It also doesn't require any policy-level changes, but rather a keener understanding of the network effects of certain behaviors with the monetary system, hopefully encouraging a shift in activity that could bring about a positive impact such as securing the network. Free people will do what free people do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage certain forms of activity based on wisdom, experience, and reason.
nostr:npub10907sxt2afl6smpps88gjvksrl99enqhey0tlharfr7crrheld3s8esah4 There is actually some very keen logic behind the thinking. Isolating the decreasing mining reward over a time curve, miners are incentivized less and less to continue their activities when there is no reward being paid out; blockchain security will inevitably dwindle without a large pool of incentivized miners forking over the flops and power to keep it secure. By utilizing the main chain as a monetary system (its intended use case), and by setting ground early for widespread adoption of main chain transactions at a large scale, we can more-greatly secure the network far into the decades to come (Inshallah) through blockspace rewards
Discussion
What you’re describing is technically correct, but it’s not understanding that drives economic activity. We can’t speculate on what will be the value of tx fees/tiny subsidies. If Bitcoin does what we expect, 100k sats could buy you a house in a decade. Miners would be plenty incentivized to throw hashrate at that. If you want to spend your sats, go for it; hyping people into doing the same is very meh. What if they need the savings protection more than the thing they could buy with dollars.
There’s plenty of folks who are interested in exchanging sats for goods, today, tomorrow, and for the years to come. Many folks, such as us, want to use Bitcoin for its original intended purpose: as a currency. Anyone who wants to hodl for the long term, that’s their business, and I’m sure they will benefit from it immensely, Inshallah
You’re both right, but I want to add something. Increasing monetary density doesn’t require policy changes (like the PR being discussed), nor does it need hype campaigns to get people to spend their sats. What it really needs is a better understanding of how monetary demand works.
When regular people start spending sats, merchants begin accepting them. This triggers real-world Bitcoin adoption, which directly increases monetary demand. More demand = more NGU. This isn’t some altruistic idea, it’s pragmatic if you consider the second-order effects. As adoption grows, blockspace fills up, driving fees higher. Higher on-chain fees increase the economic density on Lightning too.
The common misconception is that spending sats means losing wealth over time. That’s not just wrong in theory, it’s wrong in practice. By finding creative ways to spend sats, people often end up accumulating more Bitcoin than they would through their regular DCA habits. Over time, this boosts their total holdings.
Plus, by spending, they support adoption, especially among merchants, who are still overwhelmingly at zero. And as monetary demand rises, NGU kicks in, just like what happened during the monetization of gold and silver. So plebs end up with more sats and those sats gain purchasing power. Since sats are finite, this also naturally encourages better spending discipline and higher savings rates.
One final point: Gresham’s Law doesn’t apply here the way people think. It refers to the circulation of coins with equal face value but different metal content - not to the fiat vs Bitcoin debate. Saying “good money won’t be spent while bad money is around” misses the mark entirely.
I think a vein of confusion or misunderstanding arose here; I’m pretty sure EricFJ and I are advocating for the very same thing you described here in this last message. I’m actually not sure what PR you’re talking about; was the the “Knots drop” that we’ve been building this sub thread about?
Shameless plug, I’m pretty sure our missions and opinions, overall, are are quite aligned. https://conduit.market