>>60833006
>You throw in hypotheticals without even offering a better alternative that doesn't *hypothetically* suffer from the same problem.

Hypotheticals lol, in the upcoming future with ever smaller subsidies and unreliable fees the "long-term good behavior" incentive erodes. When honest mining no longer outpaces what can be made shorting and destabilizing, the equilibrium breaks. Once shorting becomes more profitable than honest mining and miners realize they can influence price directly through their actions, the system creates a perverse incentive to sabotage the very network they’re supposed to secure.


>Maybe one day you'll run out of it and accept the reality where ideological incentives are always inferior to economical ones.

lol the entire Monero project runs on ideological incentives, the CCS literally depends on altruists donating funds. And guess what? Turns out it works quite well!

https://ccs.getmonero.org/funding-required/


>>60833101
>You didn’t answer the question.

Sure I did, I also pointed out how price alone shouldn't determine whether the network lives or dies.


>Also the rest of your post is just typical slander against people who see NGU as a good thing.

I see NGU as a good thing. Sustainable, long-term NGU fueled by wholesome, organic demand from ever-increasing economic activity. The kind of NGU you have to work hard for.

You and your fellow larpers, on the other hand, would gladly throw Monero-chan and everything she stands for under the bus for the right price. We are not the same.