Why do you think "holding fiat money" is something that is inherently good or desirable in the first place? Such a weird premise. Money is for the purpose of exchanging goods and services; you're supposed to hold a minimal amount of it. The rest you invest.

> The existence of harder forms of money (gold, bitcoin, etc) is an expected consequence of how the system is designed, and not in any way a subversion of it. Somehow, both sides seem to miss this point.

Can you expand here? Governments don't want to incentivize storing value in order to encourage spending, but people want to be able to store value because that's what we've been doing since farming.

Is it because money is a medium of exchange and not a store of value?