Diehl's argument is that the PV is zero, and the post to which you are replying is a response to that. So while you are quite correct that the arguments introdu

Diehl's argument is that the PV is zero, and the post to which you are replying is a response to that. So while you are quite correct that the arguments introduced are political, they are still convincing arguments to some degree, and that is publicly observable, so people will value these assets in the knowledge that there are a hardcore of 'strong hands'. You seem to be saying that these political arguments are more true in 'regimes' than in 'the western world'. This is even better. If the political thesis is true in some countries then the connected assets will be valued based on that, and even those of us who are blessed to live in managerial states will be able to hold assets with those prices – all thanks to Erdoğan, al-Sisi et al. But this is not Diehl's argument. He's saying that crypto isn't worth anything no matter how many journalists MBS cuts into little pieces. His line (which appears to be a dumbed-down, unattributed version of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb says) is that an asset with no cash flow has zero present value. NNT's version is that an asset with no cash flow must be valued based on the price "at infinity". Diehl wants this to mean that any self-licking ice-cream cone has zero PV, but that is simply false, in that a self-sustaining process which never ceases really does have that "price at infinity". Most of gold's value comes from this, i.e. from the reasonable expectation that humans will value gold for as long as there are humans. There's a respectable theory of money which says that moneys arise in this way – a feedback loop of belief about others' beliefs about value, that ends up creating the common knowledge that something is valuable. To this extent Diehl is simply begging the question, by assuming that something isn't a potential money and valuing it as if it can never be one.