Your comment assumes that the purpose of an economic system is to preserve a financial status quo. It isn't, and shouldn't be. Inflation incentivizes people to put their money to productive uses in the economy (capital formation) rather than hoarding resources.

▲

npoc 2 days ago | parent [-]

The purposes of money are:

- store of value

- unit of account (a measuring stick for value)

- medium of exchange

Allowing the financial system to inflate the money supply destroys two of those fundamental qualities. The fact it can additionally charge interest on the money funnels the stolen value into its hands.

Interest on money loaned out is the only incentive required for putting money to "productive uses". Nothing about hard money affects that. In fact inflation only causes the people at the top of the pyramid to hoard all of the economic value instead. They are buying up and hoarding the entire world with the wealth they are taking from the people.

▲

Kbelicius 2 days ago | parent [-]

Bitcoin was envisioned by its creator to be used as a currency. To buy and sell stuff using it. If you ask today what is bitcoin you'll be told that it is a store of value. The purpose of money is not to be a store of value. It can be, but that is not its purpose which the case of bitcoin clearly illustrates.

> Interest on money loaned out is the only incentive required for putting money to "productive uses".

And what is the incentive to loan money in your system?

▲

npoc 2 days ago | parent [-]

To become a medium of exchange, it needs to become a unit of account. That will happen as it's value stabilises, and that will only happen once it's proved itself as a store of value.

What if Henry Ford evisaged his Model T being used as a temporary alternative for when your horse is unwell? Or a fairground ride? Bitcoin is what it is.

> And what is the incentive to loan money in your system?

Interest - the age-old solution. Offer me interest that both compensates me for not having use of my money and for the risk of getting it back, and we have a deal.

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent [-]

Value can only stabilise if there's either someone in charge adjusting the rate of printing to maintain a stable value. It cannot be done algorithmically as there's no way to determine the value from inside the system.

Non-deflationary currencies encourage hoarding which leads to wild swings in value. Deflationary currencies do much better. Look at the price chart of BTC vs XMR.

▲

npoc 2 days ago | parent [-]

It depends how you measure value. By stabilise I mean stops growing in value by 50%/yr with big short term swings of 80%.

As it matures and gets close to it's ultimate value, volatility will naturally reduce.

Once it is used as the unit of account, everything else will fluctuate in value relative to bitcoin, which has more stable fundamentals than anything else on earth (fixed/zero issuance, liquidity etc), but this will be decades in the future when it's dollar value will be 8 or 9 figures in today's money

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent [-]

> By stabilise I mean stops growing in value by 50%/yr with big short term swings of 80%.

Yeah, so that can't happen unless it's used for actual trade more than it's hoarded, which can't happen unless it's inflationary.

▲

npoc 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not at all. It naturally stabilises the closer it gets to its ultimate market cap. The more it stabilises the more it will be used as a medium of exchange.

	▲	immibis a day ago \| parent [-]
		There is no evidence for this. When gold and gold-backed currency were used for trade, it fluctuated in value wildly and there were several depressions each decade. After centrally-issued fiat currency was introduced, it had a much more stable value, since it could be issued counter-cyclically.