This is arguably the same for a majority of crypto users.
I see crypto as a "digital asset". It's something you store funds in to hedge markets or get around transactional issues (either because you're doing something potentially illegal by some entities definition or because your currency is shot to shit), which basically makes it like golds or precious gems.
I'm not totally sold it'll last long term, but I don't see the comparison as a huge logic leap.
I think the allure of "crypto" is the same as the allure of "gold": it's a store of value that isn't subject to government manipulation (may/may not always be true)
Yup, which is very compatible with the view that crypto is more accurately described as an asset than as a currency. If it were a currency, the constant large fluctuations and inflation of its “price” would be a bad thing, but as an asset? Great! Best of luck finding the greater fool before the rug is pulled out though.
Crypto is an umbrella term for a number of solutions, including blockchains (roughly 1,000+ as of right now) and cryptocurrencies (roughly 22,000+). While a given blockchain may be limited in terms of how much can be 'mined' or grow, you or I could very easily create a new cryptocurrency or even a new blockchain. Assuming we got traction with it, there would now be N+1 more out there.
Gold is not something we can so easily create. It also has intrinsic value through practical applications.
I don't own any crypto but I think this is an overly reductive take and fails to make comparisons to its natural competitors - cash and gold. Cash has zero intrinsic value and while gold's intrinsic value is non-zero it would be worth far less if only industrial uses were considered. It isn't reasonable to compare crypto to stocks or farmland for this reason.
The distinction between cash and crypto boils down to if you have more trust in centralization or de-centralization.
It seems fairly uncontroversial to me to state that the vast majority of people who own cryptocurrency are treating it like a commodity, not like a currency. There's nothing wrong with that, and these people have made a lot of money (dollars) so far, but there's certainly a distinction to be made.
What may be semantically true may also be quite different than peoples perceptions. And peoples perceptions and how they functionally treat crypto is like a currency, it's even in the name. So, I strongly suspect if you tried to argue that position in a court of law, or even in a debate amongst tech. peers you would come out on the loosing end. Regardless, I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for sharing.
Funny thing about crypto enthusiasts is that they'll claim cryptocurrencies are currencies when it's convenient then claim they are "assets" or "a store of value" when it's not.
Again, you're not buying stuff with cryptocurrencies, anymore than the heroin dealer is buying things with heroin. You're both converting your asset to a fiat currency, and then buying things with that.
It's a simple distinction.
Okay, less emotive comparison - you hold gold as a store of value. You liquidate some for US dollars, and then use those to purchase goods and services.
Again, did you buy those goods and services with gold, or with US dollars?
I don't disagree but can't you say the same thing about expensive art in general? I mean is any painting really worth $100m? At one point it's not about the painting, it's about being able to splash a lot of money at something expensive when you already own everything other expensive thing you could splash money at.
That's why I always thought comparing crypto to currency, financial investments or gold is the wrong analogy. To me it is more akin to the art market.
What it means is that there is no “real” justification for something to be valuable, is what people agree on. If enough people agree that crypto is valuable and want to buy it, then it is valuable for as long as people believe it is. Just like any other form of currency.
To many cryptocurrency enthusiasts, the fact that such an entity does not govern cryptocurrency is one of its main appeals. They're indeed different beasts but both lack an "intrinsic value": their value is entirely derived from the belief that they can be traded for something else eventually.
The difference is that buying crypto is like buying a pet rock or a bottle of air. In fact it's less than that.. It's literally nothing. It's a greater fool market and it's certainly not currency. In addition there's companies (lenders, exchanges, issuers, etc) which build their businessesn on schemes built on schemes that you are supposed to trust which you can't because no one person understands the code or the infrastructure and systems that the code is built in. All in a totally unregulated market that can be shut down in bits and pieces or even all at once by the government. And then you have people touting it as a legitimate asset class deserving investment. And now it's all coming tumbling down.
True but in comparison to every other value crypto is the only one which doesn't have any alternative use.
Gold, shares etc.
I believe the criticism is correct as the current driver of crypto is either a 'i put that much money in I'm not selling until it increases again' or gambled los.
After all the miners want to get paid.
But hey binance and others struggle let's see if there is a collapse soon
I see crypto as a "digital asset". It's something you store funds in to hedge markets or get around transactional issues (either because you're doing something potentially illegal by some entities definition or because your currency is shot to shit), which basically makes it like golds or precious gems.
I'm not totally sold it'll last long term, but I don't see the comparison as a huge logic leap.
reply