Topic: What if the Satoshi (Sats), became the foundation of our economy? - page 2. (Read 305 times)

Satoshi is just a small portion of the bitcoin only, and it doesn't make too much impact if you are just a small investor, else you are one of the whales who hold a large amount of bitcoin this every action you make will affect the market people can sell their coins too or grab the opportunity to buy but if just a small portion of satoshi only seems not have an impact at all. Another thing is economy may vary depending on the current state of the world if the transaction or trades of a different country is good or not that may affect the economic growth. Each country that is connected into it have a changes or decisions in their it may affect the people who transact to them.

In my opinion "the a reason why dollar isn't pegged to gold anymore" and its implications, is exactly why Bitcoin was created.

And I'm not even suggesting that countries should adopt Sats as the form of money but people could. One of the foundations of "money" is to be a store-of-value because you want to save it for the later day. In today's environment people are being stolen from via inflation.

If governments would want to spend more they would pay people and businesses a decent interest on their sats deposits.

I agree we are far away from being able to pay salaries in sats but getting paid for a small good or service makes a lot of sense to me.

My apologies if I'm biased. Truly appreciate your feedback!

There's a reason why dollar isn't pegged to gold anymore. And for that same reason no country that actually has their economy working, would use bitcoin as their nation's currency. Money is good for fast liquidity, for something that holds it value rather stable. It is inflationary by design as if it would grow in value like bitcoin, or even just cutting the inflation, could break the whole economy. People would spend and invest less as it would be way safer just kept hoarding money, so there wouldn't be healthy flow of money that brings jobs and keeps economy alive.

Governments wouldn't have any buffer if for some emergency they would need it. And buffers like ability to print money, can prevent troubles, that without it could bring the country to total collapse. Nor governments have as much, or if any control as monetary system that they handle would be handled by someone else.

With growth of value, wage adjustements would be a mess, and hiring could end up being just too expensive There would be trade imbalance, mostly imported goods as producing anything in that country would become very expensive compared to anywhere else. And god knows what as i haven't really thought this trough. I am not an expert of any means yet i see more problems then upside.

Thank you all for sharing your opinions! I understand that most of the feedback is negative, and I accept that perspective. It's worth remembering that many groundbreaking ideas initially sounded crazy or unjustified.

Since the inception of Bitcoin, I believe that many of us have deepened our understanding of the theoretical and practical aspects of money.

Now, what intrigues me the most is the comparison between a sats-first economy - where sats are deflationary by nature - and the current system, where currencies are inherently inflationary. it seems that by the nature of it, people would tend to be saving more. Because tomorrow on average these sats would provide one with greater purchasing power.

That made some sense to me. In our local board (Spanish) we have talked about that possibility more than once (I mean, about satoshis being the norm, not Bitcoins). In Spain, before the Euro we had the "Peseta", and a beer at today's exchange rate would've costed back in the old days like 300 pesetas; but in other countries not too culturally far, in Latam, the national coins are worth even less, with a Columbian Peso with a value that would make that beer cost 8,000 COP, which is 1,000 units more than if we compared it with the same price in sats (around 7,000 sats).

In fact, I think that a coin with such a low value could be helpful to stop the inflation. So, I wouldn't mind to pay in sats, in fact, I find it more natural than to say "0.0000684 BTC, please".

The idea of using cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin's smallest unit known as Satoshi (sats), as a foundation for an economy frankly speaking, at this age and time, it won't be a great idea for several reasons, though it will be an interesting concept. However, I might be wrong, but there are several practical and theoretical considerations to take into account:

1. Volatility:
Cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, are known for their price volatility. This volatility could pose challenges for the stability of an economy, as the value of the currency can fluctuate significantly over short periods. This could affect people's purchasing power and confidence in the currency.

2. Adoption and Acceptance:
For a cryptocurrency to become the foundation of an economy, widespread adoption and acceptance are crucial. Businesses, governments, and individuals would need to be willing to use and transact in the cryptocurrency.

3. Infrastructure:
Building the necessary technological infrastructure to support an economy based on a cryptocurrency would be a significant undertaking. This includes creating secure and efficient payment systems, wallets, and other financial services.

4. **Regulation:** Governments and regulatory bodies would likely play a role in overseeing and regulating an economy based on cryptocurrency. The regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies varies widely by country and could impact the feasibility of such an economic system.

5. Scalability:
As cryptocurrencies gain popularity, they may face challenges related to scalability. Current blockchain technology has limitations in terms of processing a large number of transactions quickly and efficiently.

6. Privacy and Security:
Cryptocurrencies raise concerns about privacy and security. Transactions on a public blockchain are visible to all, which could have implications for personal privacy and security.

