The two scenarios are EXACTLY THE SAME.
In terms of purchasing power of the money holder, yes. In term of inflation (the unit of value for calculations and contracts), no.
In terms of interest rates, no.
The economic decision making is different.
I think they are correct that the two scenarios are effectively equal.
With inflation, the purchasing power of all money holders decreases.
With demurrage, the purchasing power of all money holders decreases.
Total money supply = 2X, purchasing power = X vs. total money supply = X, purchasing power = X/2.
They are mathematically equivalent. In both cases the winners are miners, the losers are
savers holders.
In terms of purchasing power of the money holder, yes.
You can save in many ways. For example, investing or storing real products instead of money.
A freicoin bank would probably pay the demurrage of its creditors.
Also, would all gains go to miners or transaction fees would become cheaper?
Anyway, if they go to miners we would have an improved security, nothing unfair.
Differences:
Inflation is an inconvenience for calculations and contracts, even if it's predictable.
I'm surprised that no one had complained about how low interest rates would destroy the economy.
Inflation (like this one, not the one of our central bankers) rises nominal interest rates but leaves real interest intact.
On the other hand, demurrage lowers real interest rates.
But instead of producing mal-investments, like when you lower interest rates by monetizing cheap loans for the government, bankers and other associates, it permits further competition between capitals so their yields can tend to zero like regular profits do.
Any type of capital will have its yield above the liquidity premium (
gross interest = liquidity premium/basic interest + inflation premium + risk premium) or no more competitors will come after the profits of that sector.