The topic of spending Bitcoin to spur on adoption is becoming a hot topic lately. There have already been a few threads here on Stacker News urging people to spend and replace their Bitcoin rather than simply HODL it, so we thought it would be a fun discussion to talk about the pros and cons of spending Bitcoin.
On the one hand, the growing "spend and replace" movement believes that by nudging people to spend their Bitcoin and replace them with new coins, the Bitcoin ecosystem will benefit in a few ways:
- More merchants could begin accepting Bitcoin
- Coins could be more widely distributed among more people
- Spending could help some people perceive Bitcoin as a more useful form of money
- A vibrant market of P2P spenders and earners could limit the effectiveness of any future exchange regulations or crackdowns
On the other hand, there are a number of drawbacks to spending Bitcoin:
- In most countries, spending Bitcoin creates a taxable event
- Spending local fiat currencies is typically a better payment experience (NFC-enabled cards, phone/watch taps)
- Price volatility and currency conversions create friction for both consumers and merchants
To kick off the discussion, here are a few thought-starter questions:
- Is spending your Bitcoin an effective way to create Bitcoin adoption?
- What are the social risks to the Bitcoin community of vilifying the idea of HODLing?
- How important is it that Bitcoiners help distribute coins among more people around the world?
- What signals or metrics are most important in convincing merchants to accept Bitcoin?
- How often do you spend your Bitcoin?
- Have you ever convinced a merchant to accept Bitcoin? How did you do it?