Bingo.

And currency can't all end up in the hands of the power-law distributed savers. It also has to be continuously debased so that spenders can spend. Savers and spenders are symbiotic.

You can claim that investors send the money back to spenders via wages, but the fact is they don't. They pool their money in usury interest bearing bonds, which is a form of mutual bondage (slavery) for both the lender and the borrower. That is a deeper, detailed mathematical analysis that I don't have time to reexplain right now. Refer to my older writings on the Hommel forum. There is a reason the Bible says you can only lend at interest to a stranger, not to one of your own.

In other words, savers will destroy themselves if left to their own natural behavior. Don't just look down on spenders, look down on savers too.


Based on designs I've explored, I believe yes. Except for adding new features, you need to trust a developer to take control. Once you are willing to lock the features into stone, it can run on autopilot if the features are resilient enough. When it eventually fails, you design a new currency learning from the past mistakes.