100% agree, but….
To play devil’s advocate,
I’ve heard of two scenarios that I was kind of like ok I think I get that.
1.) mining shitcoins to buy nonkyc bitcoin
2.) using monero itself to buy nonkyc bitcoin
Mind you, neither scenario involves actually HOLDING a shitcoin 😂 and I’ve never done either, but it made me think.
Don’t come for me.
Totally yes. I am not denying there are niches for monero or other shitcoins. But bitcoin is relatively simple with potential to be a universal currency. Add even one shitcoin with its respective extra steps to the mix at scale, and ain’t nobody doing that shit
There are only two currencies I'm interested in: bitcoin to whatever extent it works, and whatever else is optimal for the rest (I'd choose monero)
Bitcoin is optimal money, but a very suboptimal currency. Flakes of gold were similarly untenable as a currency FWIW.
I assume you mean exchange rate volatility. It’s not bitcoin’s fault there are dumb fucks 10x leveraging fat stacks at every turn. Over time it should settle down. Definitely does not merit digital bimetalism imo
No I don't mean exchange rate volatility; I mean the costs of using bitcoin P2P (without a third party involved and all the metadata that creates) are too high for most transactions which are small.
Bimetalism may be exactly what we need. One currency that acts as commodity money (scarcity heavy, SoV), and one other to act as credit money (settlement of debts, MoE). I don't think we can have our cake and eat it too with a single asset. For two schools of monetary theory, two sets of constraints & tradeoffs seems sensible 🤷♂️
Fiat Central-Bank Monopoly Money certainly ain't the answer
