pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @denlillaapan 17 Apr \ on: The case FOR CCs meta
CCs are free financing for SN -- equivalent to the float of an insurance company or the outstanding gift card balance of e.g. Starbucks (#743123).
With activity, you're right; they decay pretty quickly and turn into reward sats in your own (non-SN) wallet. But for the a) CCs just sitting around, and b) the time before they're fully round-spent, it's a pure shitcoin gain for SN.
They become a hot potato to get rid of asap -- i.e, quite a bit like fiat money. (#736107).
Gresham's Law! CCs are the weaker money, which makes sense because sats are the hardest money (though not in my cashu wallet; there it's still weak)On-chain sats > LN sats > cashu sats > CCs
I spend them in reverse order. The thing I'm doing tho - and I'm willing to change this if someone can truly make the case and convince me that it's no bueno - is converting left to right to ultimately spend the weakest form. (I sometimes skip cashu and buy CCs from LN straight.)
The good news is I don't have a technical constraint forcing me to do this anymore: After @ek triggered me yesterday, it turned out that something got fixed on the cashu side and nwc now works. Yay for the cycle of progress. It's now a matter of choice.
reply
No. No. NO. NOOOOEH.
Fuck, I hate the Bitcoiners and their Gresham's obsession. Just no, #738907
being less anal about this, there's some logic in your story, since every version of bitcoin (on-chain, lightning, ecash) are the same, so they actually are (artificially?) fixed in price.
... but CCs aren't. They are strictly inferior, and don't have a market price fixed at 1 sat
reply
I get your point in linked post about demand - I think. Do I get it right that you're saying that
my demand for the harder money is making me spend the weaker money first, because from my perspective I have less desire to hold on to the latter?Ultimately that means that the bad money "driving out" the good money is only valid until it goes to 0?
reply
not quite... it's that bad/good money doesn't have meaning until you're comparing it with some objective third thing... in the time periods where Gresham existed, and where the Law would apply, you have bimetallism i.e. there's a fixed ratio of gold to silver.
Meaning, there's an incentive for you to pay with the "cheaper" metal since one is always undervalued relative to the other since world market prices of gold and silver always move.
There's no such mechanism for bitcoin so the concept doesn't apply.
That you spend CCs first because they're less money-like than sats says nothing about good/bad money.
do bad cars drive(!) out good ones?
No, they coexist; and relative prices adjust
reply