|
|
|
|
|
by chowchowchow
493 days ago
|
|
> You are conflating liquidity with deflation. To be a currency it has to be liquid, we agree. We also agree btc is not as liquid as cash. But deflation or stability is orthogonal from liquidity. I’m not; you have a limited view of what inefficiency means. The currency can be liquid and still inefficient for exchange due to other kinds of overhead such as opportunity cost of spending the currency itself. The economy is not money but a frictionless (opportunity cost wise NOT liquidity wise as you keep trying to divert to) currency is better for facilitating exchange and access to goods and services. I think a perfectly stable currency could be OK too but that would require incredible management on the monetary side to maintain that equilibrium. And absent being able to hit that bullseye it’s been proven, as much as things like this can be, that a stable little bit of inflation with a fiat currency is much stabler and leads to more prosperity than a currency bound by finite resources external to the economy. Isn’t it enough that you can buy gold or whatever or bitcoin with your depreciating dollars? Why the fixation on it being a currency? |
|
A true economy of low friction btc transactions for pizza has never existed at the scale banks do pay wave. Its hypothetical frictionless, not actual. I'm willing to bet even legalised state coins will be tracked, frictive and taxed.