Yeah, I actually pretty much agree, I was more responding to the point that nobody made a decision for it to be this way, and that is intelligence. I actually think that it was something that was intentially planned for purely margin reasons.
It’s not really intelligence, so much as selection pressure in the direction of high margin. Evolution isn’t “intelligence” either, but still leads to interesting or highly honed solutions to problems.
You may be able to make a sale and then build it and still keep the sale, but if you think that this is too risky with respect to reputation or having a customer depend on what you’re selling be ready, it’s still worth going through the sales cycle until you’ve found something you can sell.
It won’t magically get easy to sell the product when it’s ready, so it’s possible eliminate bad ideas which are hard for you to sell early, even if you let the sale fall through towards the end.
The primary benefit of a linear emission rate, as far as I’m concerned, is that it doesn’t depend on fees completely taking over from the block reward in order to provide adequate security against a 51% attack. It’s currently unknown whether a fee market will be stable over the long run in bitcoin, and this means there isn’t as much of an incentive to limit the block size for purely security purposes (there are other good reasons to limit the block size though), in addition to block sizes being harder to change once the network is running.
My assumption is that you sell a given stock with 1x liquidation preference, and the price of that stock is used to determine the valuation for the company, pretending the price is the same for the common stock as the stock with 1x liquidation?
It’s a tough situation, because the amount of access that these extensions have to users’ actions can be extreme. Malware is a much greater concern than, say, the AppStore, as access to sensitive information is far less controlled.