You have a key fundamental flaw in your reasoning. If Bitcoin goes from $100k to $200k the price of the apple in sats will be cut in half. Unless the seller of the apple leaves the price of his apple the same in sats. However, because prices fall to the marginal cost of production, that apple seller will rapidly be starved out of the market by all other apple sellers who adjusted their prices downward accordingly. I could price my house at 8 Bitcoin forever, but no one would buy my house when the price of Bitcoin went up. They’d find a different home seller that repriced their home accordingly.

Bottom line, priced in sats, the cost of items go down because we become better at producing them and there is a finite supply (21 million) of the money that everything will be priced in.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

My suspicion is that most don’t understand negative interest rates:

A Porsche costs 2 #BTC this year, will cost 1 #BTC next year, and 0.5 #BTC the following year. So logically I would just wait 2 years buy a newer Porsche and have 1.5 #BTC left over.

Of course it might be 0.25 #BTC the following year so I might just wait.

So if I borrow 1 #BTC at -50% interest rate I could wait 2 years but the Porsche for 0.5 #BTC pay the bank back 0.25 #BTC , and put 0.25 #BTC in my pocket.

#BTC #HODL #bitcoinstr

This is why I think lending will largely go away, and most everything will be equity investing. I know you used an extreme number to illustrate your point, but the negative rate would trend toward the inverse of productivity minus storage costs. Something like -2 or 3%. Just give me the equity upside to part with my sats.

I disagree. Because (modern) equity requires governance control. Most modern “entrepreneurs” are cucked by their equity investors. Public and private and venture equity…they all control the entrepreneur.

A good entrepreneur worth a damn won’t part with the equity. Which means most entrepreneurs will seek debt funding (priority claims) vs. giving up control and upside of their ventures.

Equity and debt instruments are going to look completely different on a fixed money supply. Almost all projects were financed with equity in the past. It was this fact that was the impetus for the formation of the federal reserve. To force people to fund with debt instead. The old system of capital investment will return when the money can’t be printed into existence.

I don’t think that is accurate. A lot of rich people who had gold reserves collateralized their gold for bank loans which were in turn invested in “guaranteed” priority debt claims on projects … which also included yields on projects.

Debt (priority) claims are very attractive for numerous reason on a sound money standard.

It is exciting times we live in because only time will tell how this really pans out. #BTC is a much harder asset than gold. Keep in mind they’re digging 54,000,000 ounces of gold / year out of the Earth and if the price of gold goes up, that number goes up, but it doesn’t matter how high the price of bitcoin goes #BTC will only be 450 tokens / day. And that number will be reduced by two in about 3 1/2 years.

#HODL #BTC #bitcoinstr

But that wasn’t the general trend. Society was moving to equity investments as capital. Also, more importantly, that bank was fractionally reserving their gold deposits. They created some portion of the loan out of thin air. There eventually will be no dollars to create out of thin air.

This is essentially what happened (and happens) in deflationary environments.

Example being WW1. People were hoarding cash because it would buy more later. Of course back then the USD was backed by Gold.