The really strange aspect of my design is that the coin eventually becomes highly deflationary, so it should suck up investors away from Bitcoin and every other coin which doesn't pay a huge interest rate just for buying and holding.

Yet normally hoarding a token should drive it out of circulation (since the burning of fees is a discouragement to transacting versus holding), yet I argue my design will be the first that break Gresham's law. Because the loss due to transacting will be insignificant so when you need to transact you do. This doesn't preclude you holding a lot more tokens than you spend. In other words, I added degrees-of-freedom so you can both hold and spend from the same token without suffering the dilemma of Gresham's law. I think it is also known the Gresham's law only applies where there is legal tender dictated by a political force the provides the public confidence for the currency of mass circulation:


The level of deflation automatically is adjusted by the free market in that the less who transact, the less deflation but the more incentive to transact (lower opportunity cost to not transacting) and vice versa.

I think perhaps this aspect might even be more clever and important than the way I solved the power vacuum dilemma. However, per the above quote, the decentralization is also critically needed to side-step Gresham's law.

And then there are the sub-second instant "confirmations" and the asynchronous resiliency and scaling.

Yeah so far I am proud of this design. But let's see what happens with peer review and also implementation...