It's trivial to do this, learn to code 

 from monero.backends.jsonrpc import JSONRPCDaemon
from monero.transaction import Transaction

# Connect to your Monero node's JSON-RPC server
daemon_rpc_host = "127.0.0.1"
daemon_rpc_port = "18081"
rpc_user = "your_rpc_username"
rpc_password = "your_rpc_password"

daemon = JSONRPCDaemon(host=daemon_rpc_host, port=daemon_rpc_port, user=rpc_user, password=rpc_password)

def verify_monero_supply():
    try:
        # Step 1: Verify total mined supply based on the emission schedule
        total_mined = 0.0
        last_block_height = daemon.info().height - 1

        for block_height in range(1, last_block_height + 1):
            block = daemon.get_block_by_height(block_height)
            # Verify block reward aligns with the expected reward
            total_mined += block.reward

        # Step 2: Verify cryptographic proofs in each transaction
        for block_height in range(1, last_block_height + 1):
            block = daemon.get_block_by_height(block_height)
            for txid in block.tx_hashes:
                tx = daemon.get_transaction(txid)
                transaction = Transaction(tx)
                # Verify Pedersen Commitments
                if not transaction.verify_pedersen_commitments():
                    print(f"Failed Pedersen commitment verification in transaction {txid}")
                    return
                # Verify Bulletproofs (range proofs)
                if not transaction.verify_bulletproofs():
                    print(f"Failed Bulletproof verification in transaction {txid}")
                    return
                # Verify Ring Signatures
                if not transaction.verify_ring_signatures():
                    print(f"Failed Ring Signature verification in transaction {txid}")
                    return

        print(f"Total Monero Mined: {total_mined:.12f} XMR")
        print("All cryptographic proofs verified successfully. No inflation detected.")

    except Exception as e:
        print(f"An error occurred during verification: {e}")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    verify_monero_supply()



There you go.  The problem is it relies on complex cryptography to accomplish this, which is one of the criticisms of Monero.  For more details study the library's implementation of 
verify_pedersen_commitments
verify_bulletproofs
verify_ring_signatures

As far as pedersen being well understood... by whom, by you?  I don't think so. 

 "On the other hand, we need computers, and the method will convince only those that trust both math and the computer they use."


https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/64437/what-is-a-pedersen-commitment#64443


Not a cryptographer, but the math behind is not so difficult. But as the commentor of the link wrote. There is trust involved in math and in the machine you use.

I'd suggest you to talk ti some of the cryptographers you'll find in the Monero community.

For some use cases it is not acceptable to trust, in that cases Bitcoin is preferable over Monero. For other use cases the trust is acceptable.

Most Monero supporters also have been early Bitcoiners. Therefore hold huge bags of both coins. Would I ever consider to spend Bitcoin without going through Monero first? No, because I don't know the future and how the future dictators will treat my financial past. Do I treat Bitcoin as a store of value. Yes.

By the way. Monero is a rather stable coin, like you'd expect from a currency.


 

 I'm not arguing "against Monero" I'm simply helping you understand the differences between an open public ledger that can easily be audited with someone with basic python skills and a protocol that requires complex cryptographic proofs just to ask it how many coins there are. 

 People who fractionally reserve bitcoin go bankrupt.  See FTX for details.

Rehypothecating the most bullish asset in human history in it's infancy when volatility is incredibly high is not something experienced asset managers would even consider.  It takes a fool like SBF to have the hubris to even attempt it.  And you see where that ended him up, in a prison cell. 

 Those who don't know how to operate proper fractional reserves go bankrupt.

Binance for example managed quite well so far.

Coinbase and BlackRock will only go bankrupt when USD hyperinflates as they can print as many USD for cash settled ETFs as they need to not default on bad trades thanks to the BlackRock-FED connection. 

 And what proof do you have that binance fractionally reserves things?  You have none this is just speculation and conjecture. 

 Well, as you are not new you seem to have ignored the discussions around it for at least 3 to 4 years. What does that tell me about you?

It at least tells me that most Bitcoiners so far did not learn anything from Monero's past which to me signals that Bitcoin is not fit to challenge the state apparatus. You either do have exceptional observation, adversarial thinking and executing strategies (like early Btcoiners from 2009-2012) or you will get played by forces that do.

 

 For a starter try to use a search engine and put in Binance + fractional reserves then read up on a ton of observations, test runs, withdrawal issues,... 

 Yes but I don't care in the least.  I give exactly 0.00000000 fucks about Binance or if/when/where/why they are defrauding people. 

 There are very real threats to bitcoin, Binance is not one of them. 

 I don't care if Binance is rehypothecating bitcoin.  It matters nothing to me, nor to bitcoin.  Anyone stupid enough to do that will be exposed in the end.

Binance is no threat to bitcoin. 

 I just fucking did it for you, lol.  Run that script and see for yourself. 

 I know and I see that. But it still doesn't avoid that the vast majority of Bitcoiners don't do this. They don't even run a node.

For those that do (and do so often) I already agreed they have a reasonable argument against Monero if they want the best possible verifiability/auditability 

 I’ll give an example to look into if you care:

Lightning pool can execute any arbitrary code to enforce ownership of bitcoin. Has been able to for a couple of years. It simply uses the Lightning punishment system to enforce ownership. CTV only makes it so you can pre-sign the exits and do it non-interactively… as I explained at the very beginning. 

 Thank you for the response! 

I can see our conversation is misaligned. Might be helpful to clarify my position. I’m not pushing back on particular functionality, per se. I’m only pushing back on how particular functionality interacts with the base chain — if that interaction might create centralizing incentives. 

For example, I don’t reject smart contracts, arbitrary code execution, or the like, if done via multisig, lightning pools, or even BitVM (as I understand it today). I push back when it is done in a way that could harm bitcoin decentralization (eg OP_CTV). 

What’s the difference? On-chain vs off-chain logic. 

CTV’s logic is on-chain so I’m concerned about CTV creating centralizing MEV and therefore potentially creating incentives that promote miner centralization. 

Let’s imagine that there was a trading marketplace on bitcoin where speculators were buying and selling securities, like how Uniswap enables trading on Ethereum. 

If bids, offers, and pending transactions were visible and transactable on-chain, there would be an incentive for traders to bribe miners to help them jump the queue to transact before other traders. These bribes would flow as out-of-band payments through private APIs to the largest miners, creating an advantage for larger miners (hence promoting centralization). 

There seems to be much less risk if the bids, offers, and pending transactions are off-chain and where the chain is only used for final settlement. For example, I don’t see any risk of people trading stocks on Nasdaq and settling with bitcoin. That’s just using bitcoin as money. No problems there! I DO see a big risk if people are trading stocks on a “bitcoin Uniswap” if there is any possibility that people may want to pay miners privately to jump the queue. 

This is why lightning pools and BitVM don’t concern me — the logic is off-chain and the chain is only used for final settlement. 

This is why I perceive a difference with CTV / Sapio. Everything seems to be on-chain. If someone could use it to create something like Uniswap then it poses a centralization risk to miners. 

You can also think about this another way, specifically that types of transactions classified as safe or unsafe. 

For example, the safest transactions are using the chain for final settlement, and are publicly broadcast so that no miner can have an advantage. 

Unsafe transactions are those using the chain for some other purpose where there is some incentive to connect privately to a large miner. (That’s why inscriptions were so bad. Promoting node centralization by filling the chain with spam, while promoting miner centralization through private transaction APIs. Double whammy!)

Eg, MARA’s Slipstream API:
https://x.com/JStefanop1/status/1760764664651133162

Jeremy was clear that OP_CTV could be used for anything. He even demo’ed playing tic tac toe on chain. This is why I put CTV in the unsafe category. 

I’m also not trying to quantify the risk. I’m in no position to assess whether it’s likely or not that someone will abuse CTV, CAT, etc, or how they might try. (And, nobody can really know.) My position is that these changes to the protocol should be rejected solely based on their architecture and potential for abuse.