If we’re talking about a deflationary model, and that’s exactly what Bitcoin’s model will be, we also need to be aware of the problems that can arise in such a model.
The classic problem is the deflationary spiral, which, in simple terms, looks like this:
A consumer postpones a purchase, knowing that their savings will have twice the purchasing power a year from now. The logical conclusion is: I won’t buy a car today, for example, but I’ll buy it in a year for half the price. Manufacturers face the problem of unsold inventory and… cut back on production. The result: a decrease in company revenue = lower taxes = fewer jobs = …
It’s easy to imagine where this will lead…
Furthermore, under a deflationary model, lending is effectively wiped out because the cost of loans becomes illogical for raising funds to develop a business - and this is what many businesses do. Not only do you have to pay interest on the loan, but you also have to repay the principal, which will constantly increase in value due to the deflationary model.
These are just the problems on the surface...
From another viewpoint:
1. Consumerism will be greatly reduced. Conspicuous consumption is minimized. Impulsive buying will become more and more silly. In other words, reason will once again rule our purchases. There might be postponement, but gradually increasing prices of goods and service doesn't necessarily stop people from buying. People would still buy phones and cars and houses, but this will largely be driven by necessity.
2. Lending, too, will be largely driven by necessity. It won't stop, though. If we could use it as an example, there are Bitcoin-denominated loans offered here on the forum. People still borrow despite fully knowing that the same amount of Sats they borrow today could be much more expensive when they repay it in the near future. Also, saving would play a major role in future projects and plans.
This is an important observation. You pointed out another aspect of trust. Along with voluntary trust, I would call it something akin to sympathy or benevolence. If we trust government money as much as we trust the government (in general), then in the case of Bitcoin, no such trust is required at all, since Bitcoin is inherently reliable. This is where what you identified as voluntary trust comes from. You’re right that this is the incentive for investment and the driving force behind the network effect.
As a matter of fact, we don't even trust government money. But we have no choice because it's forced upon us. It's the law that commands us to use it. We're using money that we don't trust at all. Whether we like it or not, we have to use it.
By the way. There’s an interesting question here. Bitcoin’s volatility exists because of its "infection" by the market structure, or, more precisely, because of its emergence and development within a market economy. Where Bitcoin is forced to behave like a commodity and follow the course of a market economy. But how would Bitcoin behave as a means of payment in an economy without inflation and without loan interest? That is, simply as a measure of value?
I believe it wouldn’t be as deflationary as it is now (its deflation is, as it were, "amplified" by the surrounding inflation). It would be a fixed measure of value, and its deflation would be merely a measure of excess production in the economy. In such an economy, Bitcoin would no longer be a commodity and would not be subject to volatility. It would be characterized only by a gradual increase in purchasing power.
The point of this reasoning is this: Bitcoin is an alien element for a market economy. Bitcoin emerged within this economy, but it can fully realize its potential (and purpose) only in the economy of the future (perhaps neo‑feudalism or some other unknown formation). That’s why we see, for example, volatility now.
It's like new wine into old wineskins. It seems Bitcoin is a technology that doesn't fit the current system. The Bitcoin standard could hardly work in a society still embracing the fiat standard. It might need an entire overhaul, a paradigm shift of sorts. Only then could Bitcoin function properly. It's by then when the 1
BTC=1
BTC argument would make sense. Nobody would measure today any item or service in Bitcoin without reference to fiat.
