Yes, but many people stack and hardly anyone spends, so an individual stacking-and-spending has more cultural and network impact than an individual merely stacking.
It's the spending network, that is still largely in its' infancy, and could use more active participants. Also, the currency aspect is the one that most aggressively challenges the dominance of fiat, so it opens you most up for persecution.
this is why i have the xapo bank account... i keep always bitcoin and only right when i spend i exchange to pay the card. it's kinda frustrating because about 18 months ago i had 10 bit cents. yes. 0.1. but hey, the QD OLED is nice lol.
If you think spending is what drives an economy, you would enjoy reading about Keynsian economics.
Spending is what prompts the creation of spending mediums.
The first transactions in such mediums never make economic sense, at a personal level. People do it for the sake of the spenders who come after them.
Same way some of us did, with the zapathons and trying out new wallets and e-cash.
You are not operating on first principles. If spending drives an economy to be successful, then fiat would succeed, but it fails.
Human needs give rise to demand, relative to the soundness of the trade system bring used, which modifies time preference. High time preference typically leads to poor economic decision making, while low time preference often leads to higher quality economic decision making.
If "hardly anyone spends" it's because they haven't found a product or service that's worth more than the perceived worth of their Bitcoin in the long run. Therefore, "hardly anyone spends" is actually an indictment of the perceived quality of products and services, not the Bitcoin saver.
This isn't a problem with Bitcoin or Bitcoiners or saving Bitcoin. It's a problem of products and services quality, since self-custodied Bitcoin is very high quality, why trade it away for something that isn't of higher quality?
Their are plenty of cantillionairs who have had cultural influence, plenty of negative influence because of their high time preference spending.
Therefore, spending is a bad metric for positive cultural influence. It's the quality of individual decisions that leads to positive or negative cultural influence based on their selected personal values and belief systems.
You are not operating on first principles. If spending drives an economy to be successful, then fiat would succeed, but it fails.
Human needs give rise to demand, relative to the soundness of the trade system bring used, which modifies time preference. High time preference typically leads to poor economic decision making, while low time preference often leads to higher quality economic decision making.
If "hardly anyone spends" it's because they haven't found a product or service that's worth more than the perceived worth of their Bitcoin in the long run. Therefore, "hardly anyone spends" is actually an indictment of the perceived quality of products and services, not the Bitcoin saver.
This isn't a problem with Bitcoin or Bitcoiners or saving Bitcoin. It's a problem of products and services quality, since self-custodied Bitcoin is very high quality, why trade it away for something that isn't of higher quality?
Their are plenty of cantillionairs who have had cultural influence, plenty of negative influence because of their high time preference spending.
Therefore, spending is a bad metric for positive cultural influence. It's the quality of individual decisions that leads to positive or negative cultural influence based on their selected personal values and belief systems.
