pull down to refresh
it will allow to implement a better dollar.
I'd say "require", rather than allow. I don't see it as sustainable, though. Just like with gold, the ability to cheat will eventually be too tempting for the money printers and the dollar will collapse like every other fiat has.
If the trend of people adopting stablecoins grows faster than the trend of people adopting bitcoin, the distance will grow over time,
Not indefinitely. Adoption curves are logistic, not exponential. If bitcoin is on a logistic adoption curve that is lagging stablecoins, it actually implies that bitcoin will displace stablecoins in the future: i.e. stable coins plateau and then bitcoin eats into their share.
I don't see it as sustainable
Not if centralized, that's for certain. I see the solution in the free competition of issuers.
i.e. stable coins plateau and then bitcoin eats into their share.
That's assuming that stablecoins have not solved the problem themselves (in which case bitcoin would lose its edge). My argument is that they will be more adopted than bitcoin because they will solve the problem, and that bitcoin will be adopted indirectly in consequence, for I think that the only stablecoin which can properly solve the problem has to be built upon bitcoin.
Until that's done, this will be an eternal battle between bitcoin trying to rise (prevented of doing so because of the volatility implied by the paradox) and an unending series of stablecoins rising to eat the share of the falling stablecoins, which will keep bitcoin's share at bay as the race to the same plateau never ends but remains a boom-and-bust cycle.
Hence the reason the only solution to the paradox is a hybrid: not "stablecoins or bitcoin", but a stablecoin built upon bitcoin.
No Sr I don't!
That's exactly the argument of the paradox. It happens precisely because of the unavoidable graduality of an adoption process.
It absolutely does matter how few. If the trend of people adopting stablecoins grows faster than the trend of people adopting bitcoin, the distance will grow over time, which will cause bitcoin having an increasingly small percentage of the user base, despite being increasingly more adopted. As that tendency continues, which is currently the case, volatility will remain, which is currently the case.
It effectively does, as it contemplates what happens when those actions on the margins try to scale up.
My argument is that both things will help each other. Bitcoin will not replace a currency like the dollar but it will allow to implement a better dollar. In that sense I side with the argument that bitcoin is digital gold, rather than currency.