It’s an argument of semantics, really: if it will eventually stop printing coins, I’d consider it inflationary until that point in time and non-inflationary thereafter. In practice, current holders are being diluted to subsidize the security of the network.
This isn’t consistent with the “priced in” position put forward by the original commenter. An asset class that is going to be fixed in quantity for the rest of time is an obvious target for pricing-in.
By that logic the USD has some inflation baked in too, it’s just that in Bitcoin’s case the number is exact and in USD it’s a guess. It’s really just arguing semantics, though. I get both sides’ arguments.
I don’t know about “baked in,” but of course the USD is inflationary: that’s been the explicit Fed policy for decades. It’s been the policy because small amounts of inflation have a measurable economic benefit.
But again: this doesn’t change the fact that Bitcoin is deflationary. It’s a fixed supply of coins on a ledger that every current stakeholder has a strong deflationary interest in. The fact that there might be inflationary forces internal to Bitcoin’s economy doesn’t change that.
