[edited out]
My Dad (may his soul rest in perfect peace) would always advice me against selling my properties or belongings (for any reason) with intentions of buying them back later because getting them back would never be as easy as it looks, and the price may have even tripled by the time you're ready to buy them back, and i believe it's similar to selling off a percentage of your stash with intentions of buying in a dip because the next dip might even be higher than your anticipated price so it's a risk that i believe isn't worth taking.
You might be able to apply similar ideas to other assets and/or currencies, yet I have me doubts... .
since bitcoin is likely the most sound money that has ever been put into existence, which causes potentialities that there could be a step up in its price at any time, and since we cannot know when the step up in price is going to come, then we have to make sure that we are erroring on the side of always being in and being really sparing with any amount of bitcoin that we might sell, especialy whil ew are in early to mid stages of our bitcoin accumulation journey.
-
There is one thing I would love to discuss with an open-minded excellent economist though. Money is good money when it preserves value, serves as a unit of account, is fungible and portable, which implies that it meets demand for high velocity. The last point is the interesting part here because bitcoin doesn't only preserve value, but due to its scarcity and all the other characteristics, it is very likely to go up in price.
Sure those are likely the main qualities in which any discussion can be had, and surely we have to talk about verifiability and also in regards of costs associated with it whether transactional or storage and/or safekeeping costs.
So whether the person is an economist or not, there is value in terms of attempting to grapple with the main features and perhaps throwing around some examples. One of the benefits of an economist or any learned person is that they may well be spending a lot of time playing around with examples, so they might have a lot of ideas in their head as compared to someone who might be doing manual labor all day long they might not be thinking about economics in the same kinds of ways.
For as long as bitcoin is a promising investment that increases in value instead of only preserving it, people will tend to hoard it instead of using it.
Nothing wrong with that. You hold the most valuable asset and you spend the least. Is anyone going to starve to death because he does not want to spend his bitcoin? I doubt it. We have certain preferences to satisfy our desires rather than to delay gratification, so there are going to be trade offs between spending right now versus spending later, and if we have a variety of assets/currencies, then if we know the difference in their value, then it is quite likely that we are going to chose to spend from the one that has the least storage value first... ...same thing if we have some food and we are not getting any more for a week or more then we would likely eat the more perishable kinds of foods first.
Doesn't that mean that FIAT will be needed because psychologically people would at least tend to use their inflating FIAT to either buy bitcoin or, also very important, keep the economy thriving due to investment in other assets like real estate and consumption of goods and services. Low investment quotas or high saving quotas so to say, can have negative effects on an economy. I don't know if I have a logic error here at hand, but that's a question I could never find a satisfactory answer to yet. What is your thought on this?
It seems to me that currently a lot of our goods and/or our assets are mispriced based on various ways that fiat is currently corrupted and even we are brainwashed into believing that our money is meant to lose value with the passage of time.. .which truly is not even a valid characterization of a quality of money.
Bitcoin likely helps to bring back some honesty in the money, even though fiat systems such as use of debt and/or other ways of financializing are not going to disappear overnight...so I doubt that any of us can really particularize how systems are going to evolve as bitcoin becomes more and more dominant and people realize that there is an asset/currency that they can hold their value and it goes up with time rather than down.
Maybe once bitcoin were to reach widespread adoption it would not go up, but instead just hold its value, yet when we are in earliest of adoption phases, bitcoin's value (price) is going up based on increasing adoption rather than changes in bitcoin's relative value compared with other assets/currencies.
The reason I bring up the idea that FIAT would still have a function is similar to what happens in casinos when people are supposed to buy chips. Those chips are easier to spend psychologically and it feels the same with bitcoin. Touching bitcoin is almost painful if you have to. FIAT not, I don't care if I have to pay something and I got FIAT, not an issue at all. But selling bitcoin feels bad. That is why I think FIAT might still have a certain function for a very long time. Hope this makes sense.
As long as various monies exist then the less valuable will be spent first, and sure it could take 50-200 years or longer before all monetary value gravitates into bitcoin. Houses, food, cars etc still have utility value, but their monetary value may well end up getting sucked away by bitcoin being a more efficient monetary instrument, yet you are correct, there still may be some utility in the use of other kinds of monies or tokens.