Bitcoin adoption accelerates where state control fails, and that's true in unstable jurisdictions, but we are discussing the US government. They operate under the principle of what they can't control, they must contain. ​Circular Economy is Niche Friction, Not Systemic Control. How many goods and services can a person actually acquire using a peer-to-peer Bitcoin transfer without interacting with a KYC'd business or eventually cashing out to pay for a house, a car, or taxes? Your "end game" is a niche system that only services a fraction of the economy. ​The government does not need to stop peer-to-peer transfers; they only need to pass regulation that makes the recipient of a peer-to-peer transfer a de facto Money Services Business, subjecting them to massive regulatory overhead, fines, and jail time for not having KYC/AML procedures. That threat alone stops the circular economy from becoming an actual parallel system. ​You call it friction; I call it a regulatory cost barrier. When the cost of using Bitcoin to pay for common goods exceeds the utility, you are forced back to fiat. It's a quiet, bloodless form of control that is absolutely scalable. ​Saying "they can't stop it" is not the same as saying "they can't neuter it." The government is not trying to kill Bitcoin! They are trying to contain its utility so that it remains a speculative asset rather than a functional currency that challenges the dollar's monetary global monopoly. You are praising the friction while ignoring that the friction itself is the government's containment strategy working perfectly. Your "circular economy" is a fantasy the government can afford to ignore until it's large enough to matter, at which point friction, becomes control.