What if the Satoshi (Sats), became the foundation of our economy?

[rat03gopoh]

- Form of money. There are countries in the world where the local currency main denomination is worth less than a satoshi. Like 1 satoshi = 4.45 IDR (a pint of Beer would probably cost >50,000 IDR);

Yeah, and for 4,5 IDR (1 sat) you'll still get nothing today in Indonesia. As a general practice in minimarts, they mostly replace the 500 IDR cash back with some sweets.
To summarize my previous point, you can't just have 1 to 5 countries of reference to make this transition, especially if you also expect 1 sat to be a fair value. Developed countries where 1k satoshi isn't even worth anything yet. Economic standards are'nt the same for every country, and that needs to be improved, bitcoin can't do anything.

[Flexystar]

- Form of Money: How might the transition from thinking of Sats merely as a fraction of Bitcoin to accepting it as a distinct form of money change our economic landscape?
- Stability: What would it take for a Sats-driven economy to achieve stability, considering the highly volatile nature of Bitcoin? Could it provide a steadier foundation than existing fiat currencies?
- Fair Value: Could Sats provide an equitable value system that transcends borders and economic disparities, creating a more just financial world?

This is something that Bitcoin is opposite of and cant really accept it. Bitcoin is Bitcoin for the reason it has its current characteristic. I think most of them are opposite to what you have mentioned up here. Bitcoins volatility is because of its decentralised nature so it can not be changed. If you do then it is most likely because it has become centralised one and thus it is being controlled. What happens when something is controlled with single entity? Well, it becomes weak in terms of its public power and becomes more predominant with the decisions of that single enormity. Bitcoin already has fair value since it’s equity lyes in the public hands. The more they adopt it the more valued it becomes, and vice versa is also true. I don’t think we need to give another type of qualification to Bitcoin.

[Fortify]

Greetings fellow Bitcoiners,

We live in a time where traditional financial systems are constantly being challenged, and Bitcoin is at the forefront of this revolution. But what if we take this a step further? Imagine a world where the most granular element of Bitcoin, a Satoshi, is not just a fractional part of Bitcoin but a fundamental building block of our entire economy.

Here's what I'm pondering:

- Form of Money: How might the transition from thinking of Sats merely as a fraction of Bitcoin to accepting it as a distinct form of money change our economic landscape?
- Stability: What would it take for a Sats-driven economy to achieve stability, considering the highly volatile nature of Bitcoin? Could it provide a steadier foundation than existing fiat currencies?
- Fair Value: Could Sats provide an equitable value system that transcends borders and economic disparities, creating a more just financial world?

I would love to hear your thoughts, ideas, and even reservations about this concept. Your insights may not only fuel an ongoing research project but could be part of shaping a future that we all have a stake in.

Remember, the most extraordinary ideas often seem unimaginable at first. Let's explore this together and see where it takes us.

Looking forward to your perspectives!

To put forward suggest a suggestion shows that you don't understand the scale of monetary exchange that is taking place each day, because bitcoin makes up an almost insignificant amount of transactions in the grand scheme of things. The bitcoin network simply cannot support it at the same scale, in the same time frames and at a reasonable cost, so it's never going to happen. Nor should it, bitcoin can find and be happy with taking a certain niche of money activity, like transferring larger sums across borders while avoiding extortionate banking fees. All of your other points are already achieved and were possible before bitcoin came along, so it's maybe not as ground breaking as some people make it out to be, but it's decentralized nature is a nice thing.

[lionheart78]

In my opinion "the a reason why dollar isn't pegged to gold anymore" and its implications, is exactly why Bitcoin was created.

And I'm not even suggesting that countries should adopt Sats as the form of money but people could. One of the foundations of "money" is to be a store-of-value because you want to save it for the later day. In today's environment people are being stolen from via inflation.

If governments would want to spend more they would pay people and businesses a decent interest on their sats deposits.

I agree we are far away from being able to pay salaries in sats but getting paid for a small good or service makes a lot of sense to me.

My apologies if I'm biased. Truly appreciate your feedback!

I do have the same preference as others but I am open-minded for the possibility of your ideas.  It is that it is too early for your ideas but I believe somewhere in the future when Bitcoin is globally accepted by each country and the prices of Satoshi is noticeable enough that a pint of beer can be bought from a few satoshis (as what @rat03gopoh stated).  At the end of the day, Bitcoin still needs to be adopted by more than 60% of the global population in order for some seems-impossible ideas to start realizing.

[Hamza2424]

Hmm Sats or you can simply say that Bitcoin was not introduced to provide economic destruction backup to the powers and was not supposedly introduced to achieve any type of stability. The main target of Bitcoin was to machine the P2P payment mode and non-controlled demand to supply in the market to prevent Inflation on some instinct.

Secondly, in today's perspective, the narrative which is most popular with Bitcoin and its identity is the Long term valuation or you can simply consider it as the store of value or the digital gold term whatever you like where some people want to prevent the inflating crisis while on the some them being greedy from judging the future capital want to make extra gains. Some want financial freedom etc etc. point is BTC is an entity in the financial world that can be justified by any narrative whether it suits to you or not.

[rikybrosh]

it is just my opinion but maybe people will more familiar with satoshi rather than bitcoin if in the daily life people mostly say some satoshi rather than say bitcoin as 1 bitcoin maybe only can be owned by very rich people only. i think when that time happen, bitcoin is already spread evenly and not so volatile but only tend to rise just like gold.

