The absolute hard cap on # of BTS is 3,761,440,000

[muse-umum]

What worries me is not the rate of dilution. It's that delegates need to dump their BTS in order cover their costs. No matter what the rate of dilution is, there is constant sell pressure.

I may be wrong on this but I think greed is our ally in getting BTS off the ground. With all the crypto projects pitching revolutionary this and that. I think a sound investment is how you slice it. When the price of something goes up and up, like it or not, people notice. I think the dilution can hurt this which is why many companies choose to take out loans instead of diluting shareholders.

Basically I think it's misleading to look at it as a 6% of inflation. Since it does not mean that BTS will only be worth 6% less. A tiny percentage of dilution, dumped on the market an cause a total crash/downward spiral of the price.

So how will Notes take the dilution? Or no dilution?

[mf-tzo]

What worries me is not the rate of dilution. It's that delegates need to dump their BTS in order cover their costs. No matter what the rate of dilution is, there is constant sell pressure.

I may be wrong on this but I think greed is our ally in getting BTS off the ground. With all the crypto projects pitching revolutionary this and that. I think a sound investment is how you slice it. When the price of something goes up and up, like it or not, people notice. I think the dilution can hurt this which is why many companies choose to take out loans instead of diluting shareholders.

Basically I think it's misleading to look at it as a 6% of inflation. Since it does not mean that BTS will only be worth 6% less. A tiny percentage of dilution, dumped on the market an cause a total crash/downward spiral of the price.

 

[cob]

What worries me is not the rate of dilution. It's that delegates need to dump their BTS in order cover their costs. No matter what the rate of dilution is, there is constant sell pressure.

I may be wrong on this but I think greed is our ally in getting BTS off the ground. With all the crypto projects pitching revolutionary this and that. I think a sound investment is how you slice it. When the price of something goes up and up, like it or not, people notice. I think the dilution can hurt this which is why many companies choose to take out loans instead of diluting shareholders.

Basically I think it's misleading to look at it as a 6% of inflation. Since it does not mean that BTS will only be worth 6% less. A tiny percentage of dilution, dumped on the market an cause a total crash/downward spiral of the price.

[svk]

You can track the supply inflation here: https://bitsharesblocks.com/charts/supply

Current annual inflation is edging up towards 2%, well below the current maximum value of 6.3%

Some nice stats you could add:

1. The theoretical max, taking into account the BTS that has already been burned
2. The projected max, taking into account the current rate of inflation

Good idea!

I've just pushed an update with those estimations. I calculate the supply until the 15 day maximum inflation is less than 1000 BTS, or 24000 BTS per year. The estimated future supply is based on the current proportion of delegate pay to maximum inflation, 15.46/50 = 31% at the current time. I then extrapolate the future supply using this proportion, so if we add lots of 100% delegates the estimated future supply will change accordingly.

The current estimates for Nov 2066 are:

Estimated final supply: 2,875,456,487 BTS
Theoretical maximum supply: 3,709,392,565 BTS

[cube]

You can track the supply inflation here: https://bitsharesblocks.com/charts/supply

Current annual inflation is edging up towards 2%, well below the current maximum value of 6.3%

That means we need new money flowing in at a rate of 2% (in order to preserve the value).  Are we achieving that?

[starspirit]

Due to some of the already destroyed coins , it's less than that actually .

It has dropped by almost ~50 million or so by now, due to a combination of having less than 101 paid delegates, and burning shares for various things.

Is there a numbers break-down available on the sources of coin destruction?

[fluxer555]

You can track the supply inflation here: https://bitsharesblocks.com/charts/supply

Current annual inflation is edging up towards 2%, well below the current maximum value of 6.3%

Some nice stats you could add:

1. The theoretical max, taking into account the BTS that has already been burned
2. The projected max, taking into account the current rate of inflation

[stuartcharles]

Even better, thanks svk 

[svk]

You can track the supply inflation here: https://bitsharesblocks.com/charts/supply

Current annual inflation is edging up towards 2%, well below the current maximum value of 6.3%

[stuartcharles]

This is great news,although i see not new to most there will be a lot like me who drift in and out. As a price spike up or down causes a lot of us to drift in to see what is going on. For that reason i am bouncing this.

[Ander]

Due to some of the already destroyed coins , it's less than that actually .

It has dropped by almost ~50 million or so by now, due to a combination of having less than 101 paid delegates, and burning shares for various things.

