Thanks for opening up the discussion here. I’m glad to share my thoughts:
I adopted the term “enforced turnstile migration” after a debate with Justin E. Although the term is unpalatable, I believe it is an accurate way to describe what happened when sprout deprecation was announced and the funds in the sprout shielded pool were forced to migrate over into the sapling shielded pool, passing through a transparent pool before arriving, of course.
I believe that turnstile was going to be implemented, anyways, but inflation bug escalated the priority (hmm… where did i read that?)
In the event of an enforced turnstile migration, I understand that there is a risk of losing funds that may rightfully belong to you should you be unable to pass through the turnstile before enough fake coins pass to achieve the supply limit.
Nevertheless, I believe investors/hodlers will appreciate the fact that the limited supply can be enforced. The alternative is unacceptable for a store of value, right?
Hodlers keen on avoiding the risk of loss due to enforced turnstile migration may take extra precautions to ensure that they reserve their place in the turnstile line. Perhaps a market for that may develop…
Super-keen hodlers may store their funds in a transparent pool (after z2z’ing, of course) and avoid the problem altogether…
For those reasons, I still support t-addresses. They are a blessing in disguise
Please correct me if I am mistaken in anyway shape or form
Thank you, in advance, and thanks, again