I got a DM asking me if #Bitcoin is the best money. This was my answer: Assets people treat as money thrive in different roles. Typically the properties which make something an exceptional store of value are in direct conflict with properties that help it thrive as a medium of exchange. Even when gold was the backbone of prior standards, it made poor daily money for everyday people. It was mostly used by the very wealthy or sovereigns themselves to settle large balances. It was a combination of its scarcity as well as lack of divisibility. Bitcoin does not have a divisibility problem, but it is extremely valuable and rare. The most successful monetary standards had a harder substance like gold as the unit of account and for sovereign/wealthy payments, but there was a flexible secondary layer, either silver or copper coinage or even paper, that everyday people used to facilitate commerce. This secondary layer was more elastic and able to be used in small denominations. It absorbed rising demand and helped prices to remain stable. Though gold was scarce, its supply too expanded slowly which allowed the base money supply to grow at a low rate and support economic growth without structural deflation. Both the base money and the secondary layer expanded at different rates. We know that didn't always work and eventually the state or private money issuers would take things too far and cause crisis or collapse. Taking it back to BTC, it is very scarce, more scarce than gold, and its supply cannot expand beyond the terminal limit. 95% already circulates. Could it one day be used by some nations to settle large balances? Yes I don't see why not. But will it become the asset the entire world uses for that? I doubt it. It's scarcity, while a great selling point, is kryptonite for it becoming a widely distributed MoE for regular commerce. Divisibility does not solve this. It's unlikely that many people will be paid in BTC because it is unlikely that enough people will want to spend it at businesses, which is what has to happen for it to become a wage instrument. The scarcest objects do not make good MoEs. It's antithetical to their strengths. The best cashlike instruments are highly liquid and abundant and people spend them freely. Bitcoiners do not like to hear this, but those properties are why dollars have thrived as a MoE and continue to (but it fails as a SoV due to the MoE/SoV trait conflict). It's why the eurodollar market chose USD and not something else to lend and borrow outside of US borders. For BTC to work as a standard, to me, it would first need a secondary layer that was elastic, though a mechanism for doing that would need to be solved. Most sound money folks would not want it to be state controlled, maybe it should be programmed instead, I alone cannot solve that. All I'm talking about are the traits that make a money thrive. Even beyond that, BTC's scarcity again makes it a risky element for lending, so it is unlikely to see much credit on a standard that uses it. That credit would need be denominated in something easier to pay back. That is again a tricky problem to address. Bitcoin is an incredible SoV and likely will continue to be as long as something doesn't break its core value proposition or its encryption. That's why I own it and continue to stack. I'm not bearish on BTC as an investment. I just don't think it will become what maxis want. I don't see a world where it ever becomes daily money due to the incentives created by elite scarcity. Folks like to elevate scarcity as a trait that makes it the best money ever, but that's only half true. It only makes it a great SoV. When money becomes too rare and dear (valuable relative to goods) people do not like to spend it. Velocity falls and self reinforces. There is long history on this topic that is rarely brought up in bitcoin talks. It's why I go on about it so much, because there is a void. Thanks for asking the question.(𝐓𝐗𝐌𝐂)