If GOOG was appreciating as much as Bitcoin every year and you could buy things with it, why would you hold fiat?
If you convert every paycheck to bitcoins then that money appreciates before you spend it.
If you do not convert every paycheck then that fiat just loses value until you spend it.
Precisely...by this line of reasoning then, is this perhaps why people seem to be hoarding, rather than spending BTC?
Once fiat is converted to
BTC the value of your money appreciates, so why would you spend it?
Why do you currently spend your paycheck of anything instead of converting it all to appreciating assets?
I convert a portion of my paycheck into bitcoin and then I spend a portion of that when the merchant accepts Bitcoins. If I didn't then I would need to convert less of my paycheck into Bitcoin so I had enough "cash" to pay the merchant. The advantage is that the time between when I receive pay and I spend it (even for the portion I spend) I benefit from appreciation instead of purchasing power depreciation. I have also found I makes me take a closer look at the purchase. Spending Bitcoin seems a lot more "real" then entering a CC number.
So the flip side of your question would be why do people have "cash" for more than immediate spending needs? There are trillions of dollars in "cash" (both physical and demand accounts) just seeing their purchasing power decline.
This is helpful. Very much agreed on how "real" it feels to spend
BTC relative to $...and I'd say part of the reason for this is
BTC appreciative nature. The idea of increased purchasing power has obvious merit, despite the significant increased and inherent current market risks (short-term BTC price decline relative to widely accepted fiat vendor benchmarks). Immediate spending needs however (like groceries), would still lend themselves to using depreciating fiat then...unless inflation became unbearable.
It would seem that for now at least, fiat should be used for more routine purchases and BTC should be held? The ecosystem seems to be dictating this, despite the recent
MIT report regarding NEW Bitcoins being more likely spent than hoarded, the
transaction charts seem to be painting a very different picture regarding existing
BTC.
You're still not getting it. If BTC is GUARANTEED to appreciate compared to fiat, then why hold any fiat at all? Assume a world where everything you could ever want to purchase is purchasable with Bitcoin.
Assuming Bitcoin appreciation, there is no reason to say that "fiat should be used for more routine purchases". Why would you say that? What makes fiat better for routine purposes than Bitcoin? The fact that Bitcoin can appreciate, so you might be missing out on appreciation because you spent it? Ok, so why not have all of your money in Bitcoin and just use it as needed? Then, at least you can enjoy short-term appreciation until the Bitcoin is spent.
Putting all of that aside, the implied argument that you seem to be making is that people won't spend an appreciating currency. That's easily proven false in two ways:
1) Computers/technology. People could wait until next year to get an even better, faster computer with more features for the same price. Yet they buy computers today. How can you explain that when their purchasing power is increasing over time? Obviously, increasing purchasing power does not discourage people from buying pieces of technology.
2) Investments/stocks. Anyone can easily increase their purchasing power over time by investing into stocks, mutual funds, real estate, etc. Yet, many choose not to. How can you explain the fact that people are buying ANYTHING beyond what is absolutely necessary to survive when they could instead be increasing their purchasing power by investment?
The whole argument that people won't spend an appreciating currency sounds great on the surface, but is really just a complete fallacy.