Sure, but again, this is only part of the problem. I also need to have confidence that I can do something with the BTC before its value wildly fluctuates. And either way, again, it still requires trust (in this case, trust in uniswap and its network).
My point is not to say that the problem can't be solved on a technical level. It's that it still requires trust. That problem doesn't get eliminated, it simply moves.
“... I also need to have confidence that I can do something with the BTC before its value wildly fluctuates.”
Fluctuates relative to what? If BTC becomes the unit of account (as it already apparently has in certain channels of international trade), then it’s only fiat money doing the fluctuating, while goods and services are priced in BTC.
That's a huge if, and in order for that if to become true, I already have to be past the hurdle of believing this to be true; thus it's a bit circular.
In other words: the mass public is unlikely to become Bitcoin-first until they can gain confidence in the stability of Bitcoin. This is notwithstanding the fact that stable governments likely will not accept BTC as a national currency, meaning citizens will still need USD/EUR/GBP/their local currency for paying taxes and transacting with the government.
It feels as though your post just handwaved away all of the practical issues with actually making the world BTC-first and then asked why I cared about them. Because, in order for the world you're proposing to exist, we almost certainly have had to solve them.
Goods and services will never be priced in BTC because BTC fluctuates by the hour and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The only way I can see this happening is if you literally eliminate all other currencies, including other cryptocurrencies, because there will always be currencies competing with BTC (and not without good reason).
Classic example of buying a good using BTC: say it costs 100 satoshis. By the time I click and purchase, and by the time the BTC arrives at the seller's address, the value may have changed for the better (BTC price goes down - hence I paid "less") or for the worse (BTC price goes up - hence I paid "more"). For the most extreme example, imagine how people that bought a pizza with Bitcoin when it was worth 5$ feel right now. A 15$ pizza in 2009 or whatever is worth ~150K USD now.
You’re measuring everything in dollars. But there are already economies that exist outside the realm of dollars. And who says the future belongs to the US dollar? In fact, historical reserve currency cycles strongly suggest otherwise, not to mention the untested waters of current monetary policies, a failing GDP, and waning political gravitas...
Your concerns about network trust are entirely unwarranted. In the bitcoin whitepaper published over ten years ago, before the software was even written, Satoshi explains how a trustless network might be created via Proof of Work.
On the topic of price fluctuations, I'd like to point out that not only are there a plurality of stablecoins pegged against and collateralized with dollars, there are also synthetic assets like DAI which follow in Satoshi's footsteps - using game theory, economics, and finance, to novel and practical effect.
I highly recommend reading the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and DAI whitepapers (in that order).
For Bitcoins, concerns about trust are warranted. Currency requires trust that it retains value; that is not given for Bitcoin and its countless clones at all.
Stablecoins collateralised by actual dollars quite obviously require trust, namely in the entity providing and holding the collateral.
Stablecoins collateralised by "the algorithm" have never been seriously tested, in my opinion, and it not clear to me at all whether you can manufacture stability algorithmically. DAI, SAI, MAI, whatever, are only collateralised by "assets" on the Ethereum blockchain, so ultimately self-referential (or, if collateralised by something tied to something real, require trust there.)
The fourth word on Tether's wikipedia page is "controversial". Nobody is under the impression that it's fully collateralized. Would you care to make the case that a different, trusted stablecoin isn't fully collateralized?
DAI specifically is collateralized with ETH using smart contracts - it's over 100% collateralization is incontrovertible.
Sure, it's collateralized by ethereum - the problem with that of course is that ethereum is a completely manipulated price driven up by billions in falsely collateralized tether.
So effectively, you've linked DAI to the value of a coin that is set by tether. That being the case, the actual value of the collateral is in question.
Checkout uniswap. Which is a decentralized exchange which the smart contract ensuring you get X asset for Y btc.