So no economic reasoning whatsoever to the choice of approx 0.9% inflation?
There is plenty of economic reasons, first being to secure the network,[/b] without network no transactions, like rpietila said its close to what gold is now. 1% is bellow the long-run ideal inflation on a large scale economy (believed to be 2%). 1% runs of the risk of deflation with eventual lost coins it will become de-facto deflationary in the long run.
I didn't say tail emission was a bad idea. I agree with it. It just shouldn't be a "magic number" value. And Monero is NOT gold. Most everything about it is quite different than gold. There seems to be no logical reason to choose that value based on "that's how gold is".
It wasn't logical, it was indeed a magic number (at least 1% was; 0.3 coins/minute is derived from the 1%/year) chosen at the start more or less arbitrary manner based on subjective views of what was useful to do. If it turns out to be a disastrous choice with horrible consequences, then Monero will fail. This is an experiment.
Sure, we can just say "hey it is an experiment". But wouldn't it be nicer to have a logical economic reasoning with maybe not precisely predictable results, but at least an intelligently planned results? I already see interesting brain storming in the last few posts. Generally the less magic numbers, the better. Something for Monero Research Labs maybe...
EDIT: If I'm dragging this on in the wrong thread just ask and I'll happily move it elsewhere.
I think it is befitting to realise that "intelligently planned results" does not just happen, especially in such an inherently wishy-washy subject as economics. It's akin to hubris to believe we can "fix" it with the "perfect formula", because the world and the economy is such a dynamic place. There are too many variables inflicting upon that little special reward percentage for THAT to be the 'magic number'.
I can get behind the "let's experiment based on a finger in the air" approach as a 'better than' solution. Especially because no currency is eternal, and eventually something else and better comes along and Gresham's Law applies.
With a low percentage of 0.9% I do believe that coins lost will be larger than the emission.