Are we thinking about MoE all wrong? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

1872 sats \ 25 comments \ @birdeye21 3 Jun bitcoin

I've used this image in the past, and I've recently been thinking about how bitcoiners fall into the same psychological trap.

There's an overlying concern about the future of bitcoin and how there's simply not enough for everyone. And it's true, Bitcoin is not for everyone.

I recently read a book called Stellar. It's about the future, breaking out of the current paradigm of perception, and how a fancy technological concoction of solar, wind, AI, etc. is brewing to create to largest deflationary impulse the world has ever seen. Infinite abundance, echoing Elon Musk, Jeff Booth, and others' words of a world where anything becomes accessible to anyone.

I gotta say: the book specifically is big on theory, but falls short in practice imo. Before we ever get there, I believe there's a world of painful social unraveling to work through first.

At the same time, it was valuable in crystallizing ideas I've held for awhile. I agree with the basic premise that we're heading toward a world of prosperity the likes of which we never thought possible. Like 99% of stuff being straight up free. No cost, no need to "spend currency" on it.

If that's truly where we're headed, what does MoE look like? How does Bitcoin fit into this equation? Could it be that our perception of "spending money" in exchange for goods and services itself is becoming an antiquated relic of history?

I see Bitcoin as the financial bedrock upon which freedom will be upheld for the world. All the costs in the world could go to zero, but the AI could still be force feeding bugs into our stomachs without guardrails in place that they can't work around.

For a long time, this is a critical purpose of Bitcoin I've recognized. It makes all the difference between an abundant world of freedom, and an abundant world of slavery. Profits are channeled into a decentralized network shared by everyone, instead of corporate AI robot goonies that use it to project power over the individual.

Perhaps we (or maybe just me) have been thinking about Bitcoin's trajectory all wrong. Like others in the space have mentioned, is Bitcoin something that most won't even tangibly use on the surface level? Sure, there will be a transitionary period of buying my milk for 1,000 sats, then 100 sats, then 1 sat, but what comes after that?

view all related items

160 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Jun

Things will still cost money, but business models might change dramatically.

Similar to how we still pay for cell service, but not for minutes, we may transition to subscriptions/memberships with businesses that provide goods and services at no extra charge.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @birdeye21 OP 4 Jun

Yep..i should have been more clear that costs don't just disappear...they get shifted elsewhere. "Free" at the consumer level for most if not all basic goods

MoE as a function will always inherently exist, just a matter of where we see MoE taking place..and who/what is doing the exchanging

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Jun

It’s interesting to note that more efficient systems, like lightning, will delay this change. With much lower transactions costs, the expectation is to see even more small scale transactions.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 6 Jun

🎯

122 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 3 Jun

It’s a fun thought experiment. When I think about AI so productivity enhancing that it brings costs to zero, I think of ASI. When I think of ASI, I’m confident we’re trapped in lots of versions of water we aren't aware of. I think ASI is a bigger threat to bitcoin than quantum processors. Mostly because it can’t be predicted or planned for beyond the horizon of it coming into being.

If Satoshi were 10000x smarter, might they have made money differently? Why wouldn’t 10000xSatoshi make a 10000x better bitcoin? If it’s producing everything we need, and outnumbers us, isn’t it running all the economic nodes?

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @ken 8 Jun

Damn.

I need to think about this one.

71 sats \ 7 replies \ @LibertasBR 4 Jun

Like 99% of stuff being straight up free. No cost, no need to "spend currency" on it.

That premise isn’t true from any angle. I’m not saying that donations or charitable acts don’t exist—what doesn’t exist and never has, is free daily consumer goods. Whether we’re talking about AIs, robots, or even alien slaves, everything has a cost.

That said, Bitcoin’s use as MoE can already be implemented today. The high volatility of the currency will only decrease as more people use it as actual money. Once an economic cycle for any good is carried out entirely in bitcoin, volatility will be the least of the concerns—within that cycle, all that will matter is that 1 sat = 1 sat.

19 sats \ 1 reply \ @birdeye21 OP 4 Jun

Yeah I should have been more clear..free at the consumer level as i told Undisciplined below...Cost will always exist, it's fundamental to reality. But for the everyday person, I simply wonder if MoE will even be a thing, or if it's shifting into a more abstracted background function that keeps the economy moving, and what that looks like in practice

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibertasBR 4 Jun

I just read your comment to Undisciplined. I get what you meant, but I think the reason we see things this way is because we're not fully hyperbitcoinized yet. Fees are still low due to low demand and the current incentive to use the Lightning Network, for example. As mentioned here on SN before, LN won’t always be a low-cost network once it becomes the main layer for everyday transactions.

On the other hand, looking at it from your perspective, the costs we deal with today are inflated due to the massive number of intermediaries involved in every transaction. Even if LN fees rise, they’ll likely still be far below the costs we currently face in the fiat system.

Sorry if I misunderstood the concept you were conveying in your post.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Jun

Except that Bitcoin use as a MoE is explicitly OUTLAWed in most autocracies and very slyly obstructed to a substantial extent in almost all 'liberal democracies'- where to use Bitcoin as a MoE you have to either comply with extraordinarily complex recording of all transactions in order to collate and pay the tax legally due, or IGNORE the law and use Bitcoin as a MoE UNLAWFULLY- which is what almost everyone who does use it as a MoE does- which means that the vast majority are not going to use BTC as a MoE. You ignore this reality as do nearly all Bitcoiners. Bitcoin us as a MoE is effectively unlawful or at least impracticable in nearly all jurisdictions.

