Whomever wrote the title of this 2014 article was spot on. The author of the article, however, was mainly interested how to helps the bitcoin exchange rate. Not surprising.

A common term circa 2014 was "closed loop", and the aim was to see bitcoin revenues in turn be used to pay employees, vendors and investors in bitcoin. Now the term for that is the circular economy, where bitcoin circulates. It's essentially the same concept but with a name that resonates better.

But merchants are employers. They employ staff, but they also employ vendors (by being patrons), and they also employ investors (with dividends from profits). A merchant who receives some revenues in bitcoin is then more likely to then want to spend those revenues in bitcoin, versus cashing out into fiat first to then pay that way.

And those payments in bitcoin do help the exchange rate, so the author wasn't wrong there. When earners receive bitcoin as the payment method for their income, those who spend less than their income will hold some bitcoin then as savings. And even those who are paycheck to paycheck and spend everything they earn, they are still holding some bitcoin as they do not likely spend everything on payday. So that creates demand for bitcoin because it bitcoin held per some days, rather than re-entering the market. With one person, or earners from a single company that's not a factor. But if even a small subset of all earners gets paid in bitcoin, this could definitely add upward pressure on the price, at least until there is "saturation" / mass adoption. Additionally, to pay in bitcoin, the merchants are also holding onto their bitcoin received, rather than liquidating for fiat right away. This too will reduce the quantity of bitcoin on the markets.

That's why these circular economy pilots like Bitcoin Beach (El Salvador), Bitcoin Jungle (Costa Rica ?), Bitcoin Ekasi (South Africa), etc., are so important to support. They not only help introduce many to bitcoin, and result in many earning in bitcoin, these pilots also help to identify what works. Are merchants who receive in bitcoin actually then paying in bitcoin. If not, why not?

In the U.S., for example, the treatment of bitcoin as property makes it harder for a merchant to keep the revenues in bitcoin, and then to spend in bitcoin.

So at a minimum, these circular economy pilots may provide data to help when lobbying to have de-minimus exemptions (i.e., payments under some threshold) so that tracking for (and tax liability for) capital gains won't be required.

But in the informal markets, like what exist in much of the world, receiving in bitcoin and then paying in bitcoin is simple and oftentimes preferable.

Most merchants and employers won't adopt bitcoin organically though. They will do so only when they find it benefits them or they have no alternative. Freelancers insisting on being paid in bitcoin, for example, is one of those methods that pressure an employer into figuring out how to accommodate this. Fortunately, there are many methods to help with that -- BitWage, Deel, Hedge, OnJuno, etc.. And asking merchants to accept bitcoin may be what persuades a reluctant owner/operator to finally do that. Fortunately, there are numerous methods that make it easy for a merchant to accept bitcoin as well.

So it was a bit sad to see the title of the article and then upon reading it find that it was not about how earning in bitcoin helps to empower individuals and other reasons employers should be onboard (e.g.,how paying in bitcoin helps to attract and retain staff).

There's surprising very little content published or shared along those lines.