Still, others cheered the decision, as user shinekm did:
Fantastic decision. Now it has a realistic chance of becoming a usable currency instead of some bizarre speculative asset for early adopting hoarders. A win for basic economics. I’m still holding mine, as I was planning to anyway. I’d also like to thank the panic dumpers for spreading wealth to the incoming newbie shibes at discount prices. Such generosity.
Economists argue that given this decision, Dogecoin just might have a better chance of being used and transacted in the long-term. (After all, there’s still just a handful of businesses that accept dogecoins as payment.)
“As long as it’s at a steady and predictable rate, you would want that inflation rate to more or less match the growth of the global economy,” James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University, told Ars. “In order for a currency to survive, it’s got to be useful. One of the problems we learned with gold standard was that it’s too inflexible—it takes too long for gold miners to dig it up out of the ground. Having a nice, steady, predictable money supply is actually a good thing.”
On the opposite end, other experts dismissed the entire altcoin concept at its core.
“Many of the newer designed e-coins are trying to correct the flaw in the Bitcoin design that has encouraged hoarding by adding a cost element if the currency is not circulated and also adjusting coins to a targeted inflation rate such as Dogecoin,” Mark Williams, a lecturer at Boston University, told Ars.
“Although many of these newer e-coins are a marked improvement over Bitcoin, they all fail to acknowledge that human behavior, not mathematical equations, drives markets. Until human behavior can be modeled, these models and coins can’t anticipate these actions. In general, virtual currencies are no substitute for central bankers that take into account quantitative and qualitative attributes when making monetary policy decisions that include money supply.”