Most of the responses in this thread seem to boil down to "that's how it was from the start, so that's how it should be". I'm keen to understand why it was like this from the start. Did Satoshi (and other developers) not consider the impacts of lost coins and population growth? Did they feel that we should incentivise saving more than investment? Did they feel that this current approach doesn't incentivise saving more than investment? Has there been any meaningful discussion about the implications of the various options apart from "this is just the way it is"?