It’s really not the same as not providing anything in return, because even if the amount you use to mint cUSD is CELO minted at genesis, that amount is limited, so you can’t really “mint for free for ever”.
we have gone pretty far off-topic from the main thead, but one last final point from me. You can absolutely “mint for free forever” as long as price of CELO goes up (which was the argument that the “useful cUSD” would do that).
So imagine a setup (which one would call a fraud? or a powerful government :)):
- Mint bunch of cUSD with no collateral
- Buy up all the assets (including bridged ones) from Celo AMMs.
- This will drive demand for cUSD because price of assets will go up.
- Demand for cUSD up → demand for CELO up → CELO price go up.
Once you are done with one cycle, do it again. Mint more cUSD, buy up all the assets, drive the price up, which will include CELO and so on and so forth.
So it is in theory possible to keep minting things for free for at least a very long time.
My point here is that, talking about “useful cUSD” that drives ecosystem growth, really puts reserve+celo governance in a central bank mode. More non-free market style minting that happens, more close it becomes to “printing money”. It is a slippery slope, and I personally wouldn’t be in favor of that kind of setup, even if in short (and medium, and potentially even in longer term) it could lead to faster growth.
If I can chime in: when it comes to these sorts of questions, to me it’s never a matter of black and white thinking, or “free vs. non-free” market, but an issue of risk analysis nested within the broader concept of “ecosystem/platform strategy.” What are needed are clear parameters of acceptable vs. unacceptable monetary conditions to stimulate growth, and a clear dashboard showing how certain “investments” are linked to certain outputs (growth rates, rates applied to those actors we want to grow, etc…) aligned with this broader ecosystem strategy and monetary goals (these need to be clearly and transparently articulated).
It’s more of a strategic than an ideological problem, imho.