The paragraph that starts "First, it is rational for economic agents to hold as many bitcoins as they can afford to lose" is so poorly argued that I decided the

The paragraph that starts "First, it is rational for economic agents to hold as many bitcoins as they can afford to lose" is so poorly argued that I decided the rest of the article wasn't worth reading. There are several steps missing between the statement "Bitcoin will go up in value" and "I should invest all my investable assets in it". One big missing step is, what is the optimal way for one to allocate one's portfolio, given some set of expectations, uncertainties and correlations? There's been a lot of work in this area (optimal portfolio construction), some of it very good. My favorite starting point for this field is the Kelly Criterion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion While I sympathize with the article's enthusiasm for Bitcoin, I wish people would shut up when they have no idea what they're talking about. EDIT: if you want to get deep in the weeds you can read more about Modern Portfolio Theory here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory. I don't endorse every idea you'll find there, but they are all better than the notion that you should invest 100% of your investable portfolio in whatever asset has the strongest forecast, as the OP apparently believes one should.