From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.
On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.
The larger the annual % of your money supply that you spend on mining, then assuming your mining hasn't been destroyed with ASICs as is the case for Bitcoin, then the more new people can come into the coin via mining.
Mining
could be the most efficient way to introduce new users to the coin, as it doesn't require AML, KYC, fraudulent exchanges, etc..
Do you want a Mt.Gox and Coinbase driving your coin's adoption, or do you want to get the coins directly to them?
Directly, of course. Show me a coin that is even near this ideal, I have a unicorn for sale. I could set up a miner and earn $20 per month, expending only $30 in electricity, except I couldn't (I can't even delete a file). The economies of the coins need people like me so the way to purchase them with existing stored value must always to be available
I argue that the bolded part falls apart in the equation
I = N * A, (inflation = number * average), though. Which is a pity:
To have a coin with manageable inflation, the product of the number of individual miners and their average reward must be contained. Therefore there is no incentive for anyone capable to become a miner, and the ones not capable.. well, they cannot.
Technically and economically astute people have a high minimum transaction cost in their life. $20 per month is not enough. The ones who drool over the idea of receiving $20, are not in the position to get even that
If they were, the formula above would take it to $2.
This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin.
You think I haven't been working eh.
See PM.