an important point you fail to address in your article is that of token velocity.
discount tokens, by their nature, encourage holding. given a fixed supply, as more consumers become part of the network and efficiently position themselves for their consumption pattern, the supply dwindles driving token price up. the result of upward valuations lowers the requirements for a perfect holding but holders are unlikely to reduce their positions as they now represent wealth. yes, it’s true that the passive portion of their holdings is wasted unless they increase consumption (which they may well do, depending on the type of customer — think of the customer as an expanding business), but they may not care
vis-à-vis the simple reduction of prices (which *may* increase the customer base but at the cost of lower revenue and generally leads to price wars and a race to the bottom) the token approach adds a value not heretofore found in the world of commerce and a direct product of the contentiousness implemented by Satoshi
another aspect of price slashing vs. discount tokens can be thought of as the difference between morphine and endorphins. morphine numbs an organism across the board, whereas endorphins are highly focused. when you slash prices, the cut applies to anyone and everyone. discount tokens, on the other hand, allow for a bespoke approach to discounting. big consumer? buy more tokens to get the discount, small consumer? buy fewer tokens
it’s a one-size-fits-all approach (which we know very well never works well) versus a custom fit
