Alvin Lang Sep 16, 2025 13:31
Exploring the challenges of using perpetual inflation as a solution for blockchain security and why it poses risks rather than guarantees sustainable security.
In a recent analysis by Christopher Bendiksen, perpetual inflation, often referred to as tail emission, is scrutinized as a mechanism for ensuring blockchain security. Bendiksen argues that this approach, while intended to guarantee miner and validator income in the absence of a robust fee market, ultimately fails to secure long-term protocol stability. According to CoinShares, the core issue lies in the unpredictability of the future purchasing power of the native tokens, making it impossible to guarantee security through inflation alone.
Challenges with Tail Emission
The concept of tail emission is increasingly employed by various blockchains to maintain miner incentives. However, Bendiksen highlights that this strategy does not address the fundamental market-driven nature of protocol security. He emphasizes that security in censorship-resistant blockchains is determined by market demand rather than engineering solutions. This unpredictability means that no monetary policy adjustments can assure sufficient security, as future demand for security cannot be forecasted.
Monero’s Experience as a Cautionary Tale
Monero, a prominent blockchain using tail emission, recently experienced significant re-organization events, raising concerns about its security model. These incidents, initially perceived as 51% attacks, were later analyzed as likely instances of selfish mining, a tactic used to maximize revenue by miners controlling substantial hashrate. This situation underscores the limitations of tail emission in providing sustainable security, as Monero’s token has struggled to maintain competitive monetary properties compared to Bitcoin.
Bitcoin’s Long-Term Security Concerns
Bendiksen points out that Bitcoin, with its finite supply, relies on transaction fees to sustain miner incentives post-supply exhaustion. However, current fee levels are significantly lower than block subsidies, raising concerns about future security. The assumption that fee-based incentives will suffice remains unproven, leaving Bitcoin’s long-term security reliant on market demand.
Market Outcomes vs. Engineering Solutions
The analysis stresses that attempts to engineer security through supply or demand-side modifications, or perpetual tail emission, are speculative at best. The efficacy of these solutions cannot be guaranteed, as they depend on unpredictable market dynamics. Bendiksen warns against constant tinkering with Bitcoin’s monetary properties, advocating instead for allowing market forces to determine the demand for Bitcoin and its associated security assurances.
In conclusion, the reliance on perpetual inflation as a security mechanism is fraught with challenges, as demonstrated by Monero’s experience. Bendiksen’s analysis highlights the importance of understanding blockchain security as a market-driven outcome rather than an engineering problem, urging caution against altering Bitcoin’s fundamental monetary properties.
Image source: Shutterstock
