Details on Cons Supply
Total SCS coins supply is 476,918 SCS with an 8% annual increase.
Expected coins supply:
▪Jan 2018 (currently, while PoW is in progress): 262,835 SCS
▪Jan 2019 (PoW ended): up to 476,918 SCS
▪Jan 2020: up to 515,071 SCS
▪Jan 2021: up to 556,227 SCS
▪Jan 2022: up to 600,779 SCS
▪Jan 2023: up to 648,841 SCS
▪Jan 2024: up to 700,749 SCS and so on.
This means 8% inflation every year.
In case SCS capitalization is fixed, every balance not involved in PoS will lose 8% of its price every year, which promotes to do one of the following:
▪Continue to support the network by running PoS;
▪Run up successful business to get more coins;
▪Increase of total capitalization by increasing the coin price.
Of course, all successful projects are currently growing in cost but, this cannot last forever. Most of them have the similar issue: as long as the coins price grows, it is far more profitable to keep coins than spend them. As long as everybody just holding their coins, there will be no business involving these coins. Thus, any bearish trend can totally ruin the price and capitalization of a project that is actually not being used by anybody.
The second problem is the limitation of total coin supply. For PoW, it would be profitable to support a network only if TX fees are higher than wasted electricity costs. Miners normally receive mined block rewards, except the case when the mined blocks are over. Thus, all these costs would be included in everyday TX we carry out. This is kind of a normal situation for "Digital Gold" or other savings but surely will surely kill any cash-like systems.
PoS with annual interest of any non-zero % will produce unlimited coins supply over years. The only way to keep coins amount limited in this case is to burn "extra" coins. It is probably okay if they are not really needed, but are you sure you want your wallets that were last used in 2010 to be cleared? Probably not. Otherwise, it is far more closer to fiat than any "Digital Gold"-like system, where supply limitation is one of key features.
Also, SpeedCash is (at least should be) cash-like. Technically, we are aiming to have an outstandingly fast transaction speed, cheap TX fees and controllable overall supply. This would never replace Bitcoin in any case.
Firstly, let us notice that at least 7 years are required to increase the supply by 100% and reduce stakes (not backed by PoS) by 50% respectively. Seven years for a cryptocurrency is very long life, therefore that wouldn't be a major problem anyway. In comparison, average lifetime of small project is less than year.
Secondly, the SCS project currently has a very small capitalization and coin price respectively. Rapid growth is very likely, and even 100% supply increase over years wouldn't affect coin price negatively.