Even though your arguments seem logical there is still something at the back of my head telling me "it has to be wrong" (about printing more crypto during bear market). Even less do I see the witnesses and community in general to agree for such change. However from technical perspective it would be very easy.
Instead of expressing whole inflation as percentage of Hive supply asymptotically approaching certain minimum in distant future, we could split it into two uneven parts: small fixed percentage of Hive supply (to accommodate expected growth of the network) and fixed amount of HBD. Then the HBD part would effectively turn into more Hive during bear market or less Hive when the price increases. Due to being fixed amount, in the long run it would be less and less percentage of Hive supply (compatible with current consensus of falling inflation rate), fall further reinforced by the fact that HBD is tied to inflationary fiat USD.
Here is the inarguable point that most of this logic is founded on:
We can print unlimited money if the ROI on that money yields a net gain.
This is a mathematical fact and can not be argued.
The problem is that people in crypto fail to recognize the significance of this fact.
We've been brainwashed to think that inflation is bad because of the fractional reserve banking.
We've been brainwashed to think that inflation is bad because of Bitcoin's deflationary success.
Inflation is good when we control it and allocate it to smart investments.
If we print a million dollars and then get a return of $2M, that is a massive win, no matter how you slice it. Returns like this are very hard to get in the legacy economy (and high risk), but very easy to get in crypto when we control the means of production and the currency itself.
If we want an elastic currency that can bend given changes in market demand, then we need to come up with ways to manipulate supply. We can not increase demand by taking away the rewards and incentives that create demand (this should be obvious, but for whatever reason is not). Again, the crux of this issue is lowering the demand/price during the middle of crazy bull markets, which is something that no one has ever done before. Once we can do that, pumping the bear market with stimulus is a trivial process.
If crypto wants to compete with fiat, at least some networks are going to need an elastic supply that promotes stability. It is all but guaranteed that eventually tokens will pop up that have these kinds of stabilizing elastic features.
And you'll also note that I said Hive should do nothing, for various reasons that I didn't even get into because the post ran too long, just like this comment.
Ok, I think I know what was the reason for the whisper in the back of my head. A lot of value of fiat comes from the fact that you are required to use it to pay taxes, in other words it acts as a deterrent against government thugs. Crypto has no such power backing it up. Even if it was possible to form a community that earns and spends only crypto, never exiting to the fiat (I believe it will be possible in the future), if it became widespread it would be dealt with with physical force.
Holding fiat comes with a lot of bad options, so you might just as well stick with least bad choice (which is to hold onto the currency you use daily, at least in necessary minimum amount), on the other hand crypto comes with many good choices. Therefore while central banks can benefit from debasing fiat currencies, if we try the same we might find ourselves being outcompeted by other crypto, because general perception is that bigger inflation means weaker currency. It might be self fulfilling - perception is that inflation is bad therefore people will gravitate towards cryptos with low inflation thus lowering value of those with higher inflation - but unless perception changes, the effect will hold.