[btswildpig]

Due to some of the already destroyed coins , it's less than that actually .

[Riverhead]

.
 Though there is no consensus about the required approval percentage for hard forks ..

Note that this applies to all crypto. Bitcoin could decide to double supply with a fork. There's probably only a handful of people that would need to agree too.



Sent from my Timex Sinclair

[Gentso1]

The current protocol does NOT allow infinite inflation ... the delegate pay halves ever 4 years IIRC ..

However .. stakeholdera could agree on a hard fork in the future and change the protocol .
 Though there is no consensus about the required approval percentage for hard forks ..

This statement just further's the case that we need some kind of in client voting.

[xeroc]

The current protocol does NOT allow infinite inflation ... the delegate pay halves ever 4 years IIRC ..

However .. stakeholdera could agree on a hard fork in the future and change the protocol .
 Though there is no consensus about the required approval percentage for hard forks ..

[Brent.Allsop]

To be certain our official stance is: 
1) bitshare holders can dilute without limit by majority approval (to say otherwise is to sign a suiside pact)

Is this a consensus of delegates, or is this a consensus of bitshares?  Some other type of consensus?  Is there any way of measuring, rapidly building this type of consensus, and knowing what is standing in the way of achieving such?

Obviously, the community that can most rapidly build and measure this kind of consensus, and educate everyone else still not yet on board, so they are not lost, will blow away any competitors.

Brent Allsop

[mike623317]

It's sad BM have no regard of the conventions of bitcoin community, cap increase every month, hard fork every month, must update wallet every month, you still want trust?

Bitcoin does just one thing.  BitShares is a company with an aggressive list of planned first-of-a-kind services that hopefully will never stop growing. 

Our challenge is to strike a balance. 

Get features and fixes deployed as fast as possible
and
Minimize the number of times users and exchanges have to upgrade.

Trust that we will work hard to strike the right balance,
not that we will somehow accomplish both goals perfectly and simultaneously.

So, if we are doing it right, we should be getting an equal number of complaints about both.

Just want to say a big thank you for what you guys are doing. I know you take a lot of crap from people sometimes

[fluxer555]

Any delegate who publishes feeds uses an automated script...

[Avant]

 

delegates manual price feed is the stupiest idea in this day of age, it creates a lot of maual labor to be compansated, I'm very dispointed that BM still hasn't find a better way, use your brains man!

[yiminh]

delegates manual price feed is the stupiest idea in this day of age, it creates a lot of maual labor to be compansated, I'm very dispointed that BM still hasn't find a better way, use your brains man!

[Stan]

It's sad BM have no regard of the conventions of bitcoin community, cap increase every month, hard fork every month, must update wallet every month, you still want trust?

Bitcoin does just one thing.  BitShares is a company with an aggressive list of planned first-of-a-kind services that hopefully will never stop growing. 

Our challenge is to strike a balance. 

Get features and fixes deployed as fast as possible
and
Minimize the number of times users and exchanges have to upgrade.

Trust that we will work hard to strike the right balance,
not that we will somehow accomplish both goals perfectly and simultaneously.

So, if we are doing it right, we should be getting an equal number of complaints about both.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

It's sad BM have no regard of the conventions of bitcoin community, cap increase every month, hard fork every month, must update wallet every month, you still want trust?

This is alpha software, so yes you might have to update every month - so what? It means theyre actually producing new code.

Comparing with Bitcoin is a bit unfair - Bitcoin is just a simple token that doesnt do anything. BitShares is incredibly complicated in comparison.

Maybe they would like to see an autoupdate feature to make it stupid simple.

[MrJeans]

In the (very) long run this isn't feasible. As delegates don't get paid by tx fees anymore and the reward approaches 0.

To ensure that the code is robust against need to hard fork the funding model we have decided to pay fees to delegates as well (percentage of fees based on pay rate).

This will maintain the long-running delegate pay model and simply add a bit of dilution to help cover us while we are growing transaction volume.

answered my concerns. One hopes that soon we have all delegates on well earned 100% pay

[speedy]

It's sad BM have no regard of the conventions of bitcoin community, cap increase every month, hard fork every month, must update wallet every month, you still want trust?

This is alpha software, so yes you might have to update every month - so what? It means theyre actually producing new code.

Comparing with Bitcoin is a bit unfair - Bitcoin is just a simple token that doesnt do anything. BitShares is incredibly complicated in comparison.

