you can say " it's eroding the purchasing power at a predetermined rate " you can also say " all network participants bear the burden of paying for network security" network security is a cost. it must be paid or the network is valueless. Bitcoin is betting that a subset of users (people who make transactions) will be sufficient. much has been said about this and as far as I can tell discussing it isn't a worthwhile use of time. I hope it pays off. but this further incentivizes hoarding. people who make transactions are penalized with fees, people who hoard reap the benefits of the network security for free. this is a bad incentive. That's the network security argument. as far as "hoarding doesn't happen because a credit system develops on top of it," it's a huge leap of faith to think that this credit system is going to maintain the underlying properties of the L1. there are vast incentives for early adopters to come together and issue some bullshit " backed by Bitcoin". what makes you think they will play fair? The credit expansion is necessary or there's no investment. but they are highly incentivized to not actually risk the fundamental asset. A Bitcoin standard actually looks like a select early adopters working with the state to issue a fiat CBDC that is used publicly. that is the new banking system. (and I suspect that's why Guy doesn't want to talk about it)