Why not make Block Reward relative to total Hashrate?

[kibu]

I am asking a dumb question probably, but one thing I don't understand about all these new coins, but also the more established coins, is why does nobody make the block reward directly related to the total hashrate of the network?
So the reward would get proportionally higher as the hashrate gets bigger. This way it does not matter when you will start mining, because in the end your rig will get a constant return on your hashrate investment. And, of course, nobody would complain about premining because the flow of new coins into the system is constant alongside how many miners there are.

The only problem I can see with this, is scarcity of the coin, but I feel like you can still cut the reward formula in half in for example, every month.
OR you just make a cap like we know from other coins and that's it, that's all the coins that are going to be out there. They can then be used just as currency. (Mine for example all the coins in 2 months)

[1714029707]

1714029707

[1714029707]

1714029707

[1714029707]

1714029707

[1714029707]

1714029707

[1714029707]

1714029707

[Vorksholk]

That's what I'm planning for the coin I might be making at some point . . .

[rayman]

There have been such attempts earlier. They usually tried to fix the price against the price of electricity...
Btw: You have to count with Moore's law... so It woun't cause high inflation...

[kibu]

There have been such attempts earlier. They usually tried to fix the price against the price of electricity...
Btw: You have to count with Moore's law... so It woun't cause high inflation...

I guess you're right. The more people and faster rigs would mine, the (almost exponentially) more coins there would be on the market. BUT, if you set a cap, or a cap per week/month if that's at all possible, you wouldn't risk there being created too many coins later on. Right?