You know what else has very long distribution (100 years is more appropriate term for "never ending" than 10 years) - Bitcoin.
While this is true, the fact that the distribution of the tail in Bitcoin is not subject to the whims and caprice of a single individual makes this an entirely different thing.
Except it is not whims and caprice, it based on what works and what doesn't, it gets adapted to situation when needed.
Whatevs. Whatever the intent, we all must put our _trust_ in tony to 'do the right thing'. If he goes rogue, we have no recourse. OTOH, the Bitcoin emission is clearly bound in an algorithmic manner, destined to never change due to the underlying game theory.
IOW, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The attempted equivalence is beyond the pale.
There is no such thing as "never change", it is very likely that total supply will never change for Bitcoin because no miner would agree to change that, but it is also very likely that hashing function will change for Bitcoin because SHA256 will not last for 100 years, there is no doubt about it, only question about it is what will miners accept next. Whether rest of the algorithm for mining changes is unknown because it is difficult to predict that because the distribution period is very long, intentionally. Even the block size is not set in stone, it will change, it's more of question "when?".
You have put your _trust_ in Bitcoin miners and coders that they make decisions that are beneficial for you. You are trusting unknown number of people who have access to cheapest electricity and most powerful computers. You can't guarantee that your fork will always stay with this same distribution because people who have access to cheapest electricity and most powerful computers will eventually win. That's called economy of scale.
Current game theory is that Bitcoin mining reward is at same ballpark as it costs to mine and due reward halvings, Bitcoin value will go up and eventually it will be so high that miners will live purely on transactions fees. But what if that won't work? You think coders would sit thumb in their ass for 10 years and not try to fix it if it becomes an issue? "never change" is BS, Bitcoin has already changed a lot and will change a lot in the future, that is normal thing for software that needs to stay relevant, otherwise we would still have Windows 95.
I think they should rewrite their standards. 
