Monero inflation will also tend against 0. Just like Bitcoin. The only difference is the time frame used.
Discussion
How could something agreed upon be theft? If you know the inflation rate for ever, you agree on a possible (but not necessary) loss of value. It makes fiat inflation really different from Monero inflation.
Another innovative way to manage this with a predefined inflation rate is to use two units, one being the currency as usual, the other being the currency corrected from inflation. I only saw that in this "relative theory of money", only in French at the moment: http://trm.creationmonetaire.info/index.html
It's being experimented with an actual cryptocurrency: https://duniter.org/
So you are saying its not a theft of your value, its loss of your value. Isn't that linguistic gymnastics?
No. If I agree upon something, I am not being stolen, that's that simple. If you come to my house and take my car without my consent, it's theft. If I agree you take it it's not.
What if many people are not aware of how tail emissions / inflation on Monero work?
Like this guy for example
Then it's their responsibility to research before buying it.
If I impulsively buy something at the store and it doesn't work how I thought because I didn't learn about it beforehand that isn't the stores fault. That's not theft.
no, precisely because i am willing to loose some of it in exchange for better privacy.
Had it been without my consent, then it would be theft.
I actually see tail emissions as an ever decreasing percent fee on increased security provided by every extra block. A fee for a service.
As it is, miner funding in the future is somewhat fragile, and hodlers get something for nothing.
I also understand that opening this pandora box is risky.
But I see most arguments against tail emissions to come from a kind of (justifiable) revolted place against fiat and central bank policy.
Its your point of view. The time will tell.
What I am noticing is that many people try to predict the future and in my opinion they try to solve problems that are currently non-existant. And may never be.
Only visionaires for example like Satoshi Nakamoto can create strong, balanced and secure systems that can serve as Money. There are so many factors to weigh in.
There are not many people like Satoshi and also Bitcoin has no 2nd best.
Tail emission will double Monero supply in 117 years. I don't see that as a positive. And it will continue to inflate. It will tripple its supply in 234 years. And so on.
Bitcoin will have 0 inflation in 117 years. In reality it will have deflation due to lost coins.
Bitcoin will never double its supply because its limited at 21 Million Bitcoins.
And when we are talking about Money, Gold has been Money for more than 5000 Years.
Fair point about concerning too much about future problems.
Just want to note that doubling supply every 100 years falls far behind production output increase, so it's still deflationary and is still a great improvement over current policy.
It is inflationary and its the opposite of improvement.
A supply inflation of .8%
and approaching zero with every block
is such a ridiculous thing to get hung up on.
Autistically clinging to a fixed number is just maxi virtue signaling. Its bad monetary policy and its only value is memetics.
A clown that can't comprehend that current supply will double in 117 years and tripple in 234 years and will continue.
The clown likes this. I don't like it.
"Gold has been money for 5k years but monero is bad because no supply cap"
Hey, haven't you heard?
the number of monetary units doesn't matter as long as it is known and predictable.
get with the program.
You seem to need to study more Monero.
"Monero's inflation through tail emission is designed to go on forever. Starting from mid-2022, Monero implemented a perpetual tail emission with a fixed block reward of 0.6 XMR per block. This results in a continuous issuance of approximately 157,680 XMR annually, indefinitely."
It's maths. Fixed emission per block forever makes relative increase of money supply tend against 0 (0%).
157K/18M=0,87%
In ten years, 157K/(18M+157K*10)=0,8%
Etc.
Okay but that means so much increase of the volume with time so that it becomes negligible.
Yes. Depending on what is seen as negligible to you. Starting from 0.8% annual and only going down can be seen already as negligible compared to fiat 😄
Maths? What's that? It's only NGU theory here!