I’m on Murad’s side. Why would you not just hold Bitcoin instead of depending on a central bank keeping their currency steady with Bitcoin?
-
-
World has existed without central banks before, so that seems like a possible scenario. If they choose to adapt with a peg, they would have to do a series of major devaluations. There will always be people who want to sidestep the banks completely. But not everyone.
-
Obviously if they no longer have a monopoly on money their role changes. What my contention is, is that central banks, facing a hyperbitcoinization crisis, can choose to value stabilize in unison versus bitcoin, curbing its deflationary properties to what is handable.
-
Sure. Personally I think transacting directly with btc is superior, provided it can handle the throughput, but not everyone will want to take that responsibility/burden. The ? is what % uses BTC directly and what % uses fiat peg. 80/20 perhaps? (Fiat/BTC)
-
why have Fiat peg if we can have Lightning or even centralized solutions built on top of BTC like Square Cash etc.
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.