Let me simplify the point with an example:

Imagine you have $100 in fiat and 100,000 sats (both worth $100 at the moment).

- Scenario 1: You spend $100 fiat on groceries.

Result: You still have 100,000 sats, but you've lost the opportunity to buy more sats with that $100.

- Scenario 2: You spend 100,000 sats on groceries.

Result: You still have $100 fiat, which you can immediately use to buy back 100,000 sats.

The key is: In both scenarios, you end up with the same amount of Bitcoin. The difference is that in Scenario 2, you've contributed to Bitcoin adoption by using it as a medium of exchange.

The "spend vs. hold" debate isn't about choosing one or the other exclusively. It's about understanding that spending Bitcoin (and immediately replacing it) can help drive adoption without affecting your long-term holdings. By spending (and replacing), you support the Bitcoin ecosystem while maintaining your position. This approach combines the benefits of "stacking sats" for the long term with actively using Bitcoin as intended - as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

I hope the example helps to get my point across.