Bitcoin is uniquely suited for saving for many reasons, but the most important may be that there is equal overhead for saving 1 sat or saving 1 hundred million sats.

Most assets or goods imply some cost or overhead to stockpile and save. This can conflict with marginal utility: since you don't need the good to satisfy a pressing need today, the "cost" of storing it long-term has to work out with regard to your confidence that you will need it in the future for a more pressing need later.

That conflict is removed when there is low to no cost for saving arbitrary units.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I call that ultra-wide-scaling. Same cost to move 1 sat as it does 21M BTC.

That's the essence of Gsell's book "The Natural Economic Order". Being able to store something ad infinitum is unnatural and therefore any money with this property will fail to support an economy. This will eventually happen to current fiat currencies. However Bitcoin is even so much worse in that regard so that the Bitcoin economy never gets off the ground in the first place. #wetwipes nostr:nprofile1qqs99d9qw67th0wr5xh05de4s9k0wjvnkxudkgptq8yg83vtulad30gprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wdmksetjv5hxxmmdqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqg4waehxw309askwemj9ehx7um5wghxcctwvss2rp25