True, but the alternative vision is that we cut out the USD<->BTC exchange process entirely. For instance, I could get paid in BTC, then I go to Target and pay for their goods in BTC, whereafter they keep the BTC. But Andreessen Horowitz wouldn't like that, of course.
If you noticed though, the article constantly referenced the ability of both consumers and merchants to NOT possess any actual bitcoins. The actual bitcoin is so volatile, not to mention the gold-standard-like deflationary nature of them, that convincing most people that holding onto actual bitcoins rather than fiat currency does not seem to be a16z's goal (which is a good decision on their part). So its hard to argue the merits of the article while basically rejecting one of its main points (that you dont need to hold any bitcoins for it to still be super cheap).
You can already get paid in BTC too [1] so you don't even have to convert USD -> BTC in the first place. Why wouldn't a16z like that? Wouldn't they love that? If BTC becomes that commonplace then all of these companies they're invested in will skyrocket.
Unless your salary is denominated in BTC, i.e. you make the same BTC every paycheck, I'd argue you're still being paid in USD and just using a third party service to hide the exchange from you and deliver your paycheck in BTC.
