Once again, I would like to dispel this 
notion while I’m here.
Debate around inflation has been going on for far longer than just this proposal. See PUP-11: WAGMI Inflation - please take a look a the dates.
Both are proposals authored by yours truly. This is an alternative take to the WAGMI proposal that provides for some different mechanisms than WAGMI does. Both are worth hearing out for their pros and cons. The timing has more to do with traction and relays than price.
We’ve left WAGMI up for a considerable time so ample debate could happen. I would say on average voting happens within 15 days of a proposal being posted. We’re well beyond that for WAGMI. I asked for additional time to craft up alternative proposals (to something I suggested). If I wasn’t looking for better answers, like this one, then why would I counter proposal a proposal with signficant support?
We operate differently than most protocols. Pocket Network is very parameterized which makes it reliant on proposals, like this, to govern the economics. I’ve authored models that have assumed a “tenthening” of token incentives at the 1B token supply mark, but it was nothing but a model with assumptions.
The plan was always to reduce rewards this way - through a proposal the DAO could get behind. Why prescribe an inflationary plan on an uncapped token when you don’t know how the growth will transpire? Hard coding, while considered, doesn’t leave much room for dynamic adjustment.