Yeah, perfect emission curve should track adoption, but this seems to be impossible in real world.
After all, even if bitcoin emission curve is not perfectly "fair", and not exactly track adoption, it is still more fair than faster emission models, isn't it?
For what it is, if Bitcoin's curve were faster, it would probably be worse. That is, Bitcoin being the first and not understood or recognized as valuable at all for quite a while. It took almost 2 years just to get to the 10,000 BTC = 1 pizza stage. By that time it was already about 20% mined which definitely seems kind of silly.
Today, new coins obviously get at least some adoption a lot faster than Bitcoin did. I don't know if this means that faster-than-Bitcoin curves are better for new coins. Maybe they should
all be a lot slower. XCN might be on to something with their 10-year half life. Or maybe something like Bitcoin's curve is just right for a coin like XMR or BBR. Or maybe Bitcoins curve is right for Bitcoin and new coins should be faster.
Or maybe the idea of any fixed curve set in stone from the start is really not the best way to go at all. (But then if not, what should replace it?)
There is a lot we don't know about how these coins work, or even if they can work at all long term.