In a very real way it’s inherently worth more than copper or steel. Though that only makes it valuable as a hedge not an investment.
Ideally though, we should use something else so that gold can be cheaper for electronics.
Bitcoin is an entirely different creature with absolutely zero intrinsic value, and only successful due to the momentum of being the first mover.
Of all the major cryptos in distribution, Bitcoin is one of the least advanced and most limited in functionality.
Then please argue it; all evidence suggests otherwise.
> Ideally though, we should use something else so that gold can be cheaper for electronics.
Imagine if we had a form of money that didn’t permanently tie up a nonrenewable commodity… it could be based on, say, electricity consumption instead of permanently removing metal from usage!
> Bitcoin is an entirely different creature with absolutely zero intrinsic value, and only successful due to the momentum of being the first mover.
“Intrinsic value” is a totally economically nonsensical concept. Gold is also not valuable due to “intrinsic value”. They are both valuable due to monetization. Yes, this is based on “momentum”/impredicativity. No, that’s not a problem.
> Of all the major cryptos in distribution, Bitcoin is one of the least advanced and most limited in functionality.
There is literally no charitable interpretation of this statement that is true.
Gold value is uncorrelated from its means of exchange, sure
>> Ideally though, we should use something else so that gold can be cheaper for electronics. >Imagine if we had a form of money that didn’t permanently tie up a nonrenewable commodity… it could be based on, say, electricity consumption instead of permanently removing metal from usage!
So Bitcoin scarcity is a strength and commodity scarcity is a weakness? Let’s put aside the electricity needs commodities to, y’know, exist in the first place
>> Bitcoin is an entirely different creature with absolutely zero intrinsic value, and only successful due to the momentum of being the first mover. >“Intrinsic value” is a totally economically nonsensical concept. Gold is also not valuable due to “intrinsic value”. They are both valuable due to monetization. Yes, this is based on “momentum”/impredicativity. No, that’s not a problem.
Valuable due to monetisation is a creative babble, I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean.
>> Of all the major cryptos in distribution, Bitcoin is one of the least advanced and most limited in functionality. >There is literally no charitable interpretation of this statement that is true.
Bitcoin’s value to you is what you can convert it to later, after convincing others and yourself to keep buying; your logic is tainted by this very conflict of interest. Good luck
Which means gold is a long term store of value, which prevents extreme cratering of it’s value. Thus preventing the situation described.
> In a very real way it’s inherently worth more than copper or steel.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Usually when people say things like this they haven’t thought it through.
Incidentally, Bitcoin is also rust-proof.
Gold's industry use remains negligible in the great scheme of things and only a very small fraction of its value is derived from its industrial uses. It's valuable but not that valuable.
[0] https://www.bluesea.com/resources/108/Electrical_Conductivit...
Conversely, this means it’s value as a hedge is also going to stay. Some can take gold today burry it in a hole and know it’s going to still be valuable when they or their descendent pulls it out of the ground in 50 years. It’s not going to appreciate they way stocks do, but it’s also not going to 0 the way stocks occasionally do either.