I just watched a documentary about the mighty Coca~Cola and how Pepsi found a loophole to compete with Coca~Cola, when several others failed.
Coca~Cola in this example, represents government's Fiat currencies and for years nobody was able to compete with it, because it was the giant in the Industry and it crushed it's competition.
Lately the decision to use Fiat or Crypto currencies boils down to what people were used to and if the competition is better. Pepsi funded a blind taste test for 1000's of customers and 99% of people said Pepsi tasted better. So the label might influence people's decision to chose a specific option.
Fiat currencies are backed by governments and Banks and people have been using it for years, so the competition should be better and very well marketed for it to replace it.
The question is, are Bitcoin better and are we marketing it aggressively enough for it to be a better choice? People should be able to test it to make a decision and to be able to compare it.
Do you think enough people are given opportunities to taste it, to make that decision?
No, i don't agree with this analogy. If anything, Bitcoin would be perhaps a natural drink. Pepsi and Coca Cola is like comparing 2 fiats together, say, $ or €, they are almost the same thing, carbonated, sugar based, a bit of caffeine, etc. While Bitcoin is more like Gold.
FYI In the 80ies my country had higher Pepsi sales than Coca Cola (and Betamax ruled over VHS), then the local owners of Pepsi got into an agreement with Coca Cola and jumped ship (and Sony gave up in 1992). When that happened the flavor (of both) changed dramatically and suddenly Coca Cola had the higher sales. They are closer than you think.
The words "Coca" and "Cola" refer to a couple of ingredients no longer present in the current soda version, which is incredibly ironic. But the most prevalent one is sugar anyway (or one of those ugly artificial sweeteners, or a combination of).