I have a few problems with this line of thinking:
a. it's not lower supply. it's a lower *inflation* (or if you prefer, supply *issuance*) rate
b. assuming that's what you meant, this still ignores the basic math of how much the supply issuance impacts price. see my meme above :)
lane / Lane 🦢
npub1qt…ndc09
2023-05-04 00:41:32
in reply to nevent1q…76vc
Author Public Key
npub1qtcghtewuqjnkxcjtu8y6saz5s876cwqwwxfyf2vrpaesd3dvfcqfndc09Published at
2023-05-04 00:41:32Event JSON
{
"id": "1b1d962e0fde5fe4b1e5b8c054e93c43a2c21eda4402c274eaeb469e0cc204e5",
"pubkey": "02f08baf2ee0253b1b125f0e4d43a2a40fed61c0738c92254c187b98362d6270",
"created_at": 1683160892,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fc626bb28a14c23b135c9c9f1c15a7ff3a9f81ce4ff8f3f39dda289045b8f893",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4c4896517c03d731f9f15cb8b6586c301dbf8720cf89385480dc3b13d824a30d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"02f08baf2ee0253b1b125f0e4d43a2a40fed61c0738c92254c187b98362d6270"
],
[
"p",
"f4d89779148ccd245c8d50914a284fd62d97cb0fb68b797a70f24a172b522db9"
]
],
"content": "I have a few problems with this line of thinking:\n\na. it's not lower supply. it's a lower *inflation* (or if you prefer, supply *issuance*) rate\n\nb. assuming that's what you meant, this still ignores the basic math of how much the supply issuance impacts price. see my meme above :)",
"sig": "1630e8faa09ea229b166d99e09c3ec561f5f32496bd2617df5314441ecb8521d1f08adc4347f21c9e839a8510ebf6f25586199b7a2afe0fea4500bc732204ea0"
}