so in case it's not confusing enough, here's my confusing take: the tax treatment of bitcoin is that it is capital.

to spend something as money that causes you to loose 20% of it's value just for spending it...that doesn't seem very smart.

so i get why Saylor is like "let them have dollars, if we can keep the bitcoin and issue debt backed by it."

since it's digital capital that has the technical ability to be money, once there is regulatory clarity.

until that day comes, I get why someone who is efficiency-oriented to not spend it and issue these stable coins.

the rest of us zapping capital as money are just eccentric.

i could be wrong, but i don't think nature likes eccentric.