The most popular crypto token is neither of those things. Neither is the second or third or fourth.
If Bitcoin weren’t useful, people wouldn’t use it, and it certainly doesn’t exist to steal anything from anyone.
If Bitcoin weren’t useful, people wouldn’t use it, and it certainly doesn’t exist to steal anything from anyone.
Honestly, is Bitcoin anything other than a speculative asset? It's useful in the sense that it's worth more money, but it feels more like a way of achieving a kind of gold mining in the digital age.
I suppose there's use from that angle, but i'm talking more about the actual projects (Helium, NFTs, etc) which all seem to fizzle into being far worse than what already exists.
Not everyone denominates their wealth in inflationary currencies.
The utility of things like gold and bitcoin is that no force on Earth at the moment has the ability to change policy and inflate them. Many people find that to be a big issue with fiat currencies. Those that don’t, of course, are not compelled to ever touch cryptocurrencies.
They are a purely opt-in alternative to people who find fiat currencies to be lacking for their use cases.
I’m personally not very interested in most random open source projects; they’re usually boring and uninspired. I’m not sure why we expect the bar to be any higher in crypto.
NFTs are a good example of something that get a lot of unnecessary hate. Nobody starts foaming at the mouth when rich people drop five or six figures on MTG or Pokémon cards (or Hermes bags, for that matter), but somehow NFTs are specifically bad?
I agree that it's a opt-in alternative for people who find FIAT currencies lacking, maybe store of value is a use but it just feels within the speculative asset aspect. I feel the same way about it as someone storing a bunch of gold in a vault, which kind of cements my view.
I suppose this is what I mean, I don't think NFTs are specifically bad, I value it in the same way i'd do dropping 6 figures on pokemon cards, except it's just slightly worse than owning a collectors item, which is my original point.
So yeah - if the argument is that crypto/blockchain just exists as an alternative currency, and that's all it will ever really be used for, I suppose that's a use, i'd probably have all my money in crypto if I lived in a highly inflationary country
What you describe (buy high, sell low) is the opposite so what incentive the government (or anyone else) has to loose money? Sticking it to Bitcoin?
BTW: it's not that I FIND fiat lacking. Fiat IS lacking. See all the printing of money by US, EU and everyone else. Most recent US budget is projected to add 5 $trillion, which will be printed.
I merely RECOGNIZE the fiat is lacking and Bitcoin isn't.
And I may be wrong here so feel free to direct me to how to actually do it, but I struggle buying things with bitcoin without major fees, what's the actual acceptable method of doing so?
No. Anyone purchasing an insane amount of Bitcoin would cause so much money to flow into the ecosystem that it would be quite difficult or impossible to crash later.
The market used to be shallow. It isn’t now. The order books are deeeeeep.
Governments regularly seize crypto wallets and sell assets at market price. I’m not sure how much BTC the US government holds, but it might be possible for a government sized entity to crash the market (and make some people ludicrously rich when it rebounds).
So, in a blockchain-run world, they would totally have a use. That’s just not the world for most people.
This patently not remotely true in the world of crypto.