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.