I agree with mostly with Ross PoV.
Particularly I would like to underscore the following ideas:
The ~16% reward rates now are also hugely larger than competing ecosystems. I therefore believe FUD around scaring off stakers with a reduced inflation has no merit. If one stakers sells, another stakeholder will buy for the mid to long term.
It has been commented - in post-truth emotional basis, with no data of rewards of competing alternatives - that reducing inflation will make stakers to go somewhere else: but where? And we are assuming that nobody will come in to replace the gone staker.
IMHO Polkadot has too much emission of tokens, inflation should be reduced drastically and community should be able to find a way to do it quickly (backing also @ross opinion here). Later community should find a way to decide or control this variable ( could be by openGov decission, could be by a code pattern on the chain, could be a combination of both, or whatever method …).
Regarding the comments about treasury, I agree that is a separate topic, but I think the last months spending come actually from a too optimistic position caused actually because they were high returns to the treasury due to a high emission. Typical behavior of inflationary policies IRL.
High emission and alcohol drinking are very similar: they are very attractive in first place, because the negative effects are only felt later on.