I agree with the context of your explanation. Government regulation of money supply is an important issue. But the author didn't say all that. In that paragrap

I agree with the context of your explanation. Government regulation of money supply is an important issue. But the author didn't say all that. In that paragraph they say Bitcoin is not a useful currency because the value fluctuates. They did not suggest that what makes Bitcoin fluctuate is the lack of government controls/regulation of supply. They simply say fluctuation is bad for a currency. They then make an analogy to hyperinflation, which I'm suggesting is sloppy given the argument they are making because hyperinflation happens because of money printing by the central bank, which is not what causes fluctuation in bitcoin's price. For example they could have said "Bitcoin fluctuates because of massive speculation and trading. Fluctuation is bad for a currency". Or "Bitcoin fluctuates because there's no one who controls the supply" Either works for me, not that I agree but at least it's clear. But instead they make no explanation of what causes the fluctuations, and instead use this hyperinflation metaphor which is horribly inaccurate. That paragraph of the article has a related issue which is they say "The supply of Bitcoin is capped by design, which is meant to prevent inflation". Shouldn't this read "which prevents inflation"? I understand there are all sorts of forces governing the value of bitcoin (speculation, manipulation, supply, demand, miners) but I don't believe "inflation" is one of them. There are coins still being issued but the supply is capped at 21M. It's possible I'm misunderstanding here and this article actually is well written and I'm an idiot. The article just seems like a collection of gotchas, none of which are well explained. I'm generally pro-bitcoin but appreciate sharp thinking wherever it comes from as no one really knows how this will all play out but we can make good arguments (or bad ones).