In many conversations I have argued the economy PREFERS money supply to expand at a low and predictable rate, not arbitrarily at the whims of central planners (as with fiat), and not remaining fixed in perpetuity (as with Bitcoin). A slow and predictable expansion of supply sets stable expectations and gives new entrants a chance to acquire positions without forcing the kind of destructive deflation that occurs when the number of circulating money units in a given economy is fixed or net shrinking. When I have made this point before, I've often been countered by someone pointing out Bitcoin's divisibility, but that misses the key point - cutting BTC into smaller pieces without changing the size of the economy doesn't make more circulating BTC units - it forces prices to fall in BTC terms, all else equal. This is NOT the same kind of deflation that occurs from producing goods more efficiently through innovation, which virtuously expands the potential output of the economy at a given cost. Instead it is the FORCING down of prices due to vendors' inability to fetch the prior price for their wares because money units are decreasing in availability over time. No efficiency gains are registered. It is simply an indiscriminate lowering of the price level, which is equally a lowering of incomes. In every economy throughout history that existed with a limited supply of money for a period, economic participants took it upon themselves to create new forms of money and near-money substitutes and began circulating them in the economy, RATHER THAN accepting forced deflation. This is true back to Ancient China. Misunderstanding the two forms of deflation and the incentives of economic actors is from my perspective one of the core fallacies in many of the arguments for a world with Bitcoin as its only money. I also think BTC would struggle to act as sound collateral for a robust lending economy built atop it (outside of a niche private market), but that is a conversation for a diff day. NOTE: I share my views on these topics because I consider them deeply and because I WANT Bitcoin to thrive. However I am increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of contrast in discussions within the Bitcoin community as they tend to congregate around a handful of utopian worldviews shilled by a varsity team of pundits and hype men.