3 ms·

I suppose they company could continuously issue stock in this case. But in this world, it actually makes sense for those companies to stop doing their normal b

I suppose they company could continuously issue stock in this case. But in this world, it actually makes sense for those companies to stop doing their normal business and just go into the business of selling their shares. This reality sounds absurd, but you could argue that BTC market is there. Enough of the market thinks that "always buy" is a good investment, regardless of the real-life value of the asset. Or maybe, less controversially, gold is that market. Any asset that is always increasing in value and not related to the real value of that asset is just a store of value.

candiodari 8y ago
Both of those things have valid services that I pay for. BTC provides a number of services. From money changing and international money transfers to actual investment brokerage. Granted, the number of securities available in BTC is less than spectacular, but it's not zero. I pay for both those services. Now you may argue that those are unregulated services and therefore have trust issues, but one might argue that all markets have trust issues, and the only difference is the level. BTC, so far, seems to be more trustworthy than, for instance, the ECB (e.g. the Greek payment limits and the Cypriot bail in, one of which affected me, and both of them used MY money to achieve political aims, without my approval). Gold provides a store of value, with a good story behind it. I pay my bank, I believe, around $40 per year for that same service. With frankly, not as good a story behind it (as I trust my bank less than I'd trust a bar of gold under my pillow when it comes to still having value tomorrow. Not that I have the kind of spare change to make that a pressing issue, but ...) So given that both BTC and Gold provide services that clearly people are willing to pay for, who's to say they shouldn't have a valuation based on that income like every other financial service provider in the world ?

candiodari 8y ago

Both of those things have valid services that I pay for. BTC provides a number of services. From money changing and international money transfers to actual investment brokerage. Granted, the number of securities available in BTC is less than spectacular, but it's not zero. I pay for both those services. Now you may argue that those are unregulated services and therefore have trust issues, but one might argue that all markets have trust issues, and the only difference is the level. BTC, so far, seems to be more trustworthy than, for instance, the ECB (e.g. the Greek payment limits and the Cypriot bail in, one of which affected me, and both of them used MY money to achieve political aims, without my approval). Gold provides a store of value, with a good story behind it. I pay my bank, I believe, around $40 per year for that same service. With frankly, not as good a story behind it (as I trust my bank less than I'd trust a bar of gold under my pillow when it comes to still having value tomorrow. Not that I have the kind of spare change to make that a pressing issue, but ...) So given that both BTC and Gold provide services that clearly people are willing to pay for, who's to say they shouldn't have a valuation based on that income like every other financial service provider in the world ?