4 ms·

So to evade hyperinflation one uses an asset which is more volatile, and in the case of BTC, is deflationary by nature. Which as in _investment_ is fine, but as

So to evade hyperinflation one uses an asset which is more volatile, and in the case of BTC, is deflationary by nature. Which as in _investment_ is fine, but as a means of payment not, as the whole essence of a _sensible_ amount (2-3%) of inflation is a driver for economic growth. The problem with this statement is that using one evil to escape the other which doesn't make sense. Countries with a weak rule of law shouldn't (monetary wise) not be made weaker by using a volatile and highly (let's not deny it..) manipulative asset.

LatteLazy 3y ago
Bitcoin has been very stable against the USD for a while now. And that's just bitcoin, stable coins are more reliable. And of course inflation only robs holders, at least volatility goes in your favour half the time. I also would not call it an investment: there is no reason to expect prices to rise. Bitcoin does not grow in the way a company can (making shares an investment) or pay interest like a bond. It's at best a speculative asset, like maybe gold?
- troupo 3y ago
  > Bitcoin has been very stable against the USD for a while now. But isn't stable against itself. People who got in first are infinitely richer than people who would buy it a generation from now.
  - landemva 3y ago
    Same for grandpa who got in first with farmland and just sold to housing developers. At least people a generation from now can go to GitHub and fork the btc or eth open source code and make a run at starting their own chain.
    - troupo 3y ago
      > At least people a generation from now can go to GitHub and fork the btc or eth open source code and make a run at starting their own chain. And that will help them how exactly? There are thousands of chains and coins with total adoption and value of zero
- minsc_and_boo 3y ago
  >And that's just bitcoin, stable coins are more reliable. Until they submit to agnostic third party audits, they're not stable.
- nicholasbraker 3y ago
  Agreed with this nuance w/ regards to investment vs. asset. But IMHO even if volatility goes in your favor half the time it's still not a viable alternative. If the value of an asset is dependent on what a future buyer is willing to pay for it without taking the implicit value into consideration I leave it as an exercise to the reader how this will end ;-)

LatteLazy 3y ago

Bitcoin has been very stable against the USD for a while now. And that's just bitcoin, stable coins are more reliable. And of course inflation only robs holders, at least volatility goes in your favour half the time. I also would not call it an investment: there is no reason to expect prices to rise. Bitcoin does not grow in the way a company can (making shares an investment) or pay interest like a bond. It's at best a speculative asset, like maybe gold?

troupo 3y ago
> Bitcoin has been very stable against the USD for a while now. But isn't stable against itself. People who got in first are infinitely richer than people who would buy it a generation from now.
- landemva 3y ago
  Same for grandpa who got in first with farmland and just sold to housing developers. At least people a generation from now can go to GitHub and fork the btc or eth open source code and make a run at starting their own chain.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > At least people a generation from now can go to GitHub and fork the btc or eth open source code and make a run at starting their own chain. And that will help them how exactly? There are thousands of chains and coins with total adoption and value of zero
minsc_and_boo 3y ago
>And that's just bitcoin, stable coins are more reliable. Until they submit to agnostic third party audits, they're not stable.
nicholasbraker 3y ago
Agreed with this nuance w/ regards to investment vs. asset. But IMHO even if volatility goes in your favor half the time it's still not a viable alternative. If the value of an asset is dependent on what a future buyer is willing to pay for it without taking the implicit value into consideration I leave it as an exercise to the reader how this will end ;-)