Hacker News Reader

Comment by readams | Hacker News Reader

There are a lot of much better assets to buy as an inflation hedge.

If you live in a wealthy country, yes, but if you have limited bank access and consequently likely a country with unstable fiat, which assets would you suggest are more stable for long term holding? Certainly not physical assets, as people without banking access aren't likely to have vaults or some way to protect something like gold.

Usually in stone (buildings/sheds), farmland, or readily usable goods that keep well/provide value (rice, dry beans, generator, fridge).

Sucks if you need to run though. But usually if you're wealthy in an unwealthy/poorly banked country and can't leave for some reason, you keep your assets in the place you'd run to if you really had to.

all of those things are fine and good, but they aren't something you can easily put your savings into - you have to save up to buy most of that stuff, and you can't just horde physical items without necessary storage and protection. Further for some people these things all pose substantially more risk than bitcoin. If someone burns your sheds down or salts your farmland because you can't payoff the local rebels, you risk losing everything, with bitcoin, having poor timing on exiting the market is risky, but certainly not 100% wealth loss risk and that's without even considering the aspect that memorizing a wallets secret phrase is the only upkeep you need to hold bitcoin. All of those physical assets bear some form of time/energy to maintain/upkeep and as you mention have a strong downside of making you immobile.

I'm not saying everyone should store their savings in bitcoin, but I am saying it serves a very real, potentially life changing purpose for some people and that shouldn't be discounted.

That has nothing to do with bitcoin specifically though. What you're describing is either someone using another currency or using some kind of digital payment system. It doesn't have to be cryptos.

the only digital currencies that exist for people who don't have access to banks is crypto, I believe.

Holding physical cash is just asking to have your life savings stolen in places that are poor enough to not have bank access.

Crypto is not about investing, its about payments. "Almost 25% of US Cross-Border Remittance Senders Use Crypto" [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32291999

Cool, but the grandparent was specifically talking about inflation hedging, not about payments.

Regardless, the article you link does not actually claim what the title says it claims:

> PYMNTS research reveals that many consumers (24%) see the option to send funds in cryptocurrency as a key motivator in choosing a payment services provider (PSP), in fact.

That does not mean 24% of cross-border payments are made in cryptocurrencies. It means that 24% of people think that it's important that their payments provider supports cryptocurrency as an option (and says nothing about whether or not they exercise that option, or even have an account with such a provider).

Also, even if this were true, that does not mean you are correct in stating that cryptocurrencies are about payments. It's pretty clear that far, far more people use them for investing speculation.

> the grandparent was specifically talking about inflation hedging, not about payments

Their assertion:

> There are a lot of much better assets to buy as an inflation hedge

.. was in indirect response to a parent comment:

> Bitcoin is not really a 'young technology' anymore, and the only thing it has enabled so far is risky, unregulated investment strategies, and an staggering amount of crime.

I think clarifying that there is a material population of crypto users who use Bitcoin as a currency not an investment is material in this context?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com