The presence of hype, fraud and large fluctuations in prices do not invalidate new technology or concepts.
The dotcom "bubble" was a hypefest, then it deflated, but the underlying technology and concepts have spawned something many times larger than the original bubble.
If it turns out that cryptocurrencies have no purpose beyond a small niche, then we'll see in hindsight that it was indeed a bubble.
But if creative people find a larger use for cryptocurrencies, then hindsight will understand the 2018 "crash" as just another in the fractal series of price declines followed by even larger price increases.
Since the underlying technology has withstood sustained attacks across the technical, economic, political and legal domains, perhaps reports of its death are premature.
[0] https://books.google.com/books?id=sRYW1wtdER0C&pg=PA136&lpg=...
Throughout most of modern history, you could buy things with gold and that's unlikely to change. Barring alchemy or some extreme globalwide natural disasters, there's a value floor on gold that's missing with bitcoin.
There are no current killer applications for bitcoin beyond some semi-legal trade of illicit drugs and ransomware which doesn't even need or cause the currency price to go up since it's usually converted back and forth to fiat. Perhaps this will change if countries currencies go belly up and die (think Venezuela, Argentina and Zimbabwe).
The purported uses of gold have no relevance, they're just part of the illusion of gold having value. We value 3 swimming pools of an arbitrary substance at 7 trillion dollars. There is no utility that even justifies 1% of this valuation. It does not produce dividends.
Would you rather speculate on a "shared illusion of value" that has massive room to grow into the digital age, or one that is potentially reaching peak levels of absurdity?
Both assets are illusory bullshit - but you can make a lot of money trading bullshit.
Considering the downvotes I got, I suppose I was out of line suggesting a wager, but I've yet to see convincing evidence for why blockchain tech can't work. Sure it's overhyped way beyond what it deserves and it hasn't found its "killer app" or niche yet, but that doesn't mean it won't.
Nano's my favorite coin. It's fee-less, near-instant, and secure. Its largest flaw (and one all coins share at this point) is its tendency to fluctuate in value. But this problem is soon to be overcome by stable coins. Once that's done, its only remaining disadvantage will be lack of adoption. And if the product's right, I don't see any reason why a superior product won't gain market share given enough time. And it's not like crypto is under some investor enforced deadline to reach a certain market share, it's got all the time in the world.
Anyone care to point out any flaws in my thinking?
Is crypto:
money/currency (spend able exchange of value)
a store of value (investment etc)
a cool technology with no current useful application
or something I don't understand?
If crypto is money, can I:
Spend it at Amazon? My grocery store? My corner deli? Pay my rent? Pay my employees?
If crypto is a store of value can I trust it will have any rational storage value over any time period?
Given the not very well bit, it's main use in reality is doing stuff discouraged by governments such as buying drugs and pushing scammy investments.
Whether it will develop beyond that I'm not sure.
As to your questions, you can spend it some places. I think newegg takes it, Valve used to take it with Steam, etc. There are corner delis who take it, I'm not sure about yours. Your employees may be ok with you paying them in it, but that's an agreement you have to have with them.
To your last question -- no, I wouldn't think so at least for now.