There is an obvious inflation/deflation twist, as explained in another post. My mistake - I'm not familiar enough yet with economists vocabulary and perspective

There is an obvious inflation/deflation twist, as explained in another post. My mistake - I'm not familiar enough yet with economists vocabulary and perspective. If the economy is not growing as fast as your currency supply is, I'd prefer calling that "purchasing power" deflation since I think on the purchaser side - and you will get less and less stuff for a given amount of your money (while of course the token price will inflate - sorry if this was not clear) Besides that twist, I don't agree with your conclusions. It's all about perspective, and IMHO you are too clear cut. Currencies being inflationary in a growing economy - it's good if you are productive and don't have much capital. It's not good if you are not productive but already have acquired capital, because you must then do something - like invest or spend - or you will be less well-off. There is a clear link between spending, investment and economical activity, but saying that this link is better to the alternative - the link between not spending, not investing and not trading is all about one's values. (I mean, like many here I share your opinion, hence my initial remark about bitcoin not being good for economic growth, but many leftists and "deflating" folks would say that it would be better for the planet and so on if we stopped growing and even inverted the tendency) Likewise, half of the bitcoin being held by the inventor is a good thing for this inventor, and is a statement of how good he think his product is. Just like an IPO - he hasn't cashed in yet, so I take this as a statement of trust. It's not good for you and me because it might have bad effects on bitcoin if the cash-out is too fast.