High Promises. Higher Inflation.

[slw2qdc6xqca]

Long ago, the first master of magic created a spell that could conjure value from thin air.

After the master died, the world began experimenting with the spell in many different ways.

And many years later...

Banks call it monetary policy.
Crypto calls it tokenomics.

The forms are different, but the magic of the mechanism feels familiar:

“Increase the supply.
Then explain the scarcity afterward.”

A street note,
Loid Protagonist

[Findingnemo]

Not every crypto have unlimited supply, let's take bitcoin which is fixed at 21 million cap so no more coins can be added after that which is the different from the rigged paper money that can keep printing as much as they want and inject into the economy over the night or over the period of time.

[slw2qdc6xqca]

Not every crypto have unlimited supply, let's take bitcoin which is fixed at 21 million cap so no more coins can be added after that which is the different from the rigged paper money that can keep printing as much as they want and inject into the economy over the night or over the period of time.

Bitcoin is the rebellious exception,the protagonist of the story. I also learn from Bitcoin and admire its design.

What I am questioning is the magic of central-bank policy, where money is injected into the economy through mechanisms that can be difficult to understand, and the fortune tellers who work backward from the ending of the story to explain its beginning.

To me, that makes little sense. It is like asking for a nonce that already produces a valid hash without mining, then expecting the coinbase reward
.
A street note.
Loid Protagonist & random person

[o48o]

-cut-
“Increase the supply.
Then explain the scarcity afterward.”
-cut-

That doesn't even make any sense. Same goes with your answer later on. Maybe try to sound less like a Yoda if you have real criticism.

Who is making promises to you?

If i am interpreting you correctly, i am guessing you are against inflation, but you don't explain why. Not all tokens or coins would benefit from fixed or deflationary supply.
Chains need to be secured somehow, so it makes sense to reward the people doing it. I don't think that's "difficult to understand".

And when they are utility tokens, it doesn't make sense for people just to hoard them indefinitely, as they are meant to be cheap to use. Same thing goes with fiat money btw.

[Curious T]

Not every crypto have unlimited supply, let's take bitcoin which is fixed at 21 million cap so no more coins can be added after that which is the different from the rigged paper money that can keep printing as much as they want and inject into the economy over the night or over the period of time.

Even the ones that have a limited supply have so much circulating supply already. This is a problem most coins have. They have so much supply, and there is no demand for those coins. That is why most of those coins remain shit coins. Some of those coins have billions or hundreds of millions in circulation. That is almost the same thing as having an unlimited supply. It's better to have a small circulating supply and then increase it strategically like Bitcoin instead of flooding the market with billions of shit coins.

[crwth]

I think there's a misconception that whenever Supply Growth happens, it automatically creates inflation.

Code:

Making more money ≠ an increase in prices

It doesn't automatically translate into consumer price inflation. It depends on whether it affects productivity, demand, economic output, etc. Making more money doesn't automatically mean it will affect prices.

As long as the reasons for banks are viable, I think it would be okay.

[Findingnemo]

Not every crypto have unlimited supply, let's take bitcoin which is fixed at 21 million cap so no more coins can be added after that which is the different from the rigged paper money that can keep printing as much as they want and inject into the economy over the night or over the period of time.

Even the ones that have a limited supply have so much circulating supply already. This is a problem most coins have. They have so much supply, and there is no demand for those coins. That is why most of those coins remain shit coins. Some of those coins have billions or hundreds of millions in circulation. That is almost the same thing as having an unlimited supply. It's better to have a small circulating supply and then increase it strategically like Bitcoin instead of flooding the market with billions of shit coins.

Limited supply is just one thing, imagine a coin with a 1 million fixed supply, can you guarantee that it will surpass Bitcoin's per-coin value because Bitcoin has a total supply of 21 million?

No, shitcoins will be shitcoin irrespective of their total supply is in hundreds or billion, the value comes from the utility, trust and demand/supply.

[Odusko]

Don't generalise crypto but some, because coins like Bitcoin have limited supply unlike other shit coin who are all out with no ecosystem to support it unlimited supply there by making their price to move a lot quickly like a pump and dump thing which explains the right concept highly volatile asset.

[slw2qdc6xqca]

Sorry, I just got the bus. Did I miss something?

[slw2qdc6xqca]

-cut-
“Increase the supply.
Then explain the scarcity afterward.”
-cut-

That doesn't even make any sense. Same goes with your answer later on. Maybe try to sound less like a Yoda if you have real criticism.

Who is making promises to you?

If i am interpreting you correctly, i am guessing you are against inflation, but you don't explain why. Not all tokens or coins would benefit from fixed or deflationary supply.
Chains need to be secured somehow, so it makes sense to reward the people doing it. I don't think that's "difficult to understand".

And when they are utility tokens, it doesn't make sense for people just to hoard them indefinitely, as they are meant to be cheap to use. Same thing goes with fiat money btw.

If inflation is not always bad, how do we determine when it is good, for whom, and under what conditions?

Do you know of a clear framework for evaluating central-bank monetary policy and tokenomics?

I am curious whether these are genuinely structured policies, or just a very expensive class of trial and error.

I don't have a handbook telling me when inflation is good for whom, or bad for whom.

If the policy fails, who bears the cost?
If it succeeds, who receives the benefit?

A street note.
Loid Protagonist & an annoyed bus passenger