General transactions on the network would consolidate those small, disparate stakes into new transactions that would be used, 30 days later, to attempt to mint. I may be over-estimating people’s willingness to use Peercoin as a medium of exchange, and the “real” rational tendency is for people to horde, rather than to spend, but so far, it’s too early to tell from the data.
My intuition leads me to the belief that only way that the Peercoin network would ever get into a condition where there were only tiny stakes available was if it was extremely unhealthy to begin with – at which point, we’d have far bigger problems than network security via proof-of-stake. If there’s no depth of market, and no transactions does the asset continue to have “value”?
We should be studying some of the smaller, less popular cryptos to model what happens when you have a very small rate of exchange. Does the network fall apart because it’s less secure, or does it just go into hibernation? Do people cash out en-masse until the effective valuation is zero?
I’ll create a separate topic to address it, but I’d like to see if we could pull together a set of people in the community who are familiar with formal statistics, economics, monetary, and public policy to form a working group to discuss and model the various “what ifs?” and share them with the community. I know we have people in the community who have the skills.
[size=8pt]Edit: Sentence fragment and a couple of typos.[/size]