Oh it was launched with just one emission speed. Never said otherwise.
But it was changed from the emission speed advertised, changed at the last minute, without explanation.
It was never "changed" in any way. You can disagree with the choice of speed (as I did and still do), fair enough, but you are lying if you claim it was "changed"
Unlike Dash, which clearly was changed.
I fail to see the problem with changing it. Some time ago the Monero Economic Workshop had a poll to change the Monero emission. That measure failed, but had it succeeded, why would it have been wrong to change the emission?
Because a huge part of the value proposition of cryptocurrency is that your holdings aren't subject to changes based on political or dictatorial whims. If not for that, you might as well stick with fiat which is more efficient and has an enormous first-mover advantage. Every such change to a coin weakens it by creating a precedent and reasonable expectation of further changes, and every attempted change that fails strengthens it for the same reason. You can see this already with people saying that they fully expect Evan to make more changes (and indeed he just change the mining yet again, redirecting some rewards to "voting" -- effectively an increase in the money supply). Conversely I doubt people expect Monero to make these sorts of changes.
Also as a practical matter reducing emissions, or worse, reducing supply, further concentrates early adopter and insider holdings and reduces the incentive for later adopters. Later adopters can reasonably ask the question why not just buy into something else where I too can be an early adopter with less risk, and they'd be right. There has to be a balance between incentives to early adopters and incentives to late adopters. If you front load scarcity and price increases, that can be great for traders and insiders, but you undermine late adopter incentives
Given the way adoption of cryptocurrencies generally has been glacial you might argue that increasing supply (diluting early adopter holdings in favor of slower-than-expected late adopters) makes more sense than decreasing it, except of course for the lack of stability issue discussed two paragraphs back.
In reality you have to get it very close to right from the beginning or you are screwed. Attempting to fix it will destroy it.
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.
