I'll reply one by one
E: "Even the current system, providing less than $4K USD per month to the Treasury, is increasing the supply."
yes, that's true but it was communicated and is/was a part of the setup. The emission model was part of the promise on the official website! If Bitcoin would have been changed in a bear market it would not be there where it is.
E: "Price is a function of Supply AND Demand. Your simple math assumes demand does not increase and only focuses on supply."
that's not 100% correct, Finally, I mentioned all possible options in my previous comment, okay maybe not in that detail in the PDF.
Also, my general suggestion is to increase demand via promo which shows that I have a focus on demand increase, The price wouldn't be there where it is if there was enough demand. If the price would be higher this new model wouldn't be implemented. So I'd rather assume that there is not enough demand at this point. And now this will be combined with higher outputs. I'm really curious if someone can explain to me how it will work then?
The only logic will be: Higher treasury - more promo! With the hope that the promo will have a higher demand increase effect than the newly generated coins will have the dumping effect.
E: "Stakers and MNs will get more rewards, thereby making it more attractive while protecting them from inflation. That increases demand."
Well, that'S your thesis. Even though I would get more coins for my masternodes I don't want them. I would prefer to have fewer coins that are worth sth than more coins worth less. And we will see if it really increases demand. It's not that attractive anymore to have a masternode when they are so easy to get
E: "Treasury funds are only created for proposals that pass and reach a funding state."
At least that's good logic if it's used wisely. But it also can be misused for generating coin for all types of bad decisions while the development focuses on the most important things if the funding is not too generous, (don't get me wrong I don't want to justify low funds)
E: "You are assuming Treasury funds spent, must be sold. In some cases, yes. But, there will be increased demand for the higher ROI for Stakers and MNs."
If the coins don'T lose their value, yes, but the concept contains a high risk that coins will lose their value. What have I won when I get more coins that are worth less ?
E: "Also, the terms of the proposal for business development deals could be that the recipient HODLs their coins. "
I can understand the idea but it might be not the best deal for the business partner. If there's a bullrun and he can't take the profits because of a contract he might not be happy about it.
E: " Plus, they will likely not get a lump sum, but a monthly smaller amount while providing a use case that increases demand."
That's one good point, but can be done also without changing the emission model.
E: "There are multiple errors in your PDF. The most glaring one is this: "Mathematically each PIVX will lose ~70 % of its value""
Let me explain it: This number assumes that all possible treasury coins are being created while having a stable demand
let's make the example with 1000 Coins:
We have the same demand for both models: say 1000 $
Old: 1000$ for 1000 Coins = 1$ / Coin
NEW: 1000$ for 3333 Coins ~ 0.3$ / Coin
that'S theoretic price decay ~ 70%,
If there are more errors let me know, but this one was not an error according to my understanding
E: "You are implying this will happen right away. That simply is not true.
It will take approx 13 years for the total coin supply to triple. Even then, the total supply will be FAR less than many other projects."
Indeed at this point, you are right, I did not mention that this will happen not overnight, It's a process that will take some time and meanwhile, it can be possible to increase the price with more promo.
The comparison to other projects is not a justification for the own strategy.
To my understanding, this change has 2 major fails:
1. Changing fundamentals
: AN absolute NO GO! If the fundamentals have to be changed they weren't good from the beginning. That's the definition of a shitcoin.
But PIVX has achieved many goals with these fundamentals.
2. Ignoring the most simple rules of the market.
- reduced supply and stable demand --> price increase
- reduced supply and increased demand --> strong price increase
- reduced supply and reduced demand --> stable price
- increased supply and increased demand --> stable price
- increased supply and stable demand --> price decrease ( THAT'S the PIVX scenario)
- increased supply and reduced demand --> strong price decrease
Thanks for your reply