Clearly, the real victim here is QuazarCoin.

I am one of the very few fulltimers in Monero currently (the other whom I know working full-time is David Latapie). I have had time to examine that question, and it is phrased wrongly. We do not have to choose. We have to make all of them happen. Without each of usability (in the form of both DB implementation and a reliable webwallet), AND reasonable emission that is not burned out before the coin has a chance to hit mainstream, Monero's living is only in the hands of competitors doing even worse.

DB and wallet are coming, and people are putting real work on them. Emission has also been real work because of many opinions involved, but we are in the final decision steps now. If the MEW finds it in favor of emission cut, the core team can legitimately change it (they wanted to change it already in April but the vote was rigged, and afterwards the main reason not to is lacking legitimacy "it is too late, social contract, everyone will hate us"). If the MEW decides that change is not needed, then the matter is set in stone and normalcy restored.

The voting thread.

Ill just copy what I posted on the Monero forum:
To start, I want to say I'm still undecided over this matter.

On the one hand, I usually am opposed to changing a 'social contract' because it creates uncertainty. On the other had, Monero is clearly suffering from the current high inflation.

The question we need to ask ourselves is the following: Will Monero reach 'crypto mainstream' before a considerable amount of XMR is mined?

off course "crypto mainstream" and "considerable" are not objective terms, but this is how I see it: If 90% of the coins are mined before XMR is a top5 coin in market cap ranking, It would be a bad thing. If XMR would enter the top5 and only 40% of the coins are mined, I think the "fast emission" isn't a problem.

Why do I compare with the 'crypto mainstream' and not with 'global mainstream'? Bitcoin will be mined >90% in just a few years. A currency will be used by the public or it won't be used. The amount of coins left to be mined is NOT a decisive factor. The EUR and USD are constantly being instamined at will by a board of some rich folks. The people want a currency to be more fair? Well, they don't want to be bothered with mining, as long as the network is strong. Mining supports the network, emission of coins is a SECUNDARY factor in this. It's just the incentive to support the network.

So let's take a step back: in a few years, XMR will be mined >90%. If that is a serious problem (I don't think it will be, see above) then it will become worthless. But also BTC will go down the same road. So if people are advocating to change the emission because the emission is going to fast at the moment, you need to be aware that you are also advocating a slower emission for BTC. Unless you agree that the only reason for the emission change is the question I described at the start: "Will Monero reach 'crypto mainstream' before a considerable amount of XMR is mined?" If the answer is NO, then MAYBE an emission change is sensible.

If an emssion change IS sensible, I would like to say that the block reward change needs to be done slowly, to give miners the possibility to adapt to the situation. I proposed on #Monero-MEW the following: Change the block time with 1 second a day until we reach 2.5 minutes per block. Don't change block rewards. Also announce the change at least 10 days beforehand.

About tail emission: I'm not against a perpetual minimum block reward. A possible implementation of this was announced right from the start. 0.1 XMR seems OK.

edit: I think the current uncertainity around emission is also a factor in the current downtrend in BTC/XMR. Any decision will be positive at this point. It takes away the uncertainity.

Perhaps Monero was a pump & dump after all. The miners rigged the original vote about reasonable emission curve in their hopes of making money with optimized (non-deoptimized) mining software. It worked. The promise of finally having something fresh in the altcoin scene, with fair launch and compelling new tech was so good.

I think the only people who have understandable grounds in opposing the emission cut are the only ones who benefit from the current situation - the privileged miners, ones who should not even exist, according to my understanding from the others who are deeply involved. If I have been wrong and such people do exist, their short-term interest is to have as high emission as possible (same as in April when they foiled the vote the last time). Long term (a few months probably), the coin is mortally wounded, but to them it does not matter.

A common tactic in high-profile voting is to demonize the ones who lean on the opposite side. But that's what I am going to do anyway 

If you reject the proposal of the emission cut, the hardest part for me is that I am not sure if you even have Monero's good in mind.

Hey, how about we change this discussion to the Monero Forum! It is a better software than this!

I somewhat now see some arguments for changing the emission - best would be if could change the emission and adapt the current amount of coins accordingly, but I think this is really impossible.

maybe I am wrong and the social contract is less important than the fixing - I am really really unsure about this.

You can just slow down the block time and you will lower the daily inflation, but keep the same amount of coins. Why do you think this is impossible? Btw, I think that changing the total amount of coins will be perceived more negative than slowing down the emission..

because the generation of users bought until now is better off for a long period of time - maybe I overestimate the effect here but it will be critizised.

the only thing we do not need is a fork, we have enough cryptonotes, and let us be fair here the only one existent and having a chance is monero. these projects here are driven by the size as well as the quality of the community - maybe I am completely biased but the quality of the monero community is by far the one with the highest quality of user base - a lot of people who never touched altcoins before joined this project.

let us be clear here what happens when monero is forked - it will be attacked by a) the existing monero community b) the other cryptonotes c) darkcoin d) shills.

this is a one shot possibility here with monero.

Hello,

The part of Monero community who will attack will not have Monero's best interest since they are not willing to fix the bugs (emission issue making the coin looking scammish with very fast mine).

Other cryptonotes/other coins are going to attack depending on if Monero will make it or not. If Monero will be just another coin, they will not attack, but when Monero starts rising, they will be attacking for sure.

Shills are out there always.

The developing of coin and fixing serious errors should not be done by asking the permission of the opponent.
Similar situation like in warfare - you do not ask permission from your enemy: "Can I defend my life?"
Monero is now in similar situation.

Justifying is easy:
Now Monero is mined by relatively small community which is unfair towards later adaptors.