Depositors never had it so good as today.
Sure - promote a system where people get robbed by stealth every year.
Not at all, Willie Mullins had a 5,000/1 five timer last Sunday. 5,000/1 in one day! As much entitlement to be called an asset class as a digital entry signifying nothing.
Another day, another nonsensical analogy. What characteristics of a store of value or money does one of Willie's nags possess?
But yes I think the facility to charge negative interest rates would make monetary policy more effective and that would facilitate the central bank's role in managing monetary policy in the interests of society.
For who's benefit? You're propping up an inequitable system - and it's that system that has only been around over the past 50 years that is the great experiment - not bitcoin. Note that CBDCs will be used for social manipulation like never before. A government can simply seize your 'money' at the touch of a button. They can give you a time limit as to how long you have to use it (encouraging responsible fiscal behaviour...NOT). They can penalise you depending upon what you spend your money on. That is the world of CBDCs that awaits.
I note that the bitcoin community seem to have given up on the medium of exchange motif and are pinning everything on the "digital gold" aspect.
I think you are at this stage familiar with how the project has developed thus far. That doesn't negate its ability to innovate further. Bitcoin remains a legitimate and superior settlement layer for large transactions. Nothing stands in its way in that regard. The cup of coffee purchase (micro-transactions) is a different animal. The mistake (or more likely convenient assumption) that naysayers like yourself run with is that it doesn't fit that purpose today, therefore I won't listen to the notion of it (or associated projects) being developed to accommodate that purpose.
If it is gold you want surely the real thing is far better than some virtual digital replacement. Can you imagine digital cornflakes?
And disregard the superior characteristics of bitcoin vs. gold? Why would I do that? Is gold divisible...because bitcoin is. Can gold be safely transported across borders without risk of confiscation - because bitcoin can. In reality, how easy is it to transport and store gold? Are there costs associated with it? The vast majority of gold is stored centrally - meaning that the entire market can be and is manipulated. Billions of dollars worth of fake gold were found in vaults last year alone - yet bitcoin cant be counterfeited. Digital cornflakes indeed.
SOV and payments are not mutually exclusive.
Absolutely. And the story of the development of each of them remains unfinished business yet there's a mob here that wants to dismiss any notion of further progression/innovation. To me, it seems reasonable that as the pool of people that hold bitcoin increases they will from time to time use that facility to exchange value. Particularly so - if UX/design makes that option more user friendly. Gold has never had that option.
The other way round, that a medium of exchange should at least be a short term SOV, is orthodox monetary theory.
You're trying to contrive something here to meet your narrative. There is nothing within the laws of physics that dictates that bitcoin has to develop as a medium of exchange first.
I'm a bit worried about the Roubini chap now after listening to that interview. He more or less says the exact same thing he has been saying for years. Its becoming a bit of a broken record. Does he not listen to himself?
His credibility is shot. Where has he ever recognised one positive facet of decentralised blockchain? Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and the monetary implications of bitcoin challenge the status quo as it exists for him and his central banking buddies. Having been wrong since bitcoin was at $13, he keeps doubling and tripling down and it keeps getting worse for him.
I don't think anyone knows how it will exactly play out but its worth a small percentage of your portfolio imo. Anyone who invested the past 10 years has done extremely well.
An allocation of no more than a couple of percent would provide exposure to an asset with significant upside potential (representing an assymetric risk) whilst limiting portfolio downside risk. That was my suggestion here a couple of years ago already.
There have been thousands of cryptos. Betting them all would be like betting a myriad of racehorse combinations. Yes a few have been spectacular winners. Most have bit the dirt.
There have been (and continue to be) thousands of startups outside of crypto. Most of them have failed or will fail. There were thousands of tech startups back in the dot com. I've no doubt that some gambled but what if someone spent the time on it and identified Google/Amazon/Facebook, etc. as winners at a very early stage?
My argument for that is the continued and no-end-in-sight of fiat currency debasement by 'trusted' central banks.
Indeed. I don't see much depth to that discussion on AAM. The case is often made that its not so much bitcoin price going up as euro/usd going down the toilet.
So you don't buy because it will be an efficient medium of exchange for you, which was its primary purpose.
As was pointed out to you, store of value was identified as a feature at an early stage. Even if what you claim was true, so what? Time and time again, new tech gets used for various purposes.
I know it is not an efficient medium of exchange, today. I expect it will be more than efficient at some point.
I agree with you Wolfie that it's likely that a means will be found to provide for improved user experience when it comes to micro transactions as we move forward. Internet had scaling issues that took quite a while to overcome. Why should this be any different.
In the meantime, when it comes to large transactions and the use of bitcoin as a payments settlement layer, the Bitcoin network is already far superior.