[robrigo]

It's sad BM have no regard of the conventions of bitcoin community, cap increase every month, hard fork every month, must update wallet every month, you still want trust?

What do you expect for a project still in beta? The hard forks will be less frequent after the 1.0 milestone is reached and a stable version can be declared.

[yiminh]

It's sad BM have no regard of the conventions of bitcoin community, cap increase every month, hard fork every month, must update wallet every month, you still want trust?

[yiminh]

This is like all delegates votes for a pay raise in BTS, then BTS price drop, then votes for another pay raise in BTS, BTS drop more, endless cycle

[Frodo]

In the (very) long run this isn't feasible. As delegates don't get paid by tx fees anymore and the reward approaches 0.

To ensure that the code is robust against need to hard fork the funding model we have decided to pay fees to delegates as well (percentage of fees based on pay rate).

This will maintain the long-running delegate pay model and simply add a bit of dilution to help cover us while we are growing transaction volume.

Okay that makes sense.

[Ander]

Yeah, it just goes to show how almost no one understands the changes yet, even people who spend a lot of time on the forums! 

I had a similar thought and freakout about all of this early on, until I figured it out.

[bitcoinerS]

157,680,000 is max pay per delegate per year.
If all 101 delegates were to receive max pay result would be:
15,925,680,000

Nope.

157,680,000 is max pay for all 101 delegates put together, per year.

Max pay for one delegate is 1,561,188 BTS per year.


This is exactly why its not a big deal, and why everyone who doesnt understand how it works is massively overreacting and trashing the BTSX price.


A max pay delegate gets 50 BTS for each of THEIR blocks, which only come once in each 101 blocks.
Not 50 BTS for everyone's blocks.


If it was the other way then we would be facing massive inflation and I wouldve sold all my bitshares and left already.

my mistake

[Ander]

157,680,000 is max pay per delegate per year.
If all 101 delegates were to receive max pay result would be:
15,925,680,000

Nope.

157,680,000 is max pay for all 101 delegates put together, per year.

Max pay for one delegate is 1,561,188 BTS per year.


This is exactly why its not a big deal, and why everyone who doesnt understand how it works is massively overreacting and trashing the BTSX price.


A max pay delegate gets 50 BTS for each of THEIR blocks, which only come once in each 101 blocks.
Not 50 BTS for everyone's blocks.


If it was the other way then we would be facing massive inflation and I wouldve sold all my bitshares and left already.

[bitcoinerS]

157,680,000 is max pay per delegate per year.
If all 101 delegates were to receive max pay result would be:
15,925,680,000

[Ander]

Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:
~
Nov 2014
Nov 2018
Nov 2012
Nov 2016
Nov 2020
~

I'm tired but those dates look confused.

Heh. 

I made this thread very late last night after seeing the news and managed to get like three different things wrong.

Fixed it now.

[bytemaster]

I think it is also safe to say that unless the market cap falls by 50% or more from where we are today that there should be no need to increase dilution.   $3 million dollars per year is what the current system allows delegates to fund.  If we can double our market cap then we will have a $6 million dollar budget.   These kinds of budgets will scale with our growth and are in line with current burn rates of funding.   

With regards to organic growth, your statement makes sense to me. But suppose we had the opportunity to on-board the entire community (developers and users) of another high-feature "coin" in the digital currency space, through an airdrop on all the users of those coins, because we thought the feature development in bitShares as well as the network effects would be not just additive but compounded. This may require a much higher one-off dilution of shares. Is this type of thing within scope?

I don't want to comment on what is possible, but I don't think we should be looking to do these kinds of "big moves" because they are so disruptive.   It had better be to bring on apple, google, ms, or a major bank rather than just adopt another crypto project....

We are far better off competing / copying rather than buying.

[Riverhead]

Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:
~
Nov 2014
Nov 2018
Nov 2012
Nov 2016
Nov 2020
~

I'm tired but those dates look confused.

It's 2022 and 2026.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[davidpbrown]

Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:
~
Nov 2014
Nov 2018
Nov 2012
Nov 2016
Nov 2020
~

I'm tired but those dates look confused.

[Ander]

With regards to organic growth, your statement makes sense to me. But suppose we had the opportunity to on-board the entire community (developers and users) of another high-feature "coin" in the digital currency space, through an airdrop on all the users of those coins, because we thought the feature development in bitShares as well as the network effects would be not just additive but compounded. This may require a much higher one-off dilution of shares. Is this type of thing within scope?

