> You're not saying anything that couldn't be said about houses in the US Midwest. So? The reason it was problematic for people to pour money into housing was

> You're not saying anything that couldn't be said about houses in the US Midwest. So? The reason it was problematic for people to pour money into housing was that loans (often loans of around 100%) were secured on these assets. No one is currently securing loans on Bitcoin holdings. If they start to, that will be a problem, but I don't see banks ever securing loans on something so volatile.