I like the goals of this creation, and I applaud the OP for following through. I have a couple comments.
2. Inflation: Your inflation model is unnecessary. There's no intrinsic difference between doubling the existing currency of people holding emunie, thus inflating the currency base amongst those people, and bitcoin's system of deflation which causes people to divide their earnings, only the latter is far simpler and likely less exploitable (if an exploit does appear), but at the least causes less worry. Everyone knows there's only 21m bitcoin ever, but there's no upper limit of emunie, so that's a bit less good. Because currencies in the past have often been destroyed by hyperinflation--that's the typical way for fiat to die in fact, and bitcoin makes that impossible, but it looks like your system does not, and that's a worry.
The only reason people/economists/governments want an inflationary currency if because most people are debtors and want their loans to become cheaper over time; most economists are Keynesians and want to manipulate the economy with credit and by creating new money, and governments can greatly increase their wealth and power by controlling where new money gets spent.
You create here a system where people who have emunie also receive the new inflated money. That satisfies none of the concerns and wishes of the people above and they'll be just as against it as bitcoin's deflationary model.
But at least you're not outright making it inflationary in the way that a government makes new currency for themselves and gets to spend it all themselves, stealing value from all currency holders, at least you're not doing that, so I consider it workable if unnecessary.
The inflation model allows the price of Emu against other fiat currencies to be more stable than bitcoin. This allows merchants to accept payments in Emunie without worrying about massive price swings. With Bitcoin, merchants usually cashout their bitcoins upon recieving payment.