"The economic impact of new mining rewards is identical to inflation or a tax and transfer. We can conclude from this that inflation is not an impediment toward a currency gaining value."
"I can conclude from this that distribution of a currency and its inflation cannot be dependent upon any one party or even a relatively small group of elected individuals. Voters are unable to vote reasonably on issues for which they are rationally ignorant. "
Does this mean there is a preference towards pow instead of voting?
Is this related to a previous mention of POW in BitShares (I don't remember what was said honestly) or something along those lines ?
Really at the end I don't get why it needs to be either one extreme or the other. Everything can be solved through voting in the end. Or is that argument simply because people disagree with each other when a decision has to be made and that is bad for the community? I think there's really not a choice there. Imagine this is done and you can avoid controversial times during a voting period. You'll face the exact same thing during future hardforks, the same way Bitcoin is experiencing. I think you can't really escape from this and it's bound to happen. Sooner or later the community will need to make decisions and every single decision is vulnerable to his exact same "hostile environment". If we want to evolve, decisions will need to be made one way or another. Some will agree, some will disagree. There will be arguments from both sides, it's like everything in life I guess, there's not really a way to escape from this.
What's better is to cultivate a self productive community instead of a self destructing one. To learn from other's and past mistakes. Each time there is this "hostile environment", people learn, the community will eventually create a self automated process, similar to a consensus, on how things should be handled and they will be eventually solved, hopefully in a more gentle way.
It's just up to everyone to try to create this self productive culture. I think that's the way towards creating a better environment during the more sensitive times where a tough decision has to be made.
It seems like you're trying to "hard code" an utopian community in some way. We can't really hard code "not having any more hostile times" via going no-inflation or maximum inflation. There will be always times like those and eventually the best communities who are less "politically irrational" will thrive. With time and as communities grow this becomes virtually impossible. Look at bitcoin. How the community was and how it is now.
It's better to have a huge discussion and be able to solve it via a proper voting method (bitshares) than have endless arguments in a loop that lead nowhere (bitcoin). Sure the inflation stuff doesn't implicate not being able to vote any more, but I really don't see the need for such an extreme action, especially when we are just in the beginning and people did not get enough time to adapt yet.
I know this is just your opinion, it's not a proposal and you're not saying we must do this (you missed the big red bold letters warning people about that before they panic
), but I just wanted to give my opinion.