> Higher velocity of money would lead to zero value? That's not commonly what basic economy dictates. I think you missed his actual point, which to be fair was

> Higher velocity of money would lead to zero value? That's not commonly what basic economy dictates. I think you missed his actual point, which to be fair wasn't explicitly stated and I don't think is widely known. The bitcoin network can not handle large transaction volumes, like at all- its absurdly low. Somewhere around 10/second is where I understood it to stand, and I recall reading a paper that talked about changes that could theoretically get that to 40/s. A quick googling on the state of the art of this has it reporting 7/second: https://www.google.com/search?q=max+transactions+per+second+bitcoin&oq=max+transactions+per+second+bitcoin https://www.google.com/search?q=max+transactions+per+second+... I know this because this came up around 2016ish during one of the booms, and while I was previously crypto-curious and even a bit enthusiastic about the possibilities, once I saw that, I immediately lost all interest and got out. Other coins like Bitcoin Cash tried to address this, but the numbers were still absurdly low for what was supposed to be a completely decentralized currency to replace all others. Which is actually why Coinbase, FTX and the like rose so quickly and became so important- they enable transfers off chain.