so youre criticism of tail emission is that it should be *higher? to incentivize miners? doesn't that depend on the purchasing power of the unit?
and isn't the whole point to avoid the necessity of relying exclusively on fees?
I'm just not clear what you mean.
tail emission is better than nothing but I don't feel certain it's going to be good enough.
I like the idea of burning fees and giving block producers only new coins
yeah I feel ya
it's obvious that something is needed, but whether it's "good enough" or not depends on specifics that we can't know.
therefore
Yeah it's a good idea. There's been some proposals for this but nothing too concrete. I like the ETH burn and mint system but dislike that the supply increase rate isn't fixed like Monero's. There's a middle ground here surely.
No what I mean is the fees alone need to be sufficient for the security budget. If tailings are required there's a much bigger problem.
High fees kill layer one medium of exchange. Even higher fees kill self custody in layer twos. Force closures become expensive thus raising the minimum channel balance for security. Opening channels are also more expensive thus raising the bar for self custody.
Tail emission is absolutely essential for proper layer one medium of exchange. It's a huge reason why Monero is so user friendly. Guaranteed cheap fees for perpetuity. Dynamic blocks are a big part of this too, both work in tandem to make the best layer one medium of exchange network we have today.
Utilization numbers respective of market cap being disproportionately represented by Monero proves the fruit of this combination.
keeping l1 transactable for ordinary people is just one aspect of tail emission.
The simple fact is that the security burden of the network has to be born by all users. NOT just those users that spend.
The results of pricing in a fixed supply of monetary units is obvious in Bitcoin culture.
nobody uses Manhattan real estate as a MOE.