If it had a very large community consensus support then it would happen.   If it didnt, it wouldnt happen.

Think of it kindof like amending the constitution.  That is the probably about the level of difficulty we will need in order to change things in the future.

[starspirit]

I think it is also safe to say that unless the market cap falls by 50% or more from where we are today that there should be no need to increase dilution.   $3 million dollars per year is what the current system allows delegates to fund.  If we can double our market cap then we will have a $6 million dollar budget.   These kinds of budgets will scale with our growth and are in line with current burn rates of funding.   

With regards to organic growth, your statement makes sense to me. But suppose we had the opportunity to on-board the entire community (developers and users) of another high-feature "coin" in the digital currency space, through an airdrop on all the users of those coins, because we thought the feature development in bitShares as well as the network effects would be not just additive but compounded. This may require a much higher one-off dilution of shares. Is this type of thing within scope?

[bytemaster]

Is this an absolute hard cap? OR could the community in theory vote in future to increase it? (like the US debt "ceiling")

This is what the code does.

Changing it would require a code fork and getting everyone on board.


In the end, nothing is impossible.  It is possible to change the bitcoin payout system and make it inflate forever, for example, IF you can get a strong agreement and everyone agrees to that fork.

Bitcoin never has changed it. We have just changed it, which in a way shows we are more dynamic, but also less certain. Past experience is what people judge us all by. Doing it once with clear purpose the market will accept I believe. But maybe "absolute hard cap" is a bit stronger terminology than warranted.

To be certain our official stance is: 
1) bitshare holders can dilute without limit by majority approval (to say otherwise is to sign a suiside pact)
2) bitshare's code is implemented to prevent dilution greater than the hard-fork cap which will require all delegates, merchants, users, and exchanges to upgrade or the dilution doesn't happen.   
3) changing this code should require the election of a delegate that supports it to the #1 delegate spot. 
4) Thus the dilution has a safety valve which should not be tampered with lightly and helps set a budget.

I think it is also safe to say that unless the market cap falls by 50% or more from where we are today that there should be no need to increase dilution.   $3 million dollars per year is what the current system allows delegates to fund.  If we can double our market cap then we will have a $6 million dollar budget.   These kinds of budgets will scale with our growth and are in line with current burn rates of funding.     

[Ander]

Bitcoin never has changed it. We have just changed it, which in a way shows we are more dynamic, but also less certain. Past experience is what people judge us all by. Doing it once with clear purpose the market will accept I believe. But maybe "absolute hard cap" is a bit stronger terminology than warranted.

At this point we need to advertise a clear message again about what bitshares is.

Absolute hard cap is definitely a part of that clear message that we need to broadcast, to regain the trust of the larger community.

[starspirit]

Is this an absolute hard cap? OR could the community in theory vote in future to increase it? (like the US debt "ceiling")

This is what the code does.

Changing it would require a code fork and getting everyone on board.


In the end, nothing is impossible.  It is possible to change the bitcoin payout system and make it inflate forever, for example, IF you can get a strong agreement and everyone agrees to that fork.

Bitcoin never has changed it. We have just changed it, which in a way shows we are more dynamic, but also less certain. Past experience is what people judge us all by. Doing it once with clear purpose the market will accept I believe. But maybe "absolute hard cap" is a bit stronger terminology than warranted.

[bytemaster]

In the (very) long run this isn't feasible. As delegates don't get paid by tx fees anymore and the reward approaches 0.

To ensure that the code is robust against need to hard fork the funding model we have decided to pay fees to delegates as well (percentage of fees based on pay rate).

This will maintain the long-running delegate pay model and simply add a bit of dilution to help cover us while we are growing transaction volume.

[Ander]

Is this an absolute hard cap? OR could the community in theory vote in future to increase it? (like the US debt "ceiling")

This is what the code does.

Changing it would require a code fork and getting everyone on board.


In the end, nothing is impossible.  It is possible to change the bitcoin payout system and make it inflate forever, for example, IF you can get a strong agreement and everyone agrees to that fork.

[starspirit]

Is this an absolute hard cap? OR could the community in theory vote in future to increase it? (like the US debt "ceiling")

[Ander]

In the very long run, when the reward is mostly gone, perhaps transaction fees will pay delegates, just like in bitcoin, instead of being burned.

