> No serious economist advocates for a return to a fixed supply of currency. I am not advocating for its return or extolling its virtues or claiming the world

> No serious economist advocates for a return to a fixed supply of currency. I am not advocating for its return or extolling its virtues or claiming the world will be better or worse with fixed supply currency. I'm simply stating that a rational individual or business will avoid an X% tax on their stored wealth if they can legally do so. I appreciate your anecdotal willingness to have your wealth devalued as a patriotic sentiment, but have to assume you are in a small global minority who would so if it can be avoided with the flick of a switch ('store my money in crypto') - consider countries where the tax is XX%, XXX%, XXXX% or even beyond (ie. Venezuela). Even X% is a rather large voluntary tax for US citizens with meagre savings. > This is comically untrue. It may be true in cryptocurrency circles, but it's absolutely not true in economic circles. It's true in the sense that fixed supply currencies exist today and usability will meet and eventually surpass 'traditional' currencies. The goodness or badness of the idea according to economists doesn't stop them existing today and won't stop them existing in the future. > On the contrary, countries that cannot effectively control money supply will continue to be at a disadvantage with countries that can. It's precisely because of its usefulness that countries will continue to employ it. What could possibly make you think otherwise? No government is going to voluntarily give up control of money supply but their mechanisms to do so are very limited in a world where every citizen and business stores their value in FixedSupplyCoin.