No, not that type of emission.

But actually it is interesting to think of the inflation of currency as pollution. Nobody likes pollution, just like nobody likes inflation and the devaluation of currency through an expanded supply. However, we tolerate these inconveniences because they are simply the side effects of outcomes that we demand on a daily basis.

Without pollution we wouldn't be able to drive our cars, heat our homes, or basically interact with society in any way. We'd be stuck back in the Dark Ages, which isn't even a viable option at this point unless we consider 99.9% of the population dying off as a suitable solution. Whether we like it or not, humanity is dependent on pollution. Factory farms and power plants aren't going to run themselves.

The same is true of inflation.

Sure, we don't like it when the cost of things goes up over time, but also that doesn't matter if one's income goes up with it. You know what we do like? Being able to get a loan to fund the purchase of cars, homes, or even entire businesses. Loans are inflation. The system we live in today is debt-based to the core and there's no getting around it. Sure, I've given some theories as to how this could change in the future, but for now it is what it is. The economy is constantly in need of more money in order to function. It is the oil within the machine of commerce.

The same exact concept applies to crypto.

Just like a debt-based system needs more money injections, so does a collateral based one like cryptocurrency. However, the reasons and need for these emissions are wholly different than their debt-based counterparts. Bitcoin emissions fund the security of the network. Hive emissions are allocated to security, infrastructure, investments, stakeholder yields, and content creation. One is not better than the other; they are completely different with their own subsets of risk and reward.

Bitcoin has the most conservative monetary policy of basically any other network. It's taking very low risk and still getting a pretty gigantic reward. So far this strategy is working out pretty well, but will this always be the case? We can already see huge scaling issues on the horizon when inspecting subjects like operation fees, Lightning Network, and Bitcoin-only services like NOSTR. The financial incentives for infrastructure are lacking without a centralized WEB2 ad model.

However, as we approach the next halving event in April, we really have to ask ourselves if the emission rate can continue to sustain itself. Clearly the critics of Bitcoin think it can't, or at least that's the message they choose to parrot for their own selfish reasons.

https://twitter.com/ColdBloodShill/status/1747686639449604510

- ColdBloodShill

I don't know why this video is getting so much attention today. I swear this is an old clip that I saw months ago but it's being broadcasted as "breaking news". It's funny that so many Bitcoiners are forced to take this clown seriously even though he flip flops on BTC every year. He can't even pronounce the name of the anonymous creator correctly but he's the one on TV spouting nonsense while the rest of us have to sit here and try to do damage control.

https://twitter.com/PeterMcCormack/status/1747845361266262276

- PeterMcCormack

Even if we don't factor in the hypocrisy or blatant conflict of interest at play here, it still remains painfully obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of BTC that the statement itself is incorrect in multiple ways. So right off the bat we know that the targeted audiences for this message are either no-coiners who are thinking about getting into crypto or those who only trade crypto as a speculative investment on centralized exchanges/ETFs. It's actually hard to tell if Jamie Dimon actually believes the words coming out of his own mouth. Is he a lying snake or an ignorant luddite? I lean toward snake but perhaps that's giving him too much credit.

Many prongs of wrong.

1. The creator of Bitcoin has no governance power over Bitcoin.
2. Where would the new coins even go?
3. How would the contentious hardfork resolve?

#1: Governance

Bitcoin governance is a trifecta of coders, node-runners, and miners. First, someone has to code this change. Then, nodes have to accept the change. Finally, miners have to allocate their hashpower to these endpoints so that blocks actually get validated. "The longest chain wins." These are the rules of Bitcoin.

#2: Distribution

Anyone can fork the Bitcoin network and create any rules they want. Currently 100% of all BTC emissions go to miners. Dimon casually dismisses this technicality by conveniently not addressing it. Instead it appears heavily implied that Satoshi will come back and mint coins for himself rather than for the miners. This is downright impossible (and also pointless because Satoshi already has access to enough coins to crash the entire market).

#3: Hardfork

21M/∞ has become the core identity of a lot of Bitcoiners. It is not possible to remove that identity from the cult of Bitcoin. It would be like removing God from religion. It can't happen. The level of brainwash is insurmountable. In the highly unlikely scenario of new coins being minted there is a 100% chance of a contentious hardfork and a hashpower war for the longest chain; a battle over the Bitcoin brand.

Even in highly the unlikely event of a successful hostile takeover: the community will remain and simply be forced to pick a new banner. Something ridiculous I'm sure, like Bitcoin Pure or Bitcoin 21M. Perhaps even Bitcoin Core to make it super confusing. The Hive network already has plenty of experience losing our brand identity, and yet here we are. In fact, many of us feel better without the weight of the foundation holding us back.

Brand vs Network

A brand is a thing that is legally recognized by centralized infrastructure. It is absolutely dependent upon the traditional legacy system and the laws therein. A brand can die, but the Bitcoin network and the idea that there will only be 21M coins is never going to die; at least not within our lifetimes anyway.

That's why Jamie Dimon wins.

When people like me want to debunk the nonsense that spews forth from these charlatan's mouths we use logic and reason; going step by step explaining all the nuance and complexity of the situation. This is an automatic losing strategy because again, the target audience is already ignorant by design and responding to a fear-based argument. These people aren't suddenly going to do their research and figure out it was all bullshit. They are going to blindly parrot the message just like all fear-based narratives. The unknown is a helluva drug, and I am preaching to the choir. We must understand these truths to avoid complacency.

Conclusion

Jamie Demon gets to keep spreading his lies and hypocrisy. Bitcoin couldn't even agree to increase the blocksize. Just ask Bitcoin Cash. How could we possibly expect the network to consent to printing more tokens when they couldn't even change a single line of code that would have made lowered fees and made the network more scalable? Short answer: we can't. This is all FUD, plain and simple. It's not rooted in reality whatsoever, but the ones who watch the magic box with pictures aren't going to care about such minor details.

The real question in my mind is if Bitcoin is actually going to need to print more inflation to further incentivize infrastructure providers. So far I firmly believe that how it works now is pretty great, especially considering that the price of the token far more than doubles every 4 years. Bitcoin gives the rest of the ecosystem a lot of opportunity with room to grow and ability to synergize with the greater ecosystem. If it's not broke don't fix it.