First off great job on your proposal Berzeck!
I agree that being non-disruptive is very important. A gradual and predictable rate is preferred to opportunistic events, such as halving events, which are considered “jolts” to the money supply growth rate. Market expectations of these events will inevitably encourage speculation, so setting a smoothed trajectory of a marginally decreasing inflation rate over time creates more stability by not creating these psychological milestones.
reaper also brings up a valid point again arguing for a non-aggressive, gradual trajectory. A rapid decline could stifle agent network participation, which could negatively affect security in the long-run as we want to encourage continued growth in the decentralized consensus network.
I am in support the proposal of the 210 million maximum reach by 2104 you have outlined. I think this is a good middle-road compromise that is not too aggressive and not too slow. I think you bring up a great point that we can always reassess the project and its adoption in the future. However, when it come to Monetary Policy, I think this isn't something we try not to meddle in so frequently. Otherwise we run into these "jolts" in the NULS economy. A middle road proposal I think is favorable to mitigate potential frequency of restructures going forward.