Hi Donald and everyone!
First of all, I want to thank you for the effort and work put into this proposal, wich addressses a complex and important topic. Howewer, to my understanding, the proposal clearly lacks solid foundations, and although it tries to anticipate some objections, the responses offered are either insufficient or even counterproductive.

1) The issue of miner incentives is overstated
The last bitcoin won’t be mined until the year 2140, which means we’re still more than 100 years away. Justifying such a structural change today based on a concern that lies completely outside our current technical, social, and economic horizon is an exaggeration. As rewards decrease, Bitcoin has already shown a natural tendency to substitute them with transaction fees, without this causing any systemic collapse.

2) Artificial scarcity is not a problem (it’s part of the design)
Bitcoin is divisible into 100 million satoshis per unit, which provides more than enough granularity to operate even if BTC reaches astronomical values. If 1 BTC were worth more than 1 million u$s, each satoshi would be worth over a cent. If necessary, an extension of decimals could be considered in the future (as is already done in Lightning with millisatoshis), without altering the fundamental rules.

The idea that “lost value must be recovered” to maintain liquidity completely ignores the fact that in a deflationary economy, the loss of units doesn’t necessarily reduce system functionality—it increases the value of the remaining units. In the words of Satoshi Nakamoto himself:
“Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone.” (I clarify that i do not necessarily intended to be canonical)

3) The confiscation risk doesn't disappear just because it's framed as "reauthentication."
The argument that “if you can’t move your coins for 20 years, it’s indistinguishable from abandonment” is not only weak, but profoundly dangerous. What happens if coins are immobilized as part of an inheritance, a trust, or simply due to personal choice?

Peter Todd summed it up perfectly:
“If you want to argue for actually redistributing coins rather than just creating new ones out of thin air - for whatever reason - you need to justify why you want to risk confiscating coins that were not in fact lost.”

The fact that the current system can’t distinguish between lost and non-lost coins doesn’t justify defaulting to confiscation. In fact, that limitation is deliberate: Bitcoin is based on the presumption of individual sovereignty, not on a registry of “legitimate activity.” Why should I be required to spend or move my BTC if I don’t want to? The very idea of Bitcoin is that I have full freedom to decide what to do with my funds. 

4) Bitcoin does not need to "reactivate" value to sustain its economy.
The assumption that a prolonged decrease in supply would destabilize the system has not been empirically demonstrated. Growing demand, combined with coin loss, creates deflationary pressure, yes—but that doesn’t prevent circulation or absolutely disincentivize spending. Bitcoin’s economy has already adapted to this over time without artificial intervention.

Sincerely,
Javier Mateos