El Salvador abandons Bitcoin as legal tender

I would guess "Legal tender 2" was deemed a failed experiment, since rapid deflation is extremely undesirable in a currency.

> since rapid deflation is extremely undesirable in a currency

What do you mean, why should my money NOT go up in value?

if you genuinely are interested in an answer to your question, I recommend this blog post by Matt Ranger:

https://singlelunch.com/2020/10/21/badeconomics-putting-400m...

That's a long post that seems to tell me it's bad for the economy. It's not my job to help the economy. Again, why should I use a money that loses value?

That's an odd take. What's bad for the economy is, for the most part, bad for you.

But to answer your question more directly, you should use a money that loses value because its purpose is as a medium of exchange and not a store of value. You need to have something in your life that you can reliably use to acquire things you need and exchange them for things you have (new laptop for hours worked). You want a hot potato, you get it, you pass it along to someone else. If you don't want to spend it on material goods and want to save, that's fine, you can instead "buy" a savings, or "buy" an index fund. You're still passing the hot potato around, but its giving you different things.

Now imagine you don't have a hot potato, you work and you get paid in... idk, something you don't want to get rid of. You struggle with letting go with your currency and so it costs you when you're trying to do exchanges. Similarly, if you're a shop owner or something, people are more hesitant to give you their currency as well. Things get slower, and darker, like a mechanical flashlight that you're spinning slower and slower.

> But to answer your question more directly, you should use a money that loses value because its purpose is as a medium of exchange and not a store of value

That's an odd definition of money. The ancient Greeks already thought that money is medium of exchange AND a store of value, and throughout history people have preferred money that held its value. It's also circular reasoning. A medium of exchange should lose value, so you should use money that loses value.

> you can instead "buy" a savings, or "buy" an index fund

So money that loses value creates inefficiencies in the economy, because people have to waste time worrying about preserving their wealth, investing, etc.

> You struggle with letting go with your currency

I still need to eat, to live somewhere, I want to experience things, a money that increases in value does not destroy my desire to consume.

=) you're conflating meanings, perhaps due to some of my handwaving. There's a difference between a medium of exchange that loses value, and a medium of exchange that LOSES value. People don't want the latter. That potato is too hot. You want something that loses a measured, controlled, amount of value over time. How much? About 3% per year seems to be a good number that people more educated than me tout around.

I'm also not sure that's a circular reasoning as I provide the reasons why you want a medium of exchange that loses value...

Hmmm... sure, I suppose you can look at it that way. In an inflationary-esque economy, you worry about saving your wealth, so you create instruments to do so: fractional reserve banking, mutual funds, etc. This is a problem with many solutions. On the other hand, in a deflationary-esque economy, you worry about spending your wealth, and perhaps more importantly, getting everyone around you to spend it as well. That problem has less solutions.

I said you struggle, you don't hold on forever, you struggle letting go. As in you eventually do let go, but not as quickly as if it had been depreciating. It functions as a brake on consumption, not a full stop. It slows things down. Slow is not good. Things start to go down when things slow.