0/ Blockchain will first redefine what assets are considered money. Then it will actually reduce the total demand for money. Yes, blockchain will actually mean we need less money in the economy. Time for a thread.
-
-
I predict the market will demand “Simple Money” for decades to come. Either BTC or a Stablecoin are destined to be enormous. Doubt it’s ETH. Programmability is overrated, Security/Immutability underrated. I think smart contracts should be L2 on top of money.

-
Programmability may be over rated but as
@KyleSamani has argued overall utility maybe underrated. The market may heavily favor coin that is quick, easy, cheap to use - not necessarily "most sound". The coin that scales and provides best ux wins. The frontrunner here is Eth imo. -
That’s one scenario for sure. Problem is, value accrues to the coin most hodled, not the coin most used. 1) In the world u describe, why not hold 90% of your wealth in a gold brick (BTC) and 10% in cool easy utility fuel? (ETH) 2) Is ~2% inflation worth the perks vs. deflationary
-
(last reply should have been in this thread). Also I know your example is hypothetical, but I don't think people would hold 90% SoV, 10% MoE simply because it's too complex. When it comes to billions of people I think simplicity and UX will trump almost everything else.
-
By this thinking Stablecoins are even better than ETH because they are stable, and as such, a superior MoE and UoA & also because ETH would partially disincentivize spending as it keeps growing in value.
-
Stability has benefit for sure. I think it's complex though. How much stability will the market forego in favor of potential for value appreciation? Supply inflation is definitely a negative, but mass adoption could far outweigh this. All taken on balance, what will market adopt?
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.
