The emphasis of money as a method of payment is a fiat disease.

The fiat system puts a lot of emphasis on monetary velocity, which is a fancy way of saying how much we collectively trade. In a sense, this is an understandable metric. If trades benefit both parties, then more trades mean that more parties are satisfied and more goods are created and exchanged and we have a better economy, right?

In a normal free market economy, yes. But once you make that the metric that you aim at, it becomes worthless. You get boondoggles that count as "trades" when they don't benefit anyone. Malinvestment gets conflated with trades that do benefit everyone. Hence, the Keynesian mistake is to think the metric more important than the underlying thing that it's trying to measure, which is each person's subjective benefit.

Sadly, the Keynesian mentality is pervasive in a fiat money economy and instead of thinking about wealth generation, they merely think of monetary movement. The thing is money should only move when there's a good reason to, as in there's a good or service that's worth the money. If not, moving because of inflationary pressures, for example, is much more likely to lead to malinvestment.

Yet the idea persists that the thing you need more than anything is more trading with a particular currency for prosperity. I believe that's what's driven the Roger Vers of the world to emphasize the payment aspect above everything else. It's a Keynesian deceit.

The incentives will take care of themselves in time, don't be so concerned people aren't "spending" their sats on things. Merchants haven't caught up yet and until they do, we won't see massive uptake on Bitcoin as a method of payment.

Until then, provide value and stack.