They are. Anything can serve as a SoV if people are willing to park wealth in it, but I think money will follow a power law (winner-take-most/all). I don't understand why someone would hold money in a good that's less liquid or salable for any time longer than needed to transact.
-
-
TLDR: you can't have a widespread monetary MoE which isn't also a widespread monetary SoV. Having one coin be a SoV and another coin be an MoE is a fallacy. SoV and MoE are inextricably linked.
-
But don't you think Murad, LN can be detrimental for btc as a SoV because of the velocity problem? Why is LN needed when btc is still evolving as a SoV? You want people to hold not to spend (high fees shouldn't be a problem right now if you are not going to buy coffee with btc)
-
velocity is only bad if people transfer out to USD after they receive BTC. If they keep holding BTC upon receipt, it doesn't reduce BTC price. velocity for debt-based instrument vs. equity/commodity based instruments has different effects. fiat is debt based, bitcoin is commod
-
But if you start using it as money due to LN effect, velocity wouldn't affect it as it does with fiat? Don't you think LN should be better implemented in the future, in the MoE you talk about?
-
I don't think LN will be widespread use before BTC is $10T+ in today's terms. as epic as LN is, I, for one, am not spending my BTC for another decade at least
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
