[heyitsguay]

I understand the appeal and benefits of decentralized services, and how they could apply to currency, but I think there's something wrong with the idea that a successful currency should increase in value by orders of magnitude (or even at all). Like, E-mail is a very successful decentralized service, and people make money in relation to e-mail protocol specifications by providing value on top of it. Nobody got rich just for getting their gmail account early. I know there is a lot of experimentation being done in stablecoins, but it seems like speculative quests for the next 1000x return drive development instead of just trying to solve the problem of safely, quickly, and reliably digitally storing and exchanging value.

[thehappypm]

I do think it’s counterproductive that it was even possible for people to use Bitcoin as an asset. I doubt that Satoshi foresaw Bitcoin billionaires.

Currencies have historically worked that they’re stable (ish). And to become rich you have to acquire more units. Not hope your units grow in value. If you expect appreciation then your currency is deflationary which makes it unsuitable for a currency.

[atatatat]

So, the USD, which has been inflated every time they expanded the empire over the last XXX years, but their citizenship/working class feels it's deflationary, so they keep chasing it as fast as they possibly can...?

[thehappypm]

What?

[atatatat]

You're claiming inflationary currencies have never been suitable.

Nonsense. Until recently, we've seen the currencies of large empires like Britain and US do nothing but inflate, yet their currency and their economies function just fine.

[thehappypm]

No, I'm claiming deflationary currencies are unsuitable. Inflationary currencies are much more desirable, which is why the world powers tend to have slightly inflating currencies.