Technically i agree with everything you're saying. As you stated with the pow coins the inflation only goes to miners. In the rewards pool however you're correct and proof of brain has more moving parts. However there are some proven ideas that i think may be a problem.
If you look at a stock split. The argument is pretty much the same right? No more coins have been added or taken away. However there is something called attractive pricing that encourages more spending. Things costing $1 can be more attractive than something costing $40,000. So even if my dollar buys the same exact amount, it may be more likely that you may buy faster at $1.
So what i'm suggesting is that if people have more coins they going to wanna sell more hive. Maybe even this example. Does it make a difference whether the power down is 1 day or 97 days or whatever it is. Does it really make a difference when it occurs. Well some would say whether i'm powering down then or now.. It's going to be the same money leaving the system. However.. that may not be true. Maybe things change over that longer period and maybe i stop it. Maybe i don't need to power down and i realize that. So i'm looking more at the market psychology i think behind this. That's going to influence the outcome of this. I just think its a bit more complex than that. I believe that will happen because they will believe they have more and are outside of lack. Whereas, scarcity promotes hodling i believe. I think this idea is kinda backed up by the idea if thats not the case then why do they even have stock splits. It's like no reason to even do it. So we're talking more now about an element that gets left out of algos and market calculations and that's psychology which i feel is equally important.
I don't disagree with the idea if you create more coins and we all fairly get more coins. Thats a problem. Thats not anymore of a problem than inflation in an economy would be a problem provided that economy has access to more spending than everyone else right. So they spend more and that spending creates lack of resources. I think in some sense that's the concern here although not obviously specific to the system but to the idea. That i think in this scenario its more opportunity for more spending wiht the people who control more of teh rewards pool.
Now i could be wrong because these models we don't really have alot of data for decades on what it would mean. However as i'm not really seeing any indications of significant growth i'm moreso to believe its going the other way is more likely. Again i could be wrong but i'm guessing i'm probably going to be right lol. I would be fine with testing the model though? I'm not so afraid of such a model to the point i dont think it shoudln't be tested. However it feels like it wouldn't be good. My intuition suggest to me. However i fully agree that we can go create a trillion coins and everyone have a trillion coins and that would mean nothing as a means of a negative effect to the system. However again thts before human psychology with impacts markets steps in.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta