One view:

“If you think there will be multiple monetary objects outside of Bitcoin, or imagine there will be any sort of fractional reserve instrument that anyone anywhere will accept for goods/services, you do not understand Bitcoin. You might have 1000x more bitcoin than me, have been around more than twice as long, doesn't make you any less wrong.

Hal Finney suggested there would be fractional reserve banks, under competitive free banking, but the competitive equilibrium is actually effectively 0 fractional reserves. Think more than one step out -- there is inherently no fungibility between disparate objects. A fractional reserve token introduces a double standard, and in a digital world with bitcoin, there is never a reason for multiple objects.

It is an information loss minimization problem. And a single object minimizes the losses for it maximally reduces the computational problems involved in economic decisions. I can sort of see why this might not be ENTIRELY obvious to people who do not know basic physics or chemistry.

Moreover, Hal is not God and can make errors. Hal in 2023 would surely disagree with Hal from 2010, and certainly on this.

Source:

note16str78s0msgjxs7ltk9uur7nrnrz57sdx9jatxvneuxc35qsenastzm4st

Another view:

“Good morning, it is unlikely that Bitcoin will ever be the only form of money.

Money is a use-case, anything can be used as money.

Bitcoin is the best abstract store of value, but people will always want at least one alternative, and people will always want forms of credit.”

Source: