FLENcrypto

No inflation fix can save EGLD without new leadership Right now, part of the #MultiversX community is locked in a heated debate about $EGLD supply. Should the hard cap remain? Should we introduce tail inflation? Should the tokenomics be adjusted to raise funds or ensure long-term validator rewards? This debate matters, but it misses the point. No economic model, no clever inflation schedule, no fundraising round will save MultiversX as long as the core problem remains untouched, its leadership. EGLD has already proven its potential. When it hit $544 in November 2021, circulating supply was about 20.4M tokens, which meant a market cap of roughly $11.1 billion. This explosive growth didn’t require an unlimited supply, it wasn’t because of inflationary rewards. It was the result of vision, early momentum, and market trust. 👉 Proof that $EGLD's potential never depended on changing its supply. It depended on execution, transparency, and leadership. Why supply is not the real issue. We can imagine: - A tail emission like Monero. - A burn + inflation model like Ethereum or Solana. - Or a hybrid dynamic system like NEAR. These models work elsewhere not because they are magic formulas, but because they are backed by credible governance and leadership trusted by the community. What has eroded MultiversX is not the hard cap, it’s the series of poor strategic decisions from the CEO: - ridiculous esoteric communication, - unkept promises and endless "soon" - swimming against the tide on every major trend, - costly projects that failed, - lack of marketing vision, - systematic blocking of criticism and arrogant behavior. This is what undermined trust. And without trust, no economic adjustment will stick You can print more tokens to raise funds, but what’s the point if they’re allocated under the same flawed vision? You can change validator incentives, but what’s the point if governance remains centralized and disconnected from the community? The truth is simple: it wasn’t the economic model that got MultiversX here, it was the sum of leadership failures. If there really must be a supply increase, it should come with one clear condition: a change of leadership. Increase EGLD supply in exchange for Beniamin’s resignation. - The community might accept dilution, but only with the guarantee of a fresh start. - Investors might tolerate inflation, but not if it fuels the same failing strategy. - Trust cannot be restored with an economic tweak, only with political and human change. An asset’s value is shaped as much by trust in its leadership as by its monetary policy. MultiversX suffers from a credibility gap. As long as that remains, no change in supply (inflation, burn, or fundraising) will spark sustainable growth. 👉 Changing the supply without changing leadership is repainting a house with crumbling foundations. 👉 Changing the supply with new leadership might give $EGLD a genuine second chance. In the end, the question isn’t "cap or no cap". The real question is: who’s steering the ship, and where are they taking it?