Image SourceI'm am actually in both camps (for inflationary as well as fixed supply)however in the long run I am a fan of inflationary tokenomics if only the end goal of a token is to be meta-currency.
The argument is simple - gold, silver, other commodities never worked as currencies as proven via century-old "tokenomics" of fixed supply. It's the same reason why btc don't work and will continue to not work as a form of currency.
The approach eth has taken now,is actually good(IMO)for where it wants to go... supply pressure will surely create a price pressure. however, it will have a major issue in being a digital representation of any currency.
If you want to think positively about inflation - look no further than the Fed. I am a traditionalist when it comes to monetary systems and macroeconomics... in other words, a "fan" of central banking and the Fed has led the way (regardless of the all the ron paul revolutionists out there) in actually creating wealth. It has a very simple mandate: stable inflation, which has been around 2% for the longest time, over a long period - ideally, perpetual.
look no further than the amount of actual wealth that has been created in the last century, perhaps just the last 40 years since the fed depegged from the gold standard. It is by no means perfect, but the stable inflation story is like OMG... it's a work of art. My bigger point being, hive can actually differentiate itself and actually be some form of digital currency because of its inflationary mechanics.
anyway, I can go on and on about this - happy to debate central banking, monetary systems, inflation, etc. all day long. either you get inflationary tokenomics or you don't. I simply tend to look past the argument "oh, start burning coz I want my token to moon tomorrow..." it works short term, but I'd reckon it doesn't work over 20-30-40 years. and as I said, there's nothing wrong with fixed supply economics, just that those tokens will have a hard time being actual currency. It's just my opinion though.
