I don’t think you want to have many different pricing systems
I see your point. It’s good if everyone converges on the same price index, but this also gives power to the indexer, so for this reason governments might be the preferred party to do this.
So I’d be happy to argue “holding their full savings in BTC” is a good idea with that definition.
Haha fair enough, what I mean is what you define as “transaction funds”.
not sure whether that savings/transaction hedging is better done with actual “dollars” that the central bank would mint and redeem, or privately with future/options contracts or similar
I’m thinking the latter. Arguably most money already works like that since 90%+ of it is lent out (i.e. invested) and the banks are running a fractional reserve.
I think a systemic problem in this case would be if “dollars” end up undercollateralised
Yeah, in the current monetary system governments basically eliminate the risk of bank insolvency by being a lender of last resort. If you remove this insurance and let the risk be separate, then a (collateralized) dollar from bank A won’t be the same as dollar from bank B, which creates many inefficiencies that you’d rather not have to deal with. As you alluded to in your previous post, there’s no reason this kind of insurance can’t still exist.