There is indeed some truth in this because as everyone understands (even if they deny it on the surface, but inside they know for sure that this is so) that without relying on the same "fiat money", any cryptocurrency is just useless numbers that cost less than nothing.
everyone wants wealth in fiat money - dollars, euros - from cryptocurrencies, but they do not want to use cryptocurrencies as a measure of price in itself. no one wants to go to a restaurant and pay a conditional 0.2eth for dinner - they want to go to a restaurant and pay $ 100 for dinner, but through eth conversion.
People themselves have come up with a gasket between themselves and fiat money and believe that this is the real future and independence - but they do not want to understand that such actions simply kill what the cryptocurrency really is. and at the same time, they do not forget to say and write everywhere that fiat money is evil, that banks are evil, that the state that prints money is also evil.
And it's both very funny and very sad. Tragicomedy as it is.

no, he can't. Because everyone uses BTC based on the fact that it costs money - the same fiat money that is accepted in the crypto community mercilessly scold and blame them for all the troubles.
Imagine that tomorrow BTC will stop being worth at least some money and will become a means of payment by itself. Will you go buy coffee or bread for 0.003 btc? You are more likely to commit suicide because  tomorrow it may cost more.
Or do you want to say that you will only be happy about it? I think you will not deceive at least yourself.

You lose one very important fact. In order for BTC to work as Satoshi intended, you need to pay with it in isolation from fiat currencies and without looking at its rate.
And as mentioned above, if you want to use BTC equivalent to its value in fiat currency, then in a full-scale crisis, it will be difficult for you to find a buyer for your coins because no one will have money. Or, as already mentioned above, there will be such hyperinflation that even if BTC will cost an infinite amount of fiat money, but this money will either not be able to buy anything or the goods will correspond to inflation and will have a lot of numbers on the price tag.

But then you change an apple for an apple. You change the conventionally accepted means of payment for goods and services around the world to its full counterpart, but just in a different wrapper. Tether  (or any other stablecoin) can be printed as much as you want for the needs of the market - so the more BTC costs, the more users will need Tether and the more it will be "printed"...
You understand that this totally does not make sense? You just took and changed one wrapper to another and paid  fees for it, however essence remained the same.

But no one, including you, wants to pay with BTC and not look back at the exchange rate of fiat currencies.
Come today to any place where cryptocurrencies are accepted for payment - there will be prices in accordance with the exchange rate and not just 0.01 ETH for a cup of coffee without looking at other currencies. Is not it so? And you yourself are interested in the price of cryptocurrency in dollars and not as an equivalent of the cost of goods/services.
If BTC was not tied to the dollar, it would not cost anything and would not be needed by anyone.

So you want to destroy the economy as such simply because it is built on competition and movement? And what do you suggest? Give everyone money just like that and make products, training, all communications and many other basic things free? Or what is your suggestion? All that you have described is a reason to think once again about your actions before you commit them. Yes, mistakes are often painful and you have to pay for them, but this does not mean that you need to stand for universal communism and lack of competition simply because you do not have money for education here and now or because you can not buy yourself a marbled beef because you work at McDonald's.

i will not agree that negative rate is negative.
A positive deposit rate encourages savings among the population, which can eventually lead to a sharp increase in inflation in the future due to the release of a large number of these most accumulated money into circulation.
A negative rate, on the other hand, encourages spending here and now or curbs inflation by not allowing it to go as fast as it could. Any spending" in the moment " stimulates the general economic background and positive development, as any accumulation stimulates the printing of money to provide the economy with a stable money supply. just the same hoarding and the desire for it is the same "fiat bubble" about which everyone says so, but not vice versa.

And what is the bank's fraud? The fact that he gives you the money you need today and asks you to return a little more for it? Or is it that he offers to take your money today and give you back a little more tomorrow?
What is your complaint against banks as such? Except for the failure in 2008-the fault here, I believe, is not that in the banks as a whole, but rather in the people themselves and in the fact that we all want to somehow earn a comfortable eldery and no more.
you don't go saving every homeless person from a thunderstorm when it starts. You are sitting in your own house/apartment with a cup of tea, do you?

The main problem is not in the inflation itself, it turns out, but in the fact that the market does not have time to create the supply for which there is demand in such situations.
And you can already come to the conclusion that you should not criticize the monetary system as such and people who are inclined to waste, even to hoarding, but simply accept the fact that the market really quite copes with self-regulation and knows how to be alive and not controlled by anyone.
and it's not the merit of some smart people that they created such a system - and the maximum understood it and try to convey to others.

