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.

Replies (2)

BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 2 months ago
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.