> Deflating currencies act as value holders, not as currencies, they don't promote trading or commerce, buying and selling it for physical things.

I know this is the commonly accepted reason why inflation is good and deflation is bad. But isn't this just coercion? Here's your paycheck. You better go out spend it like a good consumer because we're going to ensure its value is going to slowly erode over time.

Modern man already needs to buy and sell things to survive. It's not clear to me why his currency needs to further promote this behavior.

Yes, that’s exactly what it is, but with one crucial additional factor: investment.

Mild inflation does not discourage saving, it discourages saving the actual currency, which does nothing for the economy. It encourages saving in the form of investment, which stimulates the economy.

If my dollars were guaranteed to get more and more valuable over time, why would I spend them (more than absolutely necessary) or invest them in economic ventures? This is why deflationary currency is bad.

Your dollars already do get more valuable over time wrt consumer electronics and cars, yet people still purchase them en masse.

Many still spend in a deflationary environment, they just do so with far more care about the product and it's longevity.

People will invest also, though only with a expected return greater than deflation gains.

Instead the status quo is being forced into overvalued equities or real estate investments. There's no real option to be a saver in the western world anymore.

It might be bad for the economy/GDP but what about for the individual? Consider a blue collar worker just making enough to get by and saving a little cash on the side. Why are you forcing this person to learn about inflation, interest rates, the SP500, etc.

If they are saving a little bit on the side for the short term, inflation will not noticeably hurt them (I am speaking of a well-managed monetary system with mild inflation such as the US). If they want to save for the long term, then they should invest it if they want to maximize gains. That’s what’s best for the individual.

What if they're not interested in maximizing gains? What if they don't want to learn about investing? What if they just want their hard earned money to not evaporate on them?

target funds https://www.schwabfunds.com/public/file/P-9430864

My uncle told me these cryptocurrencies are an even better investment!

Inflation is either good or bad, depending on the circumstances. Same with deflation.

A currency is important only because it is a medium of exchange. A currency is actually working well if it is slowly decreasing in value, because if it does not then people will hold onto it and not use it, thus making it a commodity. In the longer term, what happens is that people will switch to another method to transfer value, and your currency then becomes worthless as the reason for it storing value is removed.

This is one of the reasons why a deflationary by design cryptocurrency is so dangerous. It seems intuitive in our current thinking to increase value by design, but actually this can have dusasterous consequences. Japan, for instance, has had massive problems with deflation and eventually had to work to counter this for their economic health.

Obviously rampant inflation is dreadful, but that’s not what we are talking about here. Low underlying inflation is, somewhat ironically, an excellent indicator of a healthy economy.

That's very true, but a huge percentage of people recently in the cryptocurrency space are only there to make money. Not many truly care about the technology.

But they make money when they stop holding; otherwise it's just a number.

There are many practices like that, though. E.g. you go for a run and then rest. The run still benefits you, just as holding crypto let's it increase in value. But you eventually stop running to rest, and in the same way, cash out your hold.

I agree with you somewhat, but before we even care about HODLing, BTC needs to get fees and transaction confirmation times way down for it to be used as a currency.

Right now, it can take 10 minutes and $20 to transfer any amount of money on the BTC network. That isn't reasonable to buy a hamburger.

BTC is old and deprecated. BTC is now what ARPANET is to the Internet. Without LN and SegWit BTC will suffer long transaction time and high fees before it dies. We all know it, yet, somehow no one cares.

Maybe it's time we stop calling these cryptocurrencies and call them what they really are, cryptostocks.

they're not stocks because stocks gives you equity in a company. there's no bitcoin, inc or ethereum, inc.

To be technical, some tokens are offering "dividends" these days, ex. sharing trading profits of a blockchain decentralized exchange. But I guess these tokens don't strictly represent a cryptocurrency, maybe a single cryptoasset more so. But those tokens could be traded like a currency...so it gets kind of confusing.

They also don't pay dividends.

People will hold whatever they believe will appreciate in value.

I would argue that the more people hold, the better. It is taking power from centralized government fiat and injecting it into crypto, even if for brief periods of time.

Sounds counter-intuitive but a society throwing their life savings into crypto is actually a good thing. Letting the early adopters get rich is probably a net benefit if it attracts widespread attention and adoption, which is what crypto needs to become a day to day currency.