I just point out that no matter how much BTC costs - if it costs 22k today and you can buy almost an entire Tesla, then in a week the dollar will catch up with such ups and you will not buy a Tesla anymore.
The real value of money is not tomorrow and not in 10 years, but today. And really the real value is that you can buy today what tomorrow will cost, in terms of return profit, as much as today. And I am very unsure that if I received 21k on BTC today, then in a year these 21k will be enough for me at least for a month. That's the point.

This is quite a controversial issue, because the same Visa or MC still remain in the first place in terms of transaction speed on the network, including between countries.
My claim is rather that the crypto community is ready to eat everything where there is the word "blockchain" and praise it saying that "so we will win". In fact, they do not notice how happy they are about the development of what they were originally against

The problem is not faith, but confidence. I can believe in anything - even in BTC, even in the Macaroni Monster. But at the same time, I am sure that if tomorrow something happens to the bank or organization where my "fiat" pension is located, then I will have somewhere to turn, because all this is insured.
with cryptocurrencies, it is very easy to deceive people because it is still a gray sector of the economy and there is no question of any reliable insurance. today, this pension crypto fund is there and everyone is happy, and tomorrow it has already disappeared without a trace, and all investments are lost in the mixer. And then what?

by offering btc as a panacea, you are proposing to go from shaky order to endless chaos. Is that what you want? For any cryptocurrency, there is not even an infrastructure - and there is simply no desire to use it as a means of payment. Look around, what do you see? People are obsessed with cryptocurrencies not because it is some kind of progress and the present future, but because they can become millionaires in one day, or lose everything. For all of them, and most of them, cryptocurrency is just a gray kind of casino, where you can earn good money and come out a winner.
Do you remember that the casino always wins?

The most successful countries with a good level of development are either absolutely giants, like China or the United States, or the European Union, which unites dozens of countries in one economic zone.
Decentralized development is when your neighbor has a stick made of metal, and you still have a wooden one. Yes, these are different things in composition, but they are essentially common. No large-scale projects have yet appeared through the efforts of only one state, they are all created in the union and mutually beneficial support. If all this were decentralized-only on one process of exchange, conversion and bringing to a common buffer whole of money, humanity would finish its large-scale projects, because this would cause an endless and endless bureaucracy.

Those people who are not inclined to save money do not cause inflation because they do not lead to the need to increase the total money supply, which would make up for the loss of funds due to hoarding.
In which case will there be more money-when 10 people save it and one spends it, or when 10 people spend it and one saves it? Any accumulation encourages the issue of new money to make up for the loss of the money supply.

Here is a paradox - the more btc will grow in price, the cheaper the dollar will become, because due to the increasing popularity, the printer will have to work more and more. This is very bad, think about it. Look at Venezuela and say: is it good for them when BTC is worth an infinite number of bolivars or not?

And what is the cruelty? This is ordinary usury, the principle of which has existed for many centuries. You take [somewhere] money and promise that you will give them a percentage.
After that, you give [someone] money and say that you are owed a certain %for it.
And then you come to your king and tell him that if he gives you money at 0%, then after a while more taxes will go to the Treasury because you will be able to distribute more money at % for the development of your business or something else.
The scheme is as old as the world and there is no cruelty here, as for me. No one owes anyone anything for free.

The funny thing is that the" security guarantees " from the Bank are often associated with the fact that these same guarantees are provided by the state rather than by the Bank's good will.
And here we come to a very good question, which is better: legislative security or anonymity and the ability to hide from laws and govs.
I see it so that in the future, as a result, everyone will be happy to switch to the first option because they will get tired of playing these crypto games. Yes, there will be enthusiasts who will continue to use the same BTC and others, but it seems to me that this will be the sunset of history, but not a new monetary Renaissance.

So such situations should not increase the price of "classic" cryptocurrencies in principle. After all, States do not create their own analogues of BTC or ETH, but they move from one process of money turnover to another.
When you stopped using cash because you carry a card with you everywhere , it definitely doesn't mean that you started using some completely different money, you just started using a different exchange process.
I also do not think that digital state currencies will compete with cryptocurrencies simply because there are completely different areas of application and the principle of distribution and control. A complete transfer from cash is more good than bad, if only because it is convenient. But you can’t say that digital currencies will somehow directly affect cryptocurrencies

Most likely, this is due to the fact that even those trillions of printed money went not just under the pillow and into the pockets and went straight into circulation - the reception is very confident. Buying food, medicine, salaries, utilities, and so on.
Inflation is more pronounced if the growth of the money supply is accompanied by universal accumulation, but now we see that the money received immediately goes to the market and diverges through it. Rather, we can even say that for the market of ordinary consumer goods, printing money this year worked like an adrenaline shot-it stimulated demand and at the same time did not give free rein to the wild inflation that everyone expected.