A quick (and simplified) example using tokenomics to emphasize the point that whales maximizing their profits is generally not the same as what’s best for all Algorand users (in terms of utility, adoption, etc):
If we think of Algorand purely as a currency (ignoring smart contracts etc for now), a stable price of Algo is desirable, or otherwise it would have a negative impact on it’s intended utility (of being a currency), which would then slow down it’s adoption by the general public.
A more democratic governance that benefits from a wider adoption and increased utility, would therefore want the supply of the tokens to increase with the demand, in order to keep the price more stable.
Whales on the other hand would maximize their profits by doing the exact opposite - trying to limit the supply of the tokens, in order to create a deflationary currency that increases the value only for the existing Algo holders - even if it slows down the adoption and reduces Algo’s utility for everyone else. (While it’s true that in the long run these actions could also be harmful to the whales’ own holdings due to lack of adoption by others, as long as the prices go up in the short term, they can keep cashing out along the way and make a nice profit even if in the end it drives the whole thing to the ground.)
One question that I haven’t thought before though, is whether it makes a difference if we think of Algorand as a currency or as a smart contract platform (or a hybrid of both)? For example, if we completely ignored Algorand’s utility as a currency and only valued it for it’s smart contracts, would we still care about stable Algo prices, or does that make it ok for Algo to be deflationary without impacting it’s utility as a smart contract platform?