tezos中的最大供应量

@murbard在 reddit

简短的回答:是的,有一种方法可以对最大供应量进行投票,使其具有约束力,并防止通过后续投票进行更改.顺便说一句,这比在文化规范上写诗如诗,对链式治理要好得多！

长答案:总的来说,施加最大供应量可能不是一个好主意.

首先,需要一种支付网络安全性的方法,而依靠交易费用来支付与发明人不兼容.比特币和Tezos都是如此.立场书中有很大一部分专门用于此.许多比特币开发人员都承认这是事实.

证明股份持有人Tezos的好处是,通过稀释不参与安全网络保护的人员,它可以在不牺牲安全性的情况下达到相当于供应上限的水平.

达到供应上限的唯一方法是滞期费,即没收那些不参与保护网络的人所拥有的硬币来奖励那些这样做的人.这是一个有趣的想法,但是要实现它有很多障碍.

第二,从长远来看,为协议开发提供通货膨胀资金的可能性很重要,而试图牺牲通货膨胀将有些愚蠢.

最后但并非最不重要的一点是,关于供应上限有一些特殊之处的想法并非基于合理的经济分析.可以肯定的是,在其他所有条件相同的情况下,通货膨胀确实损害了一种货币的购买力,而通货膨胀率越高,该货币保持其购买力的能力就越差.

但是,有些人给人的印象是,相关数量是将要创造的总供应量,因此由于只有二元选择,有限供应量或无限供应量的谬论而落空.他们正在寻找错误的指标.与股票或债券之类的投资资产不同,货币不是从对某物的债权中获得其价值的.它从便利中获得价值.人们出于各种原因持有货币,其中一个原因是保留了流动性工具,以保留在将来某个时候进行购买的可选择性,同时又使交易成本降至最低.比特币和黄金也具有吸引力,因为它们很难被抓住.这通常称为便利收益.这是您从持有东西中获得的好处.此外,一些股权证明协议,尤其是Tezos,在很大程度上没有稀释性地创造奖励.

为了查看一种加密货币,您不应该查看总供应量,而是在折现时,便利收益折现后,奖励调整后的总供应量.这就是重要的价值.作为*

如果这太抽象了,那么这是一个思想实验,可以帮助您思考问题:想象一下,如果比特币创造了21M比特币,然后每年永久发行1枚聪. "帽子"指的是"帽子".会变成无限,但显然如此微小的变化不会对经济产生重大影响.

"库存流量比"如何?这是一个更好的指标,因为它考虑到了时间,但与某些人认为的灵丹妙药相去甚远.太空果酱的第一版VHS副本的库存流量比为0,这并不值钱.高料流比以及其他理想的特性可以帮助形成便利的产量,但这只是一个因素！

好的,我已经说了所有这些,但是供应上限有什么好处.同样,答案是肯定的.

首先,模因"不会超过21M比特币".一直是其信息传递的有力载体.比起打折时间,打折便利收益,奖励调整后的供应量,这比普通人更容易解释,对普通人更具吸引力.

第二,在网络上提供安全性的问题可能远非如此.可能有人会试图限制供应上限,结束这种对话,并在接下来的十到二十年中使用它,直到它成为问题为止.这似乎不合道德.

第三,如果Tezos LPOs系统在滞期费的情况下实施,您可能会有固定的上限,并且最终可能会获得税收效率更高的系统(我不是税务律师,但事实上这是一种可能性似乎是谈论它的人之间的共识).对于大多数人来说,滞期费将是非常困难的一剂.

Answer from @murbard on reddit

Short answer: yes, there is a way to vote for a maximum supply, make it binding and prevent alterations through subsequent votes. This is, by the way, a whole lot better than waxing poetic about cultural norms, one point for on chain governance!

Long answer: overall, it's probably not a good idea to impose a maximum supply.

First of all, there needs to be a way to pay for the security of the network, and relying on transaction fees to do so is not inventives compatible. This is true for Bitcoin, and it's true for Tezos. There's a large portion of the position paper dedicated to this. Many Bitcoin developers recognize that this is true.

The benefit of proof of stake in Tezos is that it achieves the equivalent of a supply cap, without sacrificing security, by diluting those who do not participate in securing the network.

The only way to achieve this with a supply cap would be demurrage, i.e confiscating coins owned by people who do not participate in securing the network to reward those who do. This is an interesting idea, but there are hurdles to implement it.

Second of all, the possibility of inflation funding for protocol development is important in the long run, and it would be a bit foolish to try and sacrifice it.

Last but not least, the idea that there is something special about a supply cap is not based on sound economic analysis. To be sure, all else equal, inflation does hurt a currency's purchasing power, and the more inflation there is, the worse the currency might retain its purchasing power.

However, some people are under the impression that the relevant quantity is the total supply that will ever be created and thus fall for the fallacy that there is only a binary choice, a finite supply, or an infinite supply. They are looking at the wrong metric. Unlike an investment asset like a stock or a bond, a currency does not derive its value from a claim on something. It derives its value from convenience. People hold money for a variety of reasons, one of which is retaining a liquid instrument in order to retain the optionality to make purchases at some point in the future while incurring minimal transaction costs. Bitcoin and gold also hold appeal because they can be hard to seize. This is generally referred to as the convenience yield. It's the benefit you get just from holding something. In addition, some proof of stake protocols, notably Tezos, create rewards in a largely non dilutive manner.

In order to look at a cryptocurrency, you should not look at the total supply, but at the time discounted, convenience yield discounted, rewards adjusted total supply. That is the value that matters. As*

If this is too abstract, here is a thought experiment that should help you think about things: imagine if Bitcoin created 21M bitcoin and then issued 1 satoshi every year forever. The "cap" would turn infinite, but clearly such a tiny change should not have a big economic impact.

What about "stock to flow ratio"? That's already a better metric because it takes time into account, but it's far from the magic bullet some people think it is. The number of first edition VHS copies of Space Jam has a stock to flow ratio of 0, that doesn't make it valuable. A high stock to flow ratio, alongside other desirable properties can help with the formation of a convenience yield, but that's only one factor!

Ok, I've said all this, but are there any benefits to a supply cap. Again, the answer is yes.

First of all, the meme "there won't be more than 21M bitcoin" has been a powerful carrier for its message. It's a lot simpler to explain, and a lot more compelling to the average person, than going into time discounted, convenience yield discounted, rewards adjusted supply.

Second of all, the problems with the provision of security on the network could be far down the line. One might be tempted to put a supply cap and cut through that conversation and use the next ten to twenty years to make the case for against it before it becomes an issue. This doesn't seem ethical.

Third of all, if Tezos LPOs system was implemented with demurrage you could have a fixed cap and you might end up with a system that's potentially more tax efficient (I'm not a tax lawyer but the fact that this is a possibility seems to be a consensus among people who do talk about it). Demurrage would be a very hard pill to swallow for most people though.