dumb question here, go easy on me gang.
Do PoS and PoT have opposite incentives?
As I understand it, PoS encourages holding, but PoT encourages spending.
So are these forces cancelled out or diluted to half their strength (assuming they are equally rewarding for their respective loss of opportunity cost)?
What you're saying makes sense. I think one answer is that both activities - saving and transacting - secure the block chain. So part of the benefit to the coin has to do with security, not necessarily the incentives for what coinholders will do with the coins.
But as far as the cross-incentives, I think it's possible to view both spending and saving as complementary activities that create value for the coin in different ways. What hurts the value is when the only way to "spend" the coins is to toss them into the latest pump and dump. But as more real-world opportunities for purchasing goods and services arise, PoT incentivizes using the coin as an actual currency, which is good for value. Essentially, I think you're right to say the coin incentivizes apparently contradictory activities - it's just that a healthy economy needs both savers and spenders. Fiat money doesn't simply multiply itself (PoS) unless you specifically put it into some kind of interest-bearing account, nor does it offer you any particular reward for spending (PoT) unless merchants do it through offering giveaways or prize promotions or whatever. But there are people who invest fiat in interest-bearing accounts and there are people who spend money whenever the local department store is holding a raffle. Building PoS and PoT into the coin simply takes these things that people already do with fiat money and makes it automatic. These are things that paper money can't do, so time will tell if it's just a gimmick, but again, I think the way to think of it is that these activities are complementary rather than canceling each other out.
