@iamnotback
No one is making those speculators buy and hold all that liquid steem. They do it because they can speculate and are speculating.
I have already explained to you that I am talking about aggregate demand:
Our original argument was about if there is any negative impact of the inflation on those who lockin. I am talking about the aggregate effect on all those who might consider investing long-term. Clearly there is a negative effect, because for example there can't ever be pump, because there is no incentive to accumulate at rock bottom and then engineer a pump.
You are saying there might be a few brave fools who think they can invest long-term in an altcoin and then cash out slowly over a 1 year weighted average. That is incredibly bad odds. It would roughly need to become the next Bitcoin. As you know, typically a wise speculator sells at least enough on the pump to recover their investment (and perhaps a double or triple), then ride the rest.
The aggregate demand for speculation is
highly diluted by the inflation focused only on those who don't lockup for 1 year weighted average cashout, as proven by the fact the price is on a perpetual decline that is greater than what is offset by the increase in money supply, i.e. the market cap continues to fall.
Either way, you are not being diluted (which is an actual word with an actual meaning: that your share of ownership of the platform is reduced) by inflation.
Google says:
di·lu·tion
dīˈlo͞oSHn,diˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
the action of making something weaker in force, content, or value.
"he is resisting any dilution of dogma"
I am diluted (speculation option removed is a dilution) because the speculators (liquid STEEM holders) are, thus they don't speculate (there isn't sufficient demand from them to hold to make the price rise).
You can't compartmentalize that which is not orthogonal. Nature routes around your imaginary Coasian barrier.
Apparently this concept is beyond your IQ, because I have by now stated this several times and you are apparently just are not getting it.
(It is ludicrous for you to presume I don't understand the math of the relative money supply dilution given I had very long technical discussion in the comments of my blogs about that, which I know you read)
Did I write "money supply dilution" above or "dilution" which is a general term? My share of all potential investment demand is diluted by the removal the speculation demand.
Just admit you didn't grasp the concept. Does @smooth ever admit when he is wrong? How could I work with someone like that. Producing great work is about being not obstinate to facts when they are put right in front of your face.