> If you consider this a tax, it is a tax distributed to all current and future holders of the currency, including the user doing the transaction.
Yes. A tax on every transaction apportioned by wealth to current holders (not to future holders because they will receive fewer tokens from constant input). A regressive tax.
> If "changing of the guard" means replacing VISA with thousands of VISAs in a decentralized network, where any non-VISA can become yet another VISA through permissionless software, that is far better in my opinion.
It's not 'thousands of visas' though. It's "a big faceless entity taking a fee on every transaction with the rules being set and the takings being apportioned by wealth" being replaced by "a big faceless entity taking a fee on every transaction with the rules being set and the takings being apportioned by wealth" the ability to volunteer to provide infrastructure doesn't change that.
> If you have another economic model than EIP 1559 that you feel is superior, you have the power to propose that as an EIP and start to develop consensus around it. EIP 1559 was first proposed in 2019 and it took some years for consensus to build around it.
The entire 'a deflationary token on one global trustless network, buy now or miss out' model has fundamental unsolved and potentially unsolvable flaws. It is capitalism distilled and on fast forward without the grifters even having to make the pretense of being involved in real productive activity.
We don't need 'currency but on the internet' to solve 'how do we distribute stuff'. We needto think about the problem from scratch. Blockchains may even be a part of it, but so long as d(wealth)/dt ~ wealth, it's just another method of making the same people rich.