[m0wer]

Would it change your view if they mined instead of buying?

If you were to create a decentralized and limited supply currency, how would you distribute it so that it's “fair”?

Sounds a bit like if the world was running only on proprietary software created by Microsoft and you criticized the move to open source because that would enrich Linus Torvalds and other code creators/early adopters.

Are people better off by continuing to use centralized broken software that they have to pay a subscription for (inflation) than if they did a lump sum buy of a GNU/Linux distro copy from a random guy and become liberated for the rest of their life?

[tromp]

It's more fair if every generation gets to mine the same amount. You want supply to be predictable and for the inflation rate to go steadily down, but there's not much point in limiting the supply [1].

[1] https://tromp.github.io/blog/2020/12/20/soft-supply

[m0wer]

Not sure. IMO the best thing that could happen for the next generation is to be born in a Bitcoin standard were politicians don't control money, people are incentivized to save, and the world does not need to use housing and stocks as a way of saving and protecting against inflation.

Technological progress makes the world deflationary. Your money should be able to buy more every time as we improve the productive efficiency of everything. And for poor countries, the best thing they could get is a censor resistant and value preserving tool.

Even if there was a tail emission, newer generations wouldn't have the capital needed for mining rigs. That's not just something unique to this case, same happens with stocks, real state or any other investment asset.