I agree that early farmers would still do very well in terms of ROI over time if the 85% dilution were to happen, but my point is that having no dilution would lead to a significantly higher ROI than with the dilution (for farmers who plan to hold long term).
E.g: if farmers earned 10% of SNT supply in the first year via people paying for storage, would most prefer it if:
A) the 10% they earned would always represent 10% of SNT supply and market cap, or;
B) the 10% they earned would represent a diminishing portion of SNT supply & market cap over time.
If my intention was to farm and hold for the long term, I’d definitely prefer to be a farmer in scenario A, though of course farmers in scenario B would likely also do very well in absolute terms.
That’s true for farmers who will sell tokens as soon as they earn them; the spot fiat price is all that’ll matter to them, which won’t be affected by future expected dilution, but by short term supply & demand for storage on the network.
But, for those who want to use farming to build up a long-term SNT position, a fixed supply would be hugely better than dilution over time in terms of growing the value of their earnings / holdings over time.
Yes, it certainly is complex. There are factors we just can’t know ahead of time that could change outcomes.
I guess the technical issues with the network holding and managing SNT will be the decider: if it is possible to implement what was originally planned without compromising privacy / security etc, it’ll likely happen. If giving the network those abilities is too big a risk, the switch to fixed supply will likely happen, for better or worse.