for this thread.
I think a hard coded cap as a "safety net" on "abuse of voting in the short term".... I think the social consensus should be 'as necessary and agreed upon by shareholders'... the "cap" should be like the bitcoin block size cap... and perhaps set to the same as Bitcoin's dilution schedule.
Bitcoins dilution schedule may limit us in the distant future. Maybe we will at some point need capital infusion 30 years from now and because of a hard cap, it can't be done. A limit of X% dilution per 1,000,000 blocks may make more sense. I'm neutral either way.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Think about what a hard cap really means and how it is enforced.
Others -
Think about keeping it capped at bitcoin's rate. People are quick to dismiss that idea, but it becomes a lot easier sell externally when we can now point to this huge distinction that we don't dilute as much as bitcoin AND all the money goes into productivity and not needless energy consumption.
I agree it is a fantastic way to frame the conversation. We're taking a "negative" and turning it into a positive. "Bitshares is just as inflationary as Bitcoin but our inflation gets spent on growth and infrastructure."
I guess the question we should be asking is, what is the most optimal inflationary model? Is it exactly Bitcoins? We should put lots of thought and discussion into this before coming to any hard conclusions.
So long as its less than or equal to bitcoins model the talking point works. I don't think its necessary to string it out over 100 years like bitcoin though as its not a distribution/security model. A much smaller window would suffice. Just whats necessary to get into orbit (escape velocity) then the window should be closed, or made monumentally difficult to open again.
The DAC is vastly more profitable than anything else out there, once you've got mass adoption momentum/network effect, it should be easily capable of funding itself through delegate pay etc.