases represent the same value to you.
...and lightning already supports milisats. So precision isn't a big deal.
Yes the loss rate is not dependent on the numerical sat value, and *is* dependent (inversely) on the economic value. I agree that my message was blurring and confusing these two clearly correct points.
But that dependence on economic value can't be assumed to be some very simple formula such as inverse linear (l.r. = k/value say), albeit that's a sound starting point. It's true that this has a nice asymptote at l.r. = 0 but we don't know if there is some other asymptote/floor; also, we might *think* that twice as much effort expended (because twice as much value) leads to half the loss rate, but .. does it? i wouldn't be surprised to see some exponential component there. it's fascinating to analyze, but it's hard to do more than theorize, because we have a tremendous and, likely, impossible challenge in trying to measure or predict loss rates.