[justdimin]

All these were just like having a nightmare because if we are to go back to what the reality says, it's obviously impossible for now, am not talking as against bitcoin from the context here but the word sats that was used, atleast let see how the overall adoption first goes with bitcoin before moving to it smaller value in sats, we have to see the government in larger percentage in support of the use of bitcoin, accepting it as a legal tender before something like this begins to come up, when bitcoin itself has the government established support, every other things can be achieved, but now we could see clearly that we the people are the ones in need of bitcoin and in use of it, while this is only possible in an economy which fully support bitcoin.

I think that foundation was wrong and that is why everything that followed afterwards became wrong as well. When someone says "capitalism doesn't work", that doesn't mean socialism works, two things could not work at the same time. But when you tell people that capitalism doesn't work, they always go on defense and say "so what we should be socialist???" and no, that is not the solution neither, I do not have the solution and brighter minds than me tried and failed so why would I give it a try.

But, I know that this isn't what works, we need something different and from foundation as well, we need to change everything from bottom up and make it all a new thing. What? I have no idea, it could be anything, someone should figure it out, but it's obvious this doesn't work.

[jspree]

wow. I just wanted to share and quote this tweet I just saw:
https://twitter.com/bitcoin__apex/status/1691886458578079945

"In about 8 years, a little more than 1 Satoshi per person is created every day"

- to @rikybrosh:
I agree, familiarising people with satoshis is cruical for this to happen;

- to @lionheart78
If largest economies (countries) would ever hold any bitcoin, I can clearly see people being able to transact in sats. And the thing with ideas is that somebody has to work on them for them actually to come to reality

- to @Fortify
from where I stand, The bitcoin network is a settlement layer, and technically speaking there will be derivatives circling around all the other networks. Like is usdt actual USD if it's running on ethereum or polygon? There are thousands of centralised and decentralised networks where any asset can flow. Bitcoin network provides us with security, scaling can be done in so many ways.

[jspree]

- Form of money. There are countries in the world where the local currency main denomination is worth less than a satoshi. Like 1 satoshi = 4.45 IDR (a pint of Beer would probably cost >50,000 IDR);

Yeah, and for 4,5 IDR (1 sat) you'll still get nothing today in Indonesia. As a general practice in minimarts, they mostly replace the 500 IDR cash back with some sweets.
To summarize my previous point, you can't just have 1 to 5 countries of reference to make this transition, especially if you also expect 1 sat to be a fair value. Developed countries where 1k satoshi isn't even worth anything yet. Economic standards are'nt the same for every country, and that needs to be improved, bitcoin can't do anything.

What I'm saying is that Sats are cheap. We've seen people jumping on xrp, doge and so many other printed-out-of-thin-air tokens (that have no real intrinsic value) only because they believe they can afford it. Sats-first approach would allow the masses to join the massive bullrun that bitcoin continues to deliver.

And I agree, we are far away from sats being able to be money but I believe it's time for sats denominated markets.

[Unbunplease]

We don't know who Satoshi is. Maybe it's the world government itself. There is a very close connection between economic fluctuations, crises and bitcoin. All people have been prepared for the CBDC for a long time - and bitcoin has served as a good testing ground for this. People are used to smart contracts, so they will accept CBDDC more easily. Maybe that's the plan?

[DrBeer]

1 - Form of Money: How might the transition from thinking of Sats merely as a fraction of Bitcoin to accepting it as a distinct form of money change our economic landscape?
2 - Stability: What would it take for a Sats-driven economy to achieve stability, considering the highly volatile nature of Bitcoin? Could it provide a steadier foundation than existing fiat currencies?
3 - Fair Value: Could Sats provide an equitable value system that transcends borders and economic disparities, creating a more just financial world?

0. A state/world currency cannot exist and fulfill its role, without additional issuance. This is the key problem why a cryptocurrency like bitcoin will never become a currency of account, whether of a single state, whether of the world.... This is the key problem with cryptocurrencies with limited issuance. Why is there a need for additional issuance ? That's how economics works - money itself has no value. Their value is formed by goods, resources, services that are created by society.
1. The indivisibility of the satoshi, with its high value, will not allow you to make transactions with goods/services costing less than 1 satoshi.
2. Stability can theoretically be realized, but the problem is that the economy cannot exist without additional emission and controlled inflation. And this contradicts this point
3. No. Value is not formed by the monetary unit, but by the economy, technology, the power of the state and government,... Money is a projection of the power of the state. And again - without additional emission, there will be wild deflation, because the volume of goods/services/.... will constantly increase. And in the absence of additional emission, it will lead to collapsing deflation

[Argoo]

We live in a time where traditional financial systems are constantly being challenged, and Bitcoin is at the forefront of this revolution. But what if we take this a step further? Imagine a world where the most granular element of Bitcoin, a Satoshi, is not just a fractional part of Bitcoin but a fundamental building block of our entire economy.

Bitcoin and its structural particles - Satoshi - cannot become the basis of the world economy simply because states will categorically not accept it. The economies of states operate on completely different principles than decentralized cryptocurrency. According to general rules, the amount of state currency should be equal to the amount of goods in circulation by the state. With an increase in the quantity of goods, that is, an increase in GDP, the state has the right to increase the amount of money supply by the magnitude of the increase. Based on this, the development of the economy of each state is planned. Bitcoin and other decentralized cryptocurrency cannot function depending on the growth or decline in the level of the economy, therefore planning the development of the economy in Bitcoin is impossible.

A decentralized cryptocurrency can effectively exist alongside the fiat of states, complementing it with its useful features, but it cannot replace fiat.