3 ms·

I disagree with the 'store of value' argument. I got into a similar argument with someone on here before, and I believe it is an insufficient economic principle

I disagree with the 'store of value' argument. I got into a similar argument with someone on here before, and I believe it is an insufficient economic principle to justify a currency. A good currency serves as a medium of exchange or a standard of value. Are people using bitcoin to replace USD in general? No, not really. It's not a very good medium of exchange not because of the illegal stuff but because no one knows how it works and it's messy, that's why no one buys stuff with it. They also don't know how much it's worth on average and therefore struggle to use it, bringing me to my next point... Are people using it as a standard of value? No, if I tell you a car costs 15k USD you know what that means. If I tell you it costs 1 BTC, you have no tangible idea of how to relate that to the real world because BTC's value changes sporadically. I am sure this will stabilise as crypto matures, but i dont think people should invest this much effort into something that is just going to be used as a value measurement. So back to the 'store of value' thing, why do I want people not to invest their money? Is wealth hoarding not a problem now, or do you believe that just by virtue of it existing as BTC, it's doing something good?

chapium 6y ago
I'd argue its storage value is capped by how efficiently you can convert it to other currencies.
throw1234651234 6y ago
First of all, thank you for the coherent argument. Going to start with what I think your central argument is at first. "why do I want people not to invest their money" You don't - you absolutely don't want someone to park their money in BTC and avoid spending it. It's an economic inefficiency. It's also the nature of people to hoard wealth - that's why they buy land to "sit on" and why they buy gold. Both do not have the world OR wealth distribution. That's also why in the US, we have a property tax - to keep the wealthy from hoarding all the land without generating a profit on it (assuming they aren't living on the property. Conclusion - we need, or at the very least have used stores of value throughout history that are not "investments" in the sense of efficient use of resources. "What are the benefits of BTC over existing stores of value?" ("USD" in a bank account, USD (cash), gold, and property). The ones I listed above - USD depreciates. It's trite but it's also true - you cannot hold USD without losing wealth. Gold has no intrinsic value, you have less control over the asset unless you store it in your basement (managed by third party), you cannot easily move it or transact in it. Real estate is entirely too complicated for a non-professional to invest in. Same with land. BTC does what cash was supposed to - you buy it, it sits there, it doesn't depreciate. Now, you will correctly say "No, I buy BTC at $20,000 and tomorrow it's $3,000". Completely correct and true, but the bet is that as it becomes more established it will become a more reliable store of value than a nationally backed currency, kind of like currency was when it was backed by the gold standard. Hopefully that helps you understand my viewpoint without thinking I am trying to shove my opinion down your throat, as most crypto debates go that way, and it's definitely not my intent. I don't even hold crypto, nor do I necessarily think it's "changing the world".

chapium 6y ago

I'd argue its storage value is capped by how efficiently you can convert it to other currencies.

throw1234651234 6y ago

First of all, thank you for the coherent argument. Going to start with what I think your central argument is at first. "why do I want people not to invest their money" You don't - you absolutely don't want someone to park their money in BTC and avoid spending it. It's an economic inefficiency. It's also the nature of people to hoard wealth - that's why they buy land to "sit on" and why they buy gold. Both do not have the world OR wealth distribution. That's also why in the US, we have a property tax - to keep the wealthy from hoarding all the land without generating a profit on it (assuming they aren't living on the property. Conclusion - we need, or at the very least have used stores of value throughout history that are not "investments" in the sense of efficient use of resources. "What are the benefits of BTC over existing stores of value?" ("USD" in a bank account, USD (cash), gold, and property). The ones I listed above - USD depreciates. It's trite but it's also true - you cannot hold USD without losing wealth. Gold has no intrinsic value, you have less control over the asset unless you store it in your basement (managed by third party), you cannot easily move it or transact in it. Real estate is entirely too complicated for a non-professional to invest in. Same with land. BTC does what cash was supposed to - you buy it, it sits there, it doesn't depreciate. Now, you will correctly say "No, I buy BTC at $20,000 and tomorrow it's $3,000". Completely correct and true, but the bet is that as it becomes more established it will become a more reliable store of value than a nationally backed currency, kind of like currency was when it was backed by the gold standard. Hopefully that helps you understand my viewpoint without thinking I am trying to shove my opinion down your throat, as most crypto debates go that way, and it's definitely not my intent. I don't even hold crypto, nor do I necessarily think it's "changing the world".