This is the same plan that bitcoin has for the long term - pay for maintaining the network with transaction fees.

Its a lot easier for Bitshares to do this, because DPoS is so much cheaper than PoW.

[Frodo]

In the (very) long run this isn't feasible. As delegates don't get paid by tx fees anymore and the reward approaches 0. I guess that is not really a problem right now, but seems a bit weird to me. People opposed to BitShares might use this argumentation to show that either our "hard cap" is a lie (due to inevitable hard fork) or the system is just going to break.

This is probably not a popular opinion but denying dilution is just like this:



Someone simply has to pay for stuff.

[Ander]

Remember that it won't be long before there is a litecoin to our bitcoin.  If we can't compete, we'll eventually be overtaken.  We may always need marketing via dilution to stay #1.  Why put a cap on it at all? 

Because you are the only one who likes the idea of unlimited dilution, and there are tons of people out there that dumped their BTSX because they were afraid of the dilution, especially the part where it was not a fixed, known amount.

There will eventually be a litecoin to our bitshares, and like litecoin to bitcoin, it will be under 5% of our market cap.  Unless we dilute infinitely and they do not, in which case they will pass us. 

The hard cap is absolutely critical to investor confidence.  We need this to win back a lot of the support we lost in october.

[carpet ride]

There will be BTS that is burned over time correct?

Yes, for many reasons.  There will also be lots of this BTS that wont actually be paid out.

I doubt the BTS supply wil ever actually be higher than 3 billion.  At some point we should reach a point where supply is actually going down.

Remember that it won't be long before there is a litecoin to our bitcoin.  If we can't compete, we'll eventually be overtaken.  We may always need marketing via dilution to stay #1.  Why put a cap on it at all? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ander]

There will be BTS that is burned over time correct?

Yes, for many reasons.  There will also be lots of this BTS that wont actually be paid out.

I doubt the BTS supply wil ever actually be higher than 3 billion.  At some point we should reach a point where supply is actually going down.

[Riverhead]

Yes. This is a cap.The real dilution will be much less. For example at the fork all delegates will be 3%. That's burning 48.5 out of 50 shares per block.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[bytemaster]

There will be BTS that is burned over time correct?

Yes... at some point fees will be greater than dilution and thus BTS is burned.

[islandking]

There will be BTS that is burned over time correct?

[carpet ride]

Don't forget that we will be able to vote and even hard fork to change this rule.  No need to constrain consensus.  There may be opportunities we do not yet see


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Riverhead]

The math is correct. For anyone interested in the full table here it is. The antidilutionists will be happy in 2140 .

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M65Gt1mFstAgTkECJfUX18f187tGzqJeXT7877qLv-M/edit?usp=sharing

[xeroc]

With the addition of the pay reward halving every 4 years, there will now be an absolute hard cap on the number of bitshares.


Starting BTS total: 2.5 billion.    This comes from current BTSX (2 billion), plus stake allocated to PTS, AGS, DNS, and VOTE (500 million total).

Starting reward per year: 157,680,000.    (50 BTS per block * 6 blocks per minute * 60 minutes per hour * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year).

4 years at this rate is 630,720,000.  After that, the reward halves, and in the next 4 years, we add half that.  And so on.   The total number of bitshares that will EvER be paid to delegates is capped at 1,261,440,000.    (In reality it will be less, because many delegates are low pay delegates).



Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:

Nov 2014:  2,500,000,000  (maximum 6.3% a year inflation)
Nov 2018:  3,130,720,000  (maximum 3.1% a year inflation)
Nov 2012:  3,446,080,000  (maximum 1.6% a year inflation)
Nov 2016:  3,603,760,000  (maximum 0.8% a year inflation)
Nov 2020:  3,682,600,000  (maximum 0.4% a year inflation)
Forever:     3,761,440,000


Also, every share of BTS that is ever burned reduces all of these numbers by 1!  So every time a share of BTSX is ever burned for trasnaction fees, etc, this cap goes down!

Every time any delegate ever receives less than a full pay block reward, the hard cap goes down!

For example, we are going to have many 3% pay delegates, in with a few full pay delegates who are developers, marketing team, etc.
Every single time one of those 3% pay delegates signs a block, these numbers go down by 48.5, because that is 48.5 BTS that cannot be created (because the opportunity to pay the full 50 BTS was missed).



