Core Question
With fixed supply tokens (think BTC, BNB, DGB, BCH, ADA), there is something pretty major that can go wrong.
Understanding the Economics
When you have a fixed supply token, the following usually applies. The crypto will be issuing tokens every block, decreasing every fixed period of time by some amount. That is what makes up practically all of the profit that miners get. They also earn a tiny amount, though negligible, from network fees.
The issue
The issue here is that as the block reward decreases since supply is getting closer to the maximum, fees need to make up a larger portion of a miner's (or validator in PoS cryptos like ADA/Cardano) income. But, the problem here is that these cryptos can't achieve a point where the network can fully be sustained through fees alone.
That means as we approach low block rewards, the money miners earn also drops dramatically, meaning that it will cause a loss for some miners, so they will in turn turn off their rigs.
This leaves the network susceptible to 51% attacks where a malicious actor manages to control over half of the networks hashrate. This can cause double spending funds, controlling which transactions are approved, rejecting/blocking other miners' blocks, and a huge price drop from fear.
What can these networks then do?
Since they can't be secured through fees only, they must adapt. There are a few solutions to this.
Remove the max cap of tokens
Increase transaction fees
Somehow get way more people to use the blockchain, thus increasing quantity of transactions and fees
However, these all have drawbacks to them. If the developers/maintainers of the network vote to remove the max cap on tokens to allow more tokens to be created out of thin air, they remove a core reason people even used the token, scarcity. I mean, imagine a world where bitcoin has a max supply of 30 million instead of 21 million. That will be a hard fork, and people would reject it, but the old 21 million max chain would be very unsecured.
If the increase transaction fees, that will almost certainly cause backlash. Say bitcoin (I'm using bitcoin for all examples as it is the one everyone knows) now has 3x more fees. With fees already being high, that will make more people either use L2s like Lightning Network, use a wrapped version like wBTC, or simply stop using it.
As for the last one, it is out of control. The network's community can't force people to use their network magically. It takes resources, funding, time, and effort to advertise and convince people. It might work, but it is a very long process.
What can they do?
Honestly, not much. Every solution has a consequence. The best in my opinion is using a tail emission (like XMR .6 block reward forever) coupled with a fee burning mechanism. That way, miners will always have some sort of base reward, along with transaction fees that were not burned. That way, the issuance of new crypto is always fixed no matter what, and if the network does gain enough traction, then it can become deflationary and actually reduce its supply.
However, this again goes against one of its core rules of a fixed supply. So really, there is no good answer, at least not yet.
Now, before you worry, you should know we still have quite some time before a doomsday of eminent 51% attacks is here. However, we should be exploring some possible solutions.
Want to earn and see my upcoming post schedule? Click here!
