3 ms·
Right, but what I'm saying is that the appearance of a "safe asset" relied on $2 billion of purchases and very thin liquidity in the market (allowing that $2 bi
by pclmulqdq 4y ago
Right, but what I'm saying is that the appearance of a "safe asset" relied on $2 billion of purchases and very thin liquidity in the market (allowing that $2 billion to have a larger than normal effect on price). Without the $2 billion of extra purchases, who knows whether it would have been a "safe asset" or not? My guess is "no."
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> without the $2 billion of extra purchases, who knows whether it would have been a "safe asset" or not? My guess is "no." I tend to agree. But external stabilization hasn't been a disqualifier for historical safe assets.
- notahacker 4y agoA track record of it failing to hold up under numerous other periods of market turmoil is pretty disqualifying though, as is its spectacular failure to achieve one of its stated goals of being an inflation hedge when we finally got around to experiencing significant inflation.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> track record of it failing to hold up under numerous other periods of market turmoil is pretty disqualifying though I agree. To be clear, I'm not declaring Bitcoin a safe asset. Just pointing out that it behaved like one in the preceding weeks. That's genuinely interesting. > its spectacular failure to achieve one of its stated goals of being an inflation hedge Correct. Though I'd be amiss not pointing out that equities, too, failed their traditional role as an inflation hedge in that time.