>> I would argue that gold having some meaningful value to anchor the price is what allows it to function as a means of exchange.
>Then please argue it; all evidence suggests otherwise.
Gold value is uncorrelated from its means of exchange, sure
>> Ideally though, we should use something else so that gold can be cheaper for electronics.
>Imagine if we had a form of money that didn’t permanently tie up a nonrenewable commodity… it could be based on, say, electricity consumption instead of permanently removing metal from usage!
So Bitcoin scarcity is a strength and commodity scarcity is a weakness? Let’s put aside the electricity needs commodities to, y’know, exist in the first place
>> Bitcoin is an entirely different creature with absolutely zero intrinsic value, and only successful due to the momentum of being the first mover.
>“Intrinsic value” is a totally economically nonsensical concept. Gold is also not valuable due to “intrinsic value”. They are both valuable due to monetization. Yes, this is based on “momentum”/impredicativity. No, that’s not a problem.
Valuable due to monetisation is a creative babble, I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean.
>> Of all the major cryptos in distribution, Bitcoin is one of the least advanced and most limited in functionality.
>There is literally no charitable interpretation of this statement that is true.
Bitcoin’s value to you is what you can convert it to later, after convincing others and yourself to keep buying; your logic is tainted by this very conflict of interest. Good luck
Gold value is uncorrelated from its means of exchange, sure
>> Ideally though, we should use something else so that gold can be cheaper for electronics. >Imagine if we had a form of money that didn’t permanently tie up a nonrenewable commodity… it could be based on, say, electricity consumption instead of permanently removing metal from usage!
So Bitcoin scarcity is a strength and commodity scarcity is a weakness? Let’s put aside the electricity needs commodities to, y’know, exist in the first place
>> Bitcoin is an entirely different creature with absolutely zero intrinsic value, and only successful due to the momentum of being the first mover. >“Intrinsic value” is a totally economically nonsensical concept. Gold is also not valuable due to “intrinsic value”. They are both valuable due to monetization. Yes, this is based on “momentum”/impredicativity. No, that’s not a problem.
Valuable due to monetisation is a creative babble, I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean.
>> Of all the major cryptos in distribution, Bitcoin is one of the least advanced and most limited in functionality. >There is literally no charitable interpretation of this statement that is true.
Bitcoin’s value to you is what you can convert it to later, after convincing others and yourself to keep buying; your logic is tainted by this very conflict of interest. Good luck