[Cryptography] Montana: A Post-Quantum Blockchain with Time as Scarcity

[Mert Ali Bulut]

Dear Alejandro,

The project's technical infrastructure is really good but as you said, the idea that inflation will decrease as the number of users increases seems logical on paper, but wouldn't the high inflation that will occur in the initial period make it difficult for people to join this network?

-Mert Ali

________________________________
From: alejandromontana at tutamail.com <alejandromontana at tutamail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 5:01:47 PM
To: Mert Ali Bulut <mrtblt at hotmail.com.tr>
Cc: Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>; Cryptography <cryptography at metzdowd.com>
Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Montana: A Post-Quantum Blockchain with Time as Scarcity

Dear, Mert Ali

Montana is predictably disinflationary, given its limited absolute issuance.

The Weimar hyperinflation analogy is inapplicable.

Montana’s issuance—defined as `supply(W) = 13 · (W+1) Ɉ`—is a closed-form formula based on the specific "window" number. This does not constitute unlimited issuance; rather, it is algorithmic, monotonically linear, and non-discretionary.

The Weimar scenario involved issuance driven by the Finance Minister's political decision to cover war reparations; in Montana, no one can—in principle—simply "print more" without a hard fork supported by a majority of network operators. Drawing an analogy to Weimar amounts to attacking a straw man: it critiques a characteristic that Montana simply does not possess.

Moreover, linear issuance represents a deflationary model over the long term, not an inflationary one. Given a fixed addition of 13 Ɉ per window (approximately 6.83 million Ɉ per year) and assuming growing demand for Ɉ, the real value per unit should rise, not fall.

Montana exhibits asymptotic disinflation. While the issuance remains absolutely constant (13 Ɉ per window), the total supply base continues to grow; consequently, the annual inflation rate—expressed as a percentage—converges toward zero.

Year 1: Supply grows from zero to 6.83 million Ɉ; inflation is technically undefined.
Year 2: 6.83 million Ɉ is added to the existing 6.83 million Ɉ; annual inflation stands at 100%.
Year 10: 6.83 million Ɉ is added to a base of 68 million Ɉ—approximately 10%.
Year 100: Less than 1%.
Year 1000: Less than 0.1%.

This function—13 / (W+1)—asymptotically approaches zero. This trajectory mirrors that of Bitcoin prior to the completion of its halving cycles, differing only in its implementation: it utilizes a constant *absolute* issuance rather than a *diminishing* issuance capped by a fixed supply limit. Bitcoin will reach zero inflation around the year 2140 (due to its hard cap of 21 million units); Montana—never formally—though within 200 years, the percentage rate will be indistinguishable from zero.

In crypto slang, both models are often described as "deflationary by design," but this is terminologically imprecise; a more accurate description would be "disinflationary with an asymptotic zero."

The second property is price deflation amidst rising demand—and this is where the behavior is truly deflationary in a macroeconomic sense.

If the adoption rate of Ɉ grows faster than its absolute issuance (and you have stated a target of 1 billion users—a rate that is demonstrably faster than the 6.83 million Ɉ issued per year), then the price of a single unit of Ɉ, denominated in fiat currency, will rise, and goods priced in Ɉ will become cheaper over time. This constitutes "price deflation" in the Keynesian sense, and it is precisely this phenomenon that gives rise to the "hoarding incentive" I previously mentioned: it becomes rational to hold Ɉ rather than spend it, because tomorrow it will purchase more. Bitcoin has exhibited this characteristic since 2009; Montana will inherit it in an amplified form, as the absence of transaction fees lowers the barrier to holding (there is no "penalty" for inactivity, and one's balance is not eroded by network fees).

- Alejandro



--
Защищено с помощью Tuta Mail:
https://tuta.com/free-email


18 мая 2026 г., 13:07 От mrtblt at hotmail.com.tr:
Dear, Bill

Inflation is indeed necessary, and money needs to be spent, but if there's no limit to the supply, it leads to inflation that becomes a crisis, like in Germany after World War I, and the value of money increases. If the use of money increases, inflation may fall in the short term, but after a certain period, it will lead to a full-blown recession.

-Mert Ali



________________________________

From: Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:21:27 PM
To: alejandromontana at tutamail.com <alejandromontana at tutamail.com>
Cc: Mert Ali Bulut <mrtblt at hotmail.com.tr>; Cryptography <cryptography at metzdowd.com>
Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Montana: A Post-Quantum Blockchain with Time as Scarcity



> On May 17, 2026, at 20:39, Alejandro Montana via cryptography <cryptography at metzdowd.com> wrote:
> The protocol dictates a flat reward of 13 units per window, forever, with no halving or supply cap. You are essentially baking infinite, linear inflation into the baseline. Why would rational node operators continue to burn real-world energy (and pay real electricity bills) to sustain a network whose native token is mathematically guaranteed to dilute infinitely over time?

Because that’s how a currency is supposed to work, and they want to have something to spend? Because they paid attention in grade-school economics, and know who Keynes is?

-Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20260518/a92580c7/attachment-0001.htm>