That's fair and fine if you are speaking to a classical economist....but when you are trying to explain these complex concepts to a broad audience, like you very often do, it is important to simplify even further. Especially if you are a Bitcoin advocate.
Crap money is not money.
Sound money is money.
I strongly believe we should move away from referring to dollars as money if only for this purpose alone.
Also there is a very strong school of thought, no less than from nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m himself, that Bitcoin must become a MoE to succeed. Resigning our fate to saylor-esque / fed / BlackRock views that the dollar will not / should not be replaced as a transactional medium is likely selling ourselves short.
Now...would you like to zap me in sats or cents?
You're going to lose people with that approach. By saying the money people literally use day to day isn't, but your internet funny money is, you've lost the audience.
This is why Austrian economics never takes off. People who pitch it ALWAYS lose the audience in the conversation.
I understand you, most people won't hear it.
Ya I suppose it's just the difference between gentle public pandering vs. more abrupt truth bombs.
Both work for different people, and most bitcoin'er types prefer the latter, as do I.
