Avik’s big point was “What will people do if they close the fiat-Bitcoin exchanges?” (In order to shill stablecoins.) He’s worried about people not being allowed to sell their dollars for Bitcoin in a debt crisis. 1. Lots of people will have to book real losses. So sayonara to many of your financial assets and accounts anyway. 2. The better point: Most people don’t have much savings or financial assets to sell for Bitcoin. Their biggest asset is their labor/business. So they will sell their goods and services directly for Bitcoin, which they’ll then use to buy goods and services from others. Simple. Where we’re going, we don’t need stablecoins, digital credit, tokenized this or that. People just need a money that works.

Replies (1)

His second point is the stronger one, and it still skips the layer that binds. In the US bitcoin counts as property, so a shop accepting sats books a disposal with its own basis, and a gain or loss, on every sale. Lightning solved settlement; accounting stayed unsolved, and nobody keeps a bookkeeper per coffee. Working capital is the other wall. From delivery to payment the shop carries the price risk while suppliers still want terms. Credit does grow out of trade, but slowly. Until it does, the merchant converts to dollars at the first opportunity, the exact dependency Avik describes. If the savings base really is that small, the choke point was never the whale's exit.
↑