Thanks for the clarification. I believe we are on the same page, but it's more of a semantic misunderstanding (my mistake) than a logical one. I agree with and understand what you're saying. I was mistakenly approaching it from a user-end perspective; obviously the overall debt is always capped at 10%. I'll clarify my OP and comments accordingly, if required.

PS: I went through my posts and comments, and I actually do already clarify all of them saying the inflation stops at 10%. I believe up to the 10% cap, calling it "extra" is also semantically and technically correct, as the virtual supply does increase. In your example, when STEEM falls to $0.25, I get back 4 STEEM, and not 2 STEEM. That is indeed "extra" STEEM. Up to 10%, yes. Where I was mistaken is to overemphasize the 10%, and I stand corrected that there are greater forces at play.

As mentioned several times before, I have no issues with the concept of SBD, but given the hard reality of STEEM, I don't think SBD makes any sense in its current state. Stablecoins only make sense if backed by BTC and arguably ETH. STEEM is orders of magnitude off from reaching the required network effect, and there's currently no evidence to suggest that it ever will. (And much to the contrary, as like all industries, when crypto does mature, it'll most likely inevitably consolidate around the leading market forces.)