So much projection. Astonishing.
What's discussing is handwaving real-world problems because they don't fit your agenda.
149 karma · joined July 28, 2017
What's discussing is handwaving real-world problems because they don't fit your agenda.
More info: https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-adoption-venezuela-research
BTC's liquidity has been increasing and will continue to increase in the future, so it's just a matter of time.
And you are again conflating SoV with volatility. Todays cash (USD) is not volatile but it's a terrible SoV. That's why no one is storing their wealth in USD and flee to harder assets (stocks, bonds, gold, and BTC).
Highly recommend this video for how investment firms think about BTC and SoV and how you should too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlXqfibqb38
> Huge investment firms diversifying into crypto
> this is an indictment of the cryptocurrency community's basic financial literacy
I suggest that maybe it's you who lacks basic financial (and econ) literacy, not investment firms or the "cryptocurrency community"
> You can't just call a speculative instrument a "store of value" because every who bought into it in the past two months has seen a positive return
No, everyone who bought BTC at _any point in the past_ and didn't sell are seeing positive returns. This is the definition of a good store of value. You are conflating SoV properties with volatility. They are orthogonal. SoV is a long-term play.
"$100 is absurd for a commodity that has close to zero intrinsic value"
"$1,000 is absurd..."
"$10,000 is absurd..."
At this point, the burden of proof is on sceptics to show why a commodity with zero "intrinsic" value trends upward despite those sceptics' predictions during the last ~10 years.
Because of built-in scarcity. No other asset is as provably scarce as btc.
> Also how is BTC the most reliable store of value? It’s had multiple crashes and is one of the most volatile instruments.
Two points here:
- BTC is of course not good for short-term speculation, it's a long-term savings vehicle. Short-term volatility doesn't affect the properties of a long-term store of value.
- There was no period in history of btc where you would buy it and lose $ after 5 years of holding. Most likely, never will be due to my answer to #1 - inherent and ever increasing scarcity.
> Is the purpose just to become more valuable because of its scarcity with no utility?
Being a reliable store of value is great utility. Nothing else can come close to btc at that.
Tell me mister gxon, are you a good representation of the HN crowd, or is it just Bitcoiners have piled on this article for some reason?
Is it though? If you bought BTC at any given time during 2009-2015, you are in the green 5 years after. Pretty good evidence of unlikeliness to me.
Also, the parent took 5 year period (and not 3) on purpose -- it's exactly 1 year longer than the halving period.
BTW: fan of your work, Greg.
"Much evidence", smh. How about the work that won the Nobel prize on this exact topic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory
It shows exactly how the boom/bust cycle is caused by the active management of money.