For what it's worth, I agree with you that Grin's emission scheme is the 'correct' one. The effect of adding one coin to a pool of coins, on a steady schedule,

For what it's worth, I agree with you that Grin's emission scheme is the 'correct' one. The effect of adding one coin to a pool of coins, on a steady schedule, results in inflation along a logarithmic curve. Inflation is about how much money is created relative to how much exists, so the second minute of Grin is 100% inflation, the third minute is 66%, and so on. Also, people lose their cybercoins. It might average out that Grin hits a steady state, or even deflates a bit, depending on how frequently people or corporations lose their keys, die without heirs, send to a nonexistent address, and so on. But even without this, the mining reward remains consistent even as overall inflation becomes negligible. Inflation never stops, but it does hit a point where it may as well have. Bitcoin, by contrast, is guaranteed to be deflationary, and in fact the property that everyone holding BTC gets a permanent bump in asset value every time a bit of the ledger is lost strikes me as... moderately hazardous to the health of those who hold large allocations of the ledger. I don't think this has much bearing on the article though, just wanted to tip the hat to another Grin respecter.