7. Inclusion:
Ensuring that an economy based on cryptocurrency is inclusive and accessible to all segments of the population, including those without access to technology or the internet, would be a significant consideration.

8. Global Implications:
 If a cryptocurrency-based economy were to gain traction, it could have implications for the global financial system, trade, and monetary policy.

However, the ongoing development and evolution of cryptocurrencies could potentially shape the future of financial systems in ways that are difficult to predict. I look forward to this concept in perhaps, the next century or more.

For now, I don't want to speculate like that. Because for now it is very unlikely to happen. So the most important thing than all of this, is to think realistically that currently bitcoin is not accepted by everyone and is even still a very minority, if we look at the comparison between the number of people in the world and bitcoin users this year.
Bitcoin fractions (satoshis) have no physical form, they are just data. So if satoshis are made into fractions, and for example change the foundation of the world economy, in my opinion it will end badly. Because for now, satoshi is still very cheap. 1 bitcoin is equivalent to 100,000,000 satoshi. So if for example satoshi are used as currency fractions, maybe the amount is too much.
To be honest, if this is done, I think it will be a bad foundation too. Because seeing the price volatility that occurs with bitcoin, it is certain that if satoshi is applied to the economic system, it will definitely be unstable too. So at this point fiat money is indeed superior to bitcoin fractions (satoshi).
I think it will be difficult. Because creating a financial system that is truly fair and equitable, it will definitely be difficult. Because the financial system that is managed by every country still tends to be unfair, especially since this is global in nature and is only based on one system, namely satoshi.

- Form of money. There are countries in the world where the local currency main denomination is worth less than a satoshi. Like 1 satoshi = 4.45 IDR (a pint of Beer would probably cost >50,000 IDR);
- Stability. I think that transacting in sats for day-to-day transactions would improve Bitcoin's stability because real value of bread or a service is not that volatile.

And I believe that at points there are many other currencies that are more volatile than Bitcoin.

Hopefully, Bitcoin will get to the where it will be generally accepted by the majority of the world's population. Just like we have other fractions of currencies such as pence and cents,  sats will also be accepted as a fraction of Bitcoin. The worth of Bitcoin will affect the purchasing power of sats. Sats might be able to buy some items if the price of Bitcoin goes very high.

I doubt of Bitcoin will ever be free from its speculative nature. But if it ever becomes less volatile, it will create a more stable economic foundation than fiat because it is decentralization. It will be difficult to manipulate compared to other currencies.

Bitcoin is not issued by any country and its worth is the same everywhere. The disparity faced by some countries will be reduced because Bitcoin is decentralized. It will be unlike the dollars that dominate other currencies, meanwhile, they are the same printed fiat as other nation's currencies.

The current price of the dollar is 1 USD = 3429 satoshi, and this number may change during the period of writing this response or you reading it. Therefore, such volatility makes the use of satoshi in financial services useless due to high volatility in a short period.
The economy depends on the stability of the exchange rate with the possibility of fluctuation by 2% or any reasonable percentage during the year, which makes the cost, profit and loss calculations more reasonable and stable.
Satoshi does not provide this option, but Bitcoin has a good chance, especially if it reaches a market capacity close to gold, as there is a good chance that it will be a currency for international trade.

- Form of Money: Satoshis are too small a fraction for a while to make people think it is "money" without a dispute. Maybe one day if the exchange rate becomes more reasonable, let's say for just 5 sats you can get a pint of beer.

- Stability: You know that with limited supply, it's impossible to convert bitcoins into a stable value. I can't imagine bitcoin even being accepted around the world, maybe by doing so it can just reduce unnecessary small levels of volatility.

- Fair Value: I don't think so, unless you can eradicate economic inequality around the world.

Greetings fellow Bitcoiners,

We live in a time where traditional financial systems are constantly being challenged, and Bitcoin is at the forefront of this revolution. But what if we take this a step further? Imagine a world where the most granular element of Bitcoin, a Satoshi, is not just a fractional part of Bitcoin but a fundamental building block of our entire economy.

Here's what I'm pondering:

- Form of Money: How might the transition from thinking of Sats merely as a fraction of Bitcoin to accepting it as a distinct form of money change our economic landscape?
- Stability: What would it take for a Sats-driven economy to achieve stability, considering the highly volatile nature of Bitcoin? Could it provide a steadier foundation than existing fiat currencies?
- Fair Value: Could Sats provide an equitable value system that transcends borders and economic disparities, creating a more just financial world?

I would love to hear your thoughts, ideas, and even reservations about this concept. Your insights may not only fuel an ongoing research project but could be part of shaping a future that we all have a stake in.

Remember, the most extraordinary ideas often seem unimaginable at first. Let's explore this together and see where it takes us.

Looking forward to your perspectives!

Best,
jspree