Re: [ANN][ICO] 🔵 UTRUST 🔵 The future of online payments is here.

Have there been any simulations carried out regarding the liquidity of the tokens with such a deflationary money policy? In other words, will the hoarding of the UTRUST tokens not hinder the functioning of the platform?

I would have to refer this to the technical department, but generally and from an economic point of view this is definitely undecided and on-going discussion between people that think inflation is necessary and people that think deflation is good. I will not get into the arguments here, but a good starting point to see the different views is this article in which the author argues that inflation is necessary while the commenters strongly disagree.

Personally, I think holding the tokens is not an issue since a lot of payments will be done through other currencies.

Isn't it the case that the UTrust Tokens are not necessary for the fuctionality of the platform? The platform would also work when users only pay in other cryptos and hold their UTrust tokens. The Tokens are more a contribution stake and represent the value of the whole UTrust platform and can, as a bonus, be used to pay on the platform.

It reminds me ripple there is also no need to use tokens, but this does not prevent the project to develop.

Kakumei, Sozialtourist, mike0182, thanks for your responses. I have read a little bit about the opposing camps, the Neo-Keynesians and the Austrian School. That is indeed a subject that may derail this thread.

The reason I posted was because of UTRUST's projected burn rate:

The amount of UTRUST tokens is projected to be reduced from the initial 1 billion to a minimum cap of 100 million, at a rate no faster than 50 million a year.

I thought burning 90% of the tokens seemed excessive. But if we consider your point that UTRUST is an optional currency and that at the maximum burn rate it would take 18 years to reach the minimum cap, I concede that a deflationary spiral is unlikely to be a problem.