BTC inflation
2012 20% *rapid drop down from 100% @launch*
2016 10%
2020 5%
2024 2.5%
2028 1.25%
2032 0.65% <<-- uno is around here 16 years ahead of BTC? let see ... that would mean UNO produces 1280kg/year
2034 0.375% -->> 640 kg/yr
2038 0.18ish -->> 320 kg/yr
2042 -->> 160 kg/yr <<--- more like 26 years ahead of BTC
... okay uno in 2 more eras ... so next year
*rough calc. i know the maths off a bit, more a projection of compared inflation over the next full year---
The way I look at it is that BTC is subject to a 10% of capital mining operation fee. And all BTC holders pay.
But it gets cheaper, sort of, for the next 4 years BTC investors will only be charged a 5% per year fee ... just to hold BTC ... because the custodians (aka miners) get 5% of the marketcap value every year. The only way to reduce cost is to reduce the spot rate. Then the argument becomes, "What is a reasonable annual cost of maintaining the network?" ... $300M? $24M? ... What does Visa spend on network costs?
This is not sustainable @ $400/coin. The only hope is that BTC explodes up to another level of scale, say $5000/coin, but it just kicks the can down the road. Given the rise of ETH and the inability to handle more than it already handles (block size debate), investors are more than likely to put new money in the alts instead of BTC. We already see that slippery slope. And caution on this hope of finding a new higher high, such addiction, the problem remains and worsens as the miners would be extracting +$1B/year whilst the competitors can offer near instant confirmations and maintain secure networks for just a couple million$.
So this means BTC is a stuck pig. It will bleed out capital, and faces slow difficulty adjustments as hash opts out, and that snowballs quickly. In that case BTC maximalist suddenly find themselves desperately dependent on the coins merge mining to cover if not drive the mining cost coverage. There is a mutual benefit for the BTC maximalist to at least invest 1-2% of their capital into the merge mine coins just as a matter of network insurance.
---
nearly 2 years ago V500 nailed this point
"alot of people will have lost interest and will switch to lower inflation coins"BTC is excellent in design if you grant Satoshi could foresee the future.
1. High inflation but 4 year reduction. At least 20 years of inflation high enough to assure mining operations, above gold inflation rates until 2032. The coin has already helped launch a 1000 ships. But these new ships are bter, fastr, strongr.
2. Over speculation corrected (2014-2018) eventually BTC has to test the waters south of $300 at least twice over the next 4 years.
3. That could crash BTC below $100, and redistribute it to more holders, the lower the better the redistribution.
4. Some time around 2020 BTC is still the most liquid and widely traded coin, but leverage and short options keep the margins razor sharp, and the network adjusts to a price range that allows for mining operations to be comparable to competitors ... what's 2.5% of $10 Billion? $250M ... I would guess that the market might not pay more than ($100k/day to hash power cost), mind you this is 4 additional years down the road where today 21 ASIC mining companies already control the network, it will 'merge' down to 3-4 and really is just a matter of electrical production costs. Why recruiting more merge mining participants is paramount because it distributes or at least dilutes the cost of mining. In addition it helps keep minor miners a part of the sha256 network, because their small but successful projects could be promoted up to the merge pool. In a word ... competition ... and a counter balance to the cartel like core than already holds BTC.
5. By 2020 the financial 'professionals' will be demanding case studies that BTC will hold value in +20 years. Because they will be creating derivative contracts based on BTC 2050 etc. And what do we have to show in the SHA256 pow catalog? Zeta hit sustain in 2015, UNO hits sustain around 2021 but maybe the best case study, and ....
Next on the list in terms of capital is Maza, and it is not designed for a quick mineout. Then the forgotten iX and i0. And that's it. SHA256 has done a horrible job of fostering alternatives, if not for the very fact of just research and experimentation. The BTC maximalist suddenly find themselves up that smelly creek without a paddle. Again investing a small fraction of BTC capital into alternative SHA256 is more than wise.
6. 2032 BTC costs 0.65%/year in inflation, and perhaps moves to the 'store-of-value' menu. But UNO will have a 20 year lead, and many many others will have established themselves as S.o.V.
7. Changing the narrative. BTC maximalist refuse to believe in anything but BTC as being useful, and they want all sectors of the crypto space. But within 2-3 years the general crypto public will be familiar with the terms and differences between 'store-of-value' vs. 'liquidity payment rails'. And BTC is built to be a highly speculative, day in day out, liquid payment rail until 2032. BTC is not a savings account, it is more like a debit account that you will load at convenience. And already has a solid field of competitors for that specific market sector: ETH, LTC, Ripple.
----
notes
Bitcoin community ignored warnings that Bitcoin would eventually be managed by Companies..... and 2 years later, Bitcoin is managed by 21 companies with the top 3 companies managing 51% of Bitcoin and they are also based in China.
Reference: http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-pools-miners-ranked-2015-7 
