Why Stablecoins are Doomed to Fail and Michael Saylor is WRONG about BTC not becoming a transactional currency.

You may have heard Michael Saylor (and many altcoiners) talk recently about how Bitcoin is stuck as digital gold, because it's not a good transactional currency. Saylor even went so far to say in an interview a day or two back that Stablecoins, specifically, will fill that niche.

Anyone who was around in the early days of bitcoin or has read cyphperpunk history can easily tell you what the government used to do to anyone or any company that tried to compete with the dollar. Stablecoins are run by centralized parties like companies and governments are never going to let them compete with their money when they can just tell the centralized party to stop. US congressmen went nuts a year or two back when Facebook announced Libra, and held a grand congressional inquiry just on the plans, stopping his original approach. They'll continue to stop future approaches too as long as he tries to make a coin that competes with the dollar in any way.

But even if you think there is some loophole, there's another, more important reason why bitcoin will in fact destroy any other coin, stable or not, that tries to be a medium of exchange.

In short, the best money that everyone desires is the hardest money. The hardest money is the one with the best store of value features. Gold proved this for millennia. Saylor fails to remember that gold was the most used medium of exchange for most of the last 5000 years!

When your hard property takes on the characteristics of a currency, (being portable, scarce, fungible, easily identified, hard to counterfeit, durable, etc) then it's called "Hard" money. That's a good thing. It's the money that you hold onto more than other money. It's the most desirable money.

Goldbugs and Austrian economics have long sung the praises of hard money. Separating hard money from transactional money has only been done because of government decree. (Fiat) Transactional money on it's own simply cannot compete with hard money on an open marketplace.

Stablecoins will never be able to compete with bitcoin because they aren't desirable to hold on to. People will never trust them to store value over time, so why hold them at all? Why BOTHER to hold two types of money when you trust one and not the other? It's an unneeded hassle.

I give this stablecoin fad another 4-8 years tops. After that, all you can depend on in this world is your bitcoin. The lightning network will be more than capable by then to make it more useful as a transactional currency than any other money on earth.

Now the question is: Is Saylor wrong on purpose to avoid some kind of government backlash against bitcoin?