So what is the reality of how many BTS there will be?  Significantly less than these numbers!  These are a hard cap which occurs only if there are 101 full pay delegates and no shares of BTSX are burned ever.  Both of those are not true, and thus the actual amount of BTS will be much lower.

.. thanks for the summary

[Ander]

Fixed the fact that I missed an 8 in the initial calculation of the yearly reward, 1,576,800,000 instead of 1,576,000,000. 
Fixed the fact that 48.5 BTS is not created when a 3% pay delegate creates a block, not 47.

[mint chocolate chip]

For example, we are going to have many 3% pay delegates, in with a few full pay delegates who are developers, marketing team, etc.
Every single time one of those 3% pay delegates signs a block, these numbers go down by 47, because that is 47 BTS that cannot be created (because the opportunity to pay the full 50 BTS was missed).

Is 47 right? Think maybe it is 48.5

[lakerta06]

With the addition of the pay reward halving every 4 years, there will now be an absolute hard cap on the number of bitshares.


Starting BTS total: 2.5 billion.    This comes from current BTSX (2 billion), plus stake allocated to PTS, AGS, DNS, and VOTE (500 million total).

Starting reward per year: 157,680,000.    (50 BTS per block * 6 blocks per minute * 60 minutes per hour * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year).

4 years at this rate is 630,720,000.  After that, the reward halves, and in the next 4 years, we add half that.  And so on.   The total number of bitshares that will EvER be paid to delegates is capped at 1,261,440,000.    (In reality it will be less, because many delegates are low pay delegates).



Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:

Nov 2014:  2,500,000,000
Nov 2018:  3,130,400,000
Nov 2012:  3,445,600,000
Nov 2016:  3,603,200,000
Nov 2020:  3,682,000,000
Forever:     3,761,440,000


Also, every share of BTS that is ever burned reduces all of these numbers by 1!  So every time a share of BTSX is ever burned for trasnaction fees, etc, this cap goes down!

Every time any delegate ever receives less than a full pay block reward, the hard cap goes down!

For example, we are going to have many 3% pay delegates, in with a few full pay delegates who are developers, marketing team, etc.
Every single time one of those 3% pay delegates signs a block, these numbers go down by 47, because that is 47 BTS that cannot be created (because the opportunity to pay the full 50 BTS was missed).



So what is the reality of how many BTS there will be?  Significantly less than these numbers!  These are a hard cap which occurs only if there are 101 full pay delegates and no shares of BTSX are burned ever.  Both of those are not true, and thus the actual amount of BTS will be much lower.

small correction

[eagleeye]

the dynamics of inflation and burning.  Nice!

[Ander]

With the addition of the pay reward halving every 4 years, there will now be an absolute hard cap on the number of bitshares.


Starting BTS total: 2.5 billion.    This comes from current BTSX (2 billion), plus stake allocated to PTS, AGS, DNS, and VOTE (500 million total).

Starting reward per year: 157,680,000.    (50 BTS per block * 6 blocks per minute * 60 minutes per hour * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year).

4 years at this rate is 630,720,000.  After that, the reward halves, and in the next 4 years, we add half that.  And so on.   The total number of bitshares that will EvER be paid to delegates is capped at 1,261,440,000.    (In reality it will be less, because many delegates are low pay delegates).



Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:

Nov 2014:  2,500,000,000  (maximum 6.3% a year inflation)
Nov 2018:  3,130,720,000  (maximum 3.1% a year inflation)
Nov 2022:  3,446,080,000  (maximum 1.6% a year inflation)
Nov 2026:  3,603,760,000  (maximum 0.8% a year inflation)
Nov 2030:  3,682,600,000  (maximum 0.4% a year inflation)
Forever:     3,761,440,000


Also, every share of BTS that is ever burned reduces all of these numbers by 1!  So every time a share of BTSX is ever burned for trasnaction fees, etc, this cap goes down!

Every time any delegate ever receives less than a full pay block reward, the hard cap goes down!

For example, we are going to have many 3% pay delegates, in with a few full pay delegates who are developers, marketing team, etc.
Every single time one of those 3% pay delegates signs a block, these numbers go down by 48.5, because that is 48.5 BTS that cannot be created (because the opportunity to pay the full 50 BTS was missed).



So what is the reality of how many BTS there will be?  Significantly less than these numbers!  These are a hard cap which occurs only if there are 101 full pay delegates and no shares of BTSX are burned ever.  Both of those are not true, and thus the actual amount of BTS will be much lower.