pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Myshkin 27 Nov \ on: My thoughts on Bitcoin Maximalist alter_native
Thanks for posting. I'm not really confident that Bitcoin will ever be considered as fiat in terms of spending patterns. Mainly because:
  1. It's not fiat, it's sound money. And people think twice before wasting sound money.
  2. Because of point (1), people tend to think about it as a resource to increase their purchasing power across time and store it across time and space. Which means that, if both fiat and bitcoin is available as payment option and the payer holds sufficient quantity of both, the incentives are to spend fiat. Which means that, as long as fiat resists, people ar incentivized to perpetuate its existence by collateralizing sats in order to get some fiat. And then spend fiat and pay back the loan hoping that the mid-term appreciation of sats vs fiat will be faster than the interests of the loan.
Honestly, I feel that the real proportion of Maxis among the "crypto users" is way below 5%...probably 5% of the "bitcoiners" are maxis. And if we consider "holding only bitcoin and not shitcoins" as a necessary condition for being a Maxi, then it's in the range of 0.01% - 0.1% of the crypto holders.
So, most "bitcoiners" own also shitcoins. Most Maxis, which we assumed are the "bitcoin only people" tend to have a profound understanding of bitcoin and its potential. Which means that they tend to NOT be willing to spend it daily. From an incentives perspective, Maxis are the less incentivized to spend it.
If you're bitcoin only, then you may be spending it out of necessity and because you're literally forced to do it.
I hold sats, my savings are sats. All I own is sats, and I spend sats. Daily. And I know that this is NOT what bitcoiners usually do. Which makes me a crazy idealistic fool that is burning future wealth just to make a living today.
My question to any bitcoiner is: are you willing to be an idealistic fool that burns future wealth to make a living today? The answer to that has always been "NO".
I guess I'll die both fiat-poor and sats-poor. Anyone will think that I've been a fool, but I feel thisbis the ONLY way by which bitcoin can win. Bitcoin wins if us, bitcoiners, actively destroy fiat by not owning it, not using sats as collateral for shitcoins or fiat.
Ar you willing to do it? To be the sacrificial lamb?
write
preview
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 2 Dec
It's not fiat, it's sound money. And people think twice before wasting sound money.
People will also think twice before accepting shit money at some point.
You're thinking about Gresham's law but it only applies if you're forced to accept the bad money due to (effective) legal tender laws. When that's not the case anymore, Thier's law will apply:
Those examples show that in the absence of effective legal tender laws, Gresham's law works in reverse. If given the choice of what money to accept, people will accept the money they believe to be of highest long-term value, and not accept what they believe to be of low long-term value. If not given the choice and required to accept all money, good and bad, they will tend to keep the money of greater perceived value in their own possession and pass the bad money to others.
reply