We haven't changed the emission curve. Per the OP: "Actual number of atomic units is M = 264 - 1. A minimum subsidy may be implemented in the future with <1% annual inflation to preserve mining incentives."

Since we're definitely moving ahead with that minimum subsidy in future, it'll basically just get to a point where block reward is, say, 0.3 XMR, and that will be the block reward indefinitely (actual numbers still need to be graphed and we need to evaluate the most appropriate minimum subsidy, but it's honestly not something we have to rush out the gate).

You overstate this a bit. A bit of tail emission to incentivize mining won't prevent great fortunes to be made in XMR. Greed as a bootstrapping mechanism was part of bitcoin's genius. I hope you agree that in the end, it will be people's willingness to hold Monero rather than their willingness to use it as a payment system that will keep Monero alive. And if people don't think it will be worth more in the future (i.e. a good investment), then they won't hold XMR. If all merchants end up using the Bitpay-equivalent of Monero to immediately receive USD and consumers use it temporarily to buy what they need anonymously because no one wants to hold it, then it becomes a game of Hot Potato.

You miss the point.

We don't want to exactly duplicate the dynamics of fiat. Freicoin already tried that, to a large degree, with their demurrage effort. Who uses Freicoin today? No, the point is not to preclude making "great fortunes" with Monero, it's just that the process of making such fortunes should not be as simple as buying $500 worth and hoping for the best. It should require genuine, honest effort and work...or it should at the very least require you to be a fairly intelligent criminal...just like with cash:-P

Edit: just to add that I also don't disagree with the share model (where you own shares in companies that make money) but again, you should be purchasing shares in a company because you have done due diligence. Owning some cryptocurrency should not be the same process, even though it pretty much is at the moment.

The might of the US government and "tradition"  

XMR is so cheap now

I'm not discounting them at all - I'm merely saying that a rise in XMR's value should come directly from utility, and not directly from speculators + fudging numbers to create artificial demand. That's not to say that speculators are at all bad, it's just that they should be along for the ride instead of being the ones solely responsible for the ride!

Maybe I must put it differently: if genuine demand for Bitcoin by "ordinary" people (ie. not speculators) was the sole price driver, what would Bitcoin's price be? $1 - $3 maybe? (I have no idea, I'm thumb-sucking here) Either way, the gap between that and the current price means that speculators are propping the balance of the price up. What we are hoping to achieve with Monero (in particular with the infinite tail emission) is to reduce that gap so that the price of Monero in the far future more closely reflects the actual demand than any artificial demand. Who knows if we're on the right path or not, but I do sincerely believe it's a better path than just cloning Bitcoin;)

Just as the price of gold is mostly because of hoarding and speculating. It's "utility only" (electronics and jewelry lets say) value is so much lower.

I enjoy this debate, and obviously I don't know the future - maybe the decisions we've made are unsubstantiated right now, and maybe they're wrong, so of course I stand to be completely wrong and only find out in future:-P

That said, I do think infinite tail emission changes things substantially - once we hit minsubsidy it makes trading based on a microcosmic timeline (ie. demand for the Monero that is emitted over, say, a month) vs. the view a speculator would take of a deflationary currency where supply is fixed. You, for instance, indicated you want to own "0.1% of all XMR". Tail emission makes this a moving target - you'd only ever be able to fulfil that for a snapshot in time (ie. "of all XMR currently emitted").

I'm also not arguing that there will be no speculation, clearly that's never going to be the case. However, I do think that most speculators don't have a very high risk tolerance, and thus there will be enough of a fundamental difference (vis-à-vis Monero's slightly inflationary nature when contrasted with Bitcoin's deflationary nature) that there will be less "hoarding" for the sole purpose of becoming overnight millionaires.

People might buy (read: hoard) currency because it may be valuable, but they use (read: spend) currency because it's easy and convenient. Convenience of use should be the ultimate priority when building a currency.

"VISA: It's everywhere you want to be"

The currency that replaces fiat will be easier to use than a credit/debit card. Much easier.

Apple Pay attempts to simplify payments by storing the user's credit card info on the device. It's a step in the right direction, but it can still be better (read: easier):

Imagine if checking out at the grocery was as easy as scanning your fingerprint and walking out the door? Instead of storing payment info on a device it could be stored in a database (or blockchain!). Sound scary? Absolutely... but damn easy!

Beyond a certain point, no amount of utility will increase adoption until it's actually easier and more convenient than fiat.