38 sats \ 3 replies \ @LibertasBR 4 Jun

Illegal according to whom and for whom? I don’t even need to explain how Bitcoin works to refute the basis of that argument—it's as bad as a troll comment.

Pay your taxes like the slave you are, and be happy!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Jun

Yes you can boldly declare Capital Gains Tax laws irrelevant and declare you will defy them, but most people will not. You are unlikely to do so in any way you are likely to be identified and prosecuted by your governments tax department too. These laws have been put in place, imo, to deliberately obstruct BTC MoE use. I agree given how Bitcoin was created as a P2P payments protocol the laws are absurd- but they are nevertheless the law/s and they do severely obstruct the lawful MoE use of Bitcoin.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @birdeye21 OP 4 Jun

Laws will have to be defined by Bitcoin, not the other way around!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Jun

Yes, except that is not what is happening. And it is very difficult to see how it would happen- can you explain how it might? Nation states under which nearly all of us live are applying these laws as they protect the nation states fiat monetary monopoly.

69 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 3 Jun

Sure, there will be a transitionary period of buying my milk for 1,000 sats, then 100 sats, then 1 sat, but what comes after that?

0.1 ... 0.01 ... 0.001 sats

ahHHaah

44 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 3 Jun

Yes, there is no end to scarcity. All costs will never go to zero, because we'll just start aspiring to things that are now unattainable.

That's exactly how life a century ago would be compared to today.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Jun

Agree, but are people happier today than a century ago? I suggest in parallel to the development of the post industrial economy, is war between western civilisation and China.

Already China has won the trade war and is waging war on the west via proxies. China wants to develop and control its global trade payments protocol/s independent of western hegemony. It has already operational both CIPS via Hong Kong providing trade payments for Iran, Russia, N.Korea and probably others, and mBridge ready to expand its trade payments MoE reach to BRICS members and beyond.

The contest for control of the post industrial MoE/banking protocols is the apex of the contest between China and the west.

Bitcoin does propose an alternative, non-state based MoE but it seems unlikely to triumph over state based MoE protocols ... simply because most people remain reliant upon nation state power projection for their wealth and security.

33 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 3 Jun

This sort of utopian nonsense is all very well but I disagree on your optimism. While such optimism and utopian musings will be popular here on SNs they do not imo stand scrutiny in the context of what is happening in the world. Yes technology will deliver increased material wealth but you miss the point on Bitcoin as a MoE- Bitcoin as a MoE is a means of enabling commerce between people free of intermediaries - intermediaries who can (and do) censor transactions. Technology tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer individuals- the whole point of socialism and communism was to attempt to address the concentration of wealth and power that developed during the industrial revolution - in the post industrial digital technology age which we are in now a similar concentration of wealth and power is occurring this time with major tech corporations holding more and more data and thus power and wealth. Bitcoin as a decentralised algorithm proposes a way of avoiding the centralisation of power in terms of the MoE - but only if it is used as a MoE- as a SoV, as it is increasingly framed, seen and used, Bitcoin provides very limited pushback against the centralisation of power and wealth that the post industrial age tends toward. There is a war already between the West and China- with a contest for control of the MoE which is used for international trade. China already provisions trade MoE for Iran, N.Korea and Russia and via mBridge that MoE protocol control by China would expand considerably to include BRICS nations an probably more. Bitcoin simply does not appear likely to compete with any significant force in the contest between the USD and Chinese trade payments protocols. Control over MoE protocols (banking) is the twin of military power projection. China prohibits Bitcoin MoE outright, while The West effectively obstructs it from being used on any scale by imposing tax obligations which make Bitcoin impractical to use as a lawful and convenient MoE. Bitcoin does probably provide a SoV safe haven and hedge in the context of the contest for trade payments MoE hegemony which is the ultimate contest between China and The West, but it is unlikely to be a practical MoE alternative in that contest simply because it is not a convenient and practical option for businesses or consumers.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @birdeye21 OP 4 Jun

I will say...there is some nuance to my optimism.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 4 Jun

Yes but your linked religious musings do not directly address the problem of overt and covert bans and obstruction of Bitcoin MoE use by nation states... this is the problem I raise but which your linked post and above post do not address.

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @Dkryptoenth 4 Jun

Those fishes should be brought out of water since they don't know water.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @The_Young_Bitcoiner 3 Jun

Bitcoin is a Store of Value (SoV). For the stage of Medium of Exchange (MoE) to be achieved, Bitcoin needs to be less volatile, according to the Austrian Economics School. That said, in a bright future, Bitcoin will still be useful as a proof-of-work chain that proves autencity of people's thoughts and ideas and such. What's your thoughts?

5 sats \ 2 replies \ @guerratotal 3 Jun

This is a really thoughtful post. I think you're onto something. If the future really trends toward hyper-abundance—where marginal costs for most goods collapse—then the classic concept of “medium of exchange” (MoE) starts to shift. Maybe the role of Bitcoin becomes less about everyday transactions and more about being the incorruptible base layer of value and sovereignty.

In a world where AI, automation, and energy abundance make stuff practically free, Bitcoin’s role might be more about securing personal freedom, optionality, and privacy rather than daily spending. It becomes the firewall against coercion, not just a payment tool. MoE doesn’t disappear—it just becomes something more fundamental: a way to anchor freedom in an abundant but still unpredictable world.

It’s not just about buying milk anymore—it’s about having a tool no one can take from you, no matter how "free" the world seems on the surface.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @birdeye21 OP 4 Jun

chatGPT WACK WACK

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @guerratotal 5 Jun

no, it isn't