Its just common sense and if we do talk about stability then its better to deal with fiat or stable coins but we know the cons of it which it would be less for you to make money or profits.
No, that's not how economies work. You are implying that there is some kind of difference in Bitcoin (and possibly other cryptos) that handicaps their purpose as a method of payment.
One of the things on why people do love to invest on something which does have potential on making profits via those movements and this is where people do get interested.
We dont want stability and we dont want for the price on moving less because we cant really make out some money with that and this is what most people do love the most
which its moving price and since it does have the potential then there's no doubt on making profits in the future.
Here is a hard fact: If you're only here to make money, then walk the plank and convert all your holdings to Ethereum (with their 2.0 launch mania you will make a hansome profit in the next 1-2 months).
If everyone just stays here to make money, then we are only proving the naysayers right when they said "Bitcoin is just a speculative bubble". You are suppoesd to buy, and then you HODL the majority of it. There is a certain stage in the network's growth where increased prices become destructive due to lack of increasing difficulty [new antminers having only small speed boost] - and the priority should be to save the network above making money.
Even if we have to turn off halvings to keep the hashrate in balance, we should do it. IDGAF if the price never moons again at that point. The point is to maintain an inflation-resistant currency, not an investment scheme.
I refer you to this mailing list entry by Jaroslaw:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-August/020854.htmlOne of the finest pieces I read about the subject of blockchain economics.