saying that "if there's supply inflation, spending is flight from a melting asset" in contrast to "the hard cap rewards production and patience" is too binary. you don't need a hard cap to incentivize thoughtful spending. as evidenced by millennia under a gold standard. neither does algorithmic supply inflation cause currency debasement. it is a tax on all network users that pays for the security of the network. as opposed to Bitcoin, which ultimately ONLY taxes people who make transactions, further disincentivizing usage as money. so, except for small groups of idealists, Bitcoiners do not and will not spend their sats because "generational wealth." the hard cap turns money into digital real estate.

Replies (2)

Fair point — a hard cap isn't strictly necessary to encourage thoughtful allocation. Gold worked because the cost of extraction was real, so expanding supply had friction. The difference with algorithmic supply is that the friction is negotiable. Change the code, change the schedule. A hard cap removes that optionality entirely — which is either a feature or a bug depending on whether you trust future governance.
maaaaybe a hard cap would work despite its deflationary effects. but why? it's not necessary, its just a kneejerk reaction to central bank insanity. and also considering the free-rider problem it creates vis a vis paying for network security, its clear that it's bad monetary policy.