# Bitcoin payments will start with merchants seeking lower costs, Lewis says

By Riza Dagoc

Canonical URL: https://www.tokenpost.com/news/insights/38363
Published: 2026-10-22T21:20:31.000Z
Updated: 2026-10-22T21:20:31.000Z
Section: Insights & Views

> Parker Lewis says merchants could drive Bitcoin payment adoption by accepting it directly to reduce costs. He also questioned investor incentives at Bitcoin treasury companies and the risks of perpetual preferred equity.

Merchants who already see Bitcoin as a way to preserve value could lead its adoption for payments, accepting it for goods and services to reduce the cost of collecting fiat currency and then buying Bitcoin.

In an October 22 interview with Bitcoin Magazine, Parker Lewis, author of Gradually Then Suddenly and head of business development at Bitcoin payments company Zaprite, argued that Bitcoin’s usefulness for saving and spending is closely connected. The rationale for buying Bitcoin also gives businesses a reason to accept it, he said.

For business owners who understand Bitcoin’s fixed supply and why it can store value, accepting it directly offers another way to acquire it, Lewis said. That could avoid paying 3% credit card fees, facing chargeback risk and subsequently converting fiat receipts into Bitcoin.

He expects businesses initially to keep prices in fiat currencies while adding Bitcoin as a payment option. As more customers hold Bitcoin and more merchants want to receive it, discounts for Bitcoin payments or premiums for costlier fiat payments could encourage use. Lewis argued that the ease of exchanging Bitcoin supports its ability to store value, with a broader range of available goods and services reinforcing that function.

Lewis traced his move into payments to the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and other United States banks in the spring of 2023. Bank failures can disrupt incoming customer payments as well as payroll, he said. While custody had advanced substantially over the preceding five to seven years, he considered payments underdeveloped. Requiring Bitcoin holders to pass through the fiat system whenever they access the real economy would leave Bitcoin excessively dependent on centralized infrastructure, he argued.

He also challenged efforts to describe Bitcoin as something other than money. Lewis said the priority was better tools for custody, security and payments. He warned that legislation recognizing payment stablecoins while placing Bitcoin outside the categories of money or currency could have regulatory consequences.

Turning to Bitcoin treasury companies, Lewis said purchasing Bitcoin does not itself create value and can produce conflicting incentives between companies and investors. He criticized models that depend on further fundraising while encouraging investors to pay a premium for shares backed by an asset they could acquire directly. Unlike operating assets accessible through company ownership, Bitcoin can be held directly, through a custodian or through an ETF, he said.

Lewis said he understood why companies would issue perpetual preferred equity to buy Bitcoin, but questioned the risks borne by buyers. Many retail investors believe they are taking one, two or four years of risk when their exposure is actually indefinite and denominated in fiat currency, he argued. With investors receiving fiat claims and income while the issuer holds Bitcoin, he described the arrangement as closer to a currency swap.

The absence of a maturity date was central to his concerns. Lewis said issuers cannot prioritize common shareholders over preferred shareholders but can suspend preferred payouts, and argued that perpetual preferred equity lacks traditional credit protections. He contrasted the roughly $300 trillion fixed income market cited by companies with a global perpetual preferred equity market of about $1.5 trillion, emphasizing the protection a maturity date provides and the uncertainty investors face without one.