Originally published on read.cash, so it focuses a bit more on BCH, but it applies to most currencies, I think.
I won't claim to be an expert on any topic, let alone one to which I am incredibly new, like the crypto space. But I will say that I dig the idea of BCH, Dash, Ada, ETH, etc. becoming alternative currencies, ones we can use to pay rent, buy groceries, split dinner… you know, things we use FIAT currencies for.
Now, being as new as I am to the crypto space, I have become more and more excited about the prospect of this becoming a reality: Doing a job for someone and being paid in crypto, crypto charities, heck, a whole ecosystem based off of decentralized monies. At this point, of course, that seems like a far away dream, even though the ground work is being done and the more adoption there is, the more powerful this ecosystem will become.
What does this entail? Well, obviously the more businesses and independent creators/contractors (and even big corporations) agree to be paid in crypto, the more this ecosystem will thrive. I don't believe a 100% shift should be the idea at the moment, but rather I think a gradual change is what needs to happen for things to get reasonably better in the crypto environment.
What I mean by this is that I don't think the average person should demand to be compensated only in a specific crypto coin and try to live off of that coin. There isn't enough support from enough places yet for that to be a feasible option, but I hope it will be in the near future.
With this in mind, I think there are two ways in which we can, as a community, foster the thought of these cryptocurrencies as currencies:
A clear distinction between currencies and value-assets or commodities
A breakdown of the value of the coin itself.
First, a distinction.
I think it should be obvious that using BTC or ETH as a currency is becoming harder and harder. ETH will hopefully get better once ETH2.0 is implemented and the gas fees stop being such a roadblock for the average person to partake in the network, which is one of my favourite crypto projects at the moment.
But for the time being, BTC, ETH and other coins are a bit tough to transact with.
Therefore, I think there should be a rebranding of sorts in the crypto space: You have your money/currency (Dash and BCH, for example), you have your stocks/value-assets (BTC) and you have your commodities (ETH, HIVE). I feel like this classification is obvious for anyone in the space right now, and we all know it to a degree, but if the "branding" was clearer, newcomers wouldn't feel as overwhelmed by a 60,000 USD coin or a 2,000USD coin as the frontrunners of this space, the ones everyone feels like they need to own when first entering the community.
Unless these classifications exist in a more clear manner, I feel like it will take longer for widespread adoption of crypto to happen.
Then, a breakdown of the value of the coin.
So, we know that, for example, at the time of writing, 1 BCH is worth 920 USD. That is insane, and it makes it more complicated to try to transact with it, and I am talking from the perspective of a layman.
The reason why I think this is an issue is because if I wanted to price the services of a hypothetical business in BCH, I would necessarily have to do it pairing it with the USD. That is not how currencies are supposed to work.
If I charge you in CAD I don't say "Yeah, pay me the equivalent to x USD in CAD". That is a mouthful and it, to a degree, lowers the credibility of CAD as a currency.
The same thing has to be true for BCH and other cryptocurrencies. But at the time, there really isn't a clear breakdown or use case for this.
People who charge in BCH or other crypto need to stop pegging it to the value of the dollar. That should be an option, yes, but instead of charging 15USD in BCH for an illustration, for example, maybe one could charge 0.0015BCH for the illustration and keep it consistent. This would be even easier if there was a nomenclature for the fractions of the coin.
I know about the Satoshis being 0.00000001 BTC (is it the same for BCH?), but that makes it a tad hard to make top-of-the head calculations.
I think there needs to be a clearer breakdown of 1 BCH into "cents", something like 1BCH=50 Nakamotos, and breaking the Nakamotos into Satoshis. The same thing is true of any other crypto, I believe, but I am using BCH as a basis because it seems to be the one with the most adoption and the one that is more widely used to transact.
It seems to me like this would grant more stability and credibility to the coins, plus the fact that anyone who already owns a set amount of BCH and wants to pay and transact in BCH will find it more appealing to talk in terms of BCH the whole time.
True, technology makes it easier for currency conversion to be automatic nowadays, and obviously something like this needs mass adoption for it to work as well as it can.
BCH already has the transaction speed and the block size and the growing market to succeed as an alternative to Fiat. But something tells me that unless something of the nature that I discuss here happens, it will keep on being considered only an investment and a store of value, instead of living to its true full potential. The same can be said of Dash or any other coin that is trying to decentralize money.
As a disclaimer, and if it was apparent because of the likely many mistakes or assumptions I am making in this article (more of a rant), I am fairly new to crypto and am looking forward to it becoming mainstream and a payment alternative. But it also will mean greater monetary freedom and use cases for decentralized money. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only reason why crypto is getting taxed the fact that we keep converting it to Fiat? I'm thinking that taxes on crypto are kind of inevitable, at least until the advent of the decentralized government, or something of the sort, but if we want them to be taxed different than fiat income, we have to use it as its own thing.
Ok, enough ranting, gotta get back to work. Thanks for reading.