That means they can easily keep those sats as savings without affecting their regular cash flow.

This is a point I'd like to discuss further. Imagine an online store selling homemade clothes. A poor person can start such a company and needs to accept payments somehow. I've built software for doing this with bitcoin.

Such businesses have expenses, namely: shipping costs, cost of purchasing materials, and perhaps the cost of splitting the proceeds with an employee or friend who is helping make the clothes. I imagine a poor person starting such a company with next to nothing. They have negligible savings, let's suppose zero savings. But they've made shirts before, and have pictures of them, so they can upload those to the internet, accept payment online for new orders, then order the materials, make the shirts, and take the shirts to the post office to ship them.

Now let's suppose they accept bitcoin but not stablecoins. They started their business a few days ago, when bitcoin was $75k. They got $100 in sales, enough to pay for $90 in expenses with $10 left which they hope to split with their friend to eat and sleep somewhere. Today they go to buy the materials and lo and behold, bitcoin dropped to $60k, so their $100 earnings are now only worth $80. They can't afford to buy the materials nor do they have anything left over to eat or pay rent. They are bankrupt and now instead of making money, they are in debt: they owe their customers some shirts but they cannot afford to make them.

Instead of this catastrophe, let's suppose they either accept stablecoins directly or convert their bitcoins to stablecoins. In this case, their $100 is still worth $100. True, next year it will only be worth $95, and there's a rugpull risk since Tether might steal it. But these risks, including the slow depreciation, seems like a small price to pay if it means the person is still in business and can actually begin to accrue savings.

What is wrong with this imagined scenario? Is anything in that description fantastic or unlikely? Is the merchant wrong to think stablecoins are a good way to increase his chances of success? Is he a slave if he decides the risk of rugs and inflation is worth it? Accepting stablecoins or converting his bitcoins to them may save him from going bankrupt if bitcoin rapidly falls in value. As a tradeoff, he has to trust Tether corp, and if he holds these stablecoins for a year they will be worth about 5% less. I sympathize with this imaginary merchant and I'm beginning to think it is wise to make "convert to stablecoins" an option for him in his store interface.