user85224: Tesla has said they "expect to begin accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment for our products in the near future."
But Bitcoin doesn't scale. It achieves about roughly 6 transactions per second, paling in comparison to the likes of Visa, which facilitates around 1,700 transactions per second.
What's the rationale behind their decision?

user-1: 
Bitcoin transactions can be done for more than 1 real world payment so "TPS" is not correct when comparing it with few other ways to make payments. VISA payments are not same as bitcoin on-chain transactions. Chargebacks, settlement times, censorship and lot of other differences.

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/100829/

Bitcoin scaling works in layers: https://bitcoinkpis.com/layer2 and this does not mean on-chain development has stopped. Scaling is an ongoing process. Every improvement helps in scaling better. Example: Schnorr Signatures

We don't know the details yet how will Tesla use bitcoin for payments. So it's difficult to speculate but I am sure they have enough money to hire the best bitcoin developers to setup bitcoin payments for their products.



user5406: Sending a Bitcoin payment incurs a fee relative to the weight of the transaction. Every transaction must have at least one input and one output. Assuming a minimal transaction weight for either, it costs the same to send 1 mBTC or 100 BTC.
The cost per transaction weight is one reason why on-chain transactions are ill-suited for micropayments, but it also means that larger payments can come at a significantly lower relative cost than other payment forms.
A new Tesla 3 costs about 0.9 BTC today. At a feerate of 150 sats/vB (next block confirmation even at high demand) and a transaction weighing 250 vB, the transaction fee of 37,500 sats (0.375 mBTC) translates to a relative fee of 0.0417%. I believe that you will find many other payment forms to incur a larger fee, especially for the merchant.
On the other hand, payments on the Lightning Network incur a cost relative to the paid amount, so I expect smaller payments to shift to Lightning Network and similar solutions more and more.

85224: <p>Tesla has said they <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-08/tesla-bets-1-5-billion-on-bitcoin-in-new-policy-crypto-surges" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;expect to begin accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment for our products in the near future.&quot;</a></p>
<p>But Bitcoin doesn't scale. It achieves about roughly <a href="https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transactions-per-second" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>6</em> transactions</a> per second, paling in comparison to the likes of Visa, which facilitates around <em>1,700</em> transactions per second.</p>
<p>What's the rationale behind their decision?</p>
 -1: <ol>
<li>Bitcoin transactions can be done for more than 1 real world payment so &quot;TPS&quot; is not correct when comparing it with few other ways to make payments. VISA payments are not same as bitcoin on-chain transactions. Chargebacks, settlement times, censorship and lot of other differences.</li>
</ol>
<p><a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/100829/">https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/100829/</a></p>
<ol start="2">
<li><p>Bitcoin scaling works in layers: <a href="https://bitcoinkpis.com/layer2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://bitcoinkpis.com/layer2</a> and this does not mean on-chain development has stopped. Scaling is an ongoing process. Every improvement helps in scaling better. Example: Schnorr Signatures</p>
</li>
<li><p>We don't know the details yet how will Tesla use bitcoin for payments. So it's difficult to speculate but I am sure they have enough money to hire the best bitcoin developers to setup bitcoin payments for their products.</p>
</li>
</ol>
 5406: <p>Sending a Bitcoin payment incurs a fee relative to the weight of the transaction. Every transaction must have at least one input and one output. Assuming a minimal transaction weight for either, it costs the same to send 1 mBTC or 100 BTC.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/84006/5406">cost</a> per transaction <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/53626/5406">weight</a> is one reason why on-chain transactions are ill-suited for micropayments, but it also means that larger payments can come at a significantly lower relative cost than other payment forms.</p>
<p>A new Tesla 3 costs about 0.9 BTC today. At a feerate of 150 sats/vB (next block confirmation even at high demand) and a transaction weighing 250 vB, the transaction fee of 37,500 sats (0.375 mBTC) translates to a relative fee of 0.0417%. I believe that you will find many other payment forms to incur a larger fee, especially for the merchant.</p>
<p>On the other hand, payments on the Lightning Network incur a cost <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/48283/5406">relative to the paid amount</a>, so I expect smaller payments to shift to Lightning Network and similar solutions more and more.</p>
