I generally agree with the article. I would say that people using "crypto" as a hedge against inflation are sorely mistaken as the correlation with inflation is probably incredibly low. It's too volatile to be a store of wealth. It has no intrinsic value. It's incredibly resource inefficient. It's not an "investment" since it doesn't produce anything, and financially it has performed worse than real investments.
The only thing it does have going for it is a perfect pump and dump economics. Crypto "believers" are really only truly believing in this ponzi scheme economics, which is a shame since they'd make more money by using real financial instruments. If crypto was really so good, we shouldn't have to worry about "investing" in it, we'd all just buy some to use it for day to day transactions. Which categorically is not viable at all any time soon.
Forget everything else, simply having an asset that's limited in quantity and almost impossible to seize is significantly better than any other alternative. A cursory reading of the rise and fall of civilizations and currencies will tell you how flawed the current fiat system is and how much better BTC is
Sure but how many people need to worry about their life savings being seized? Out of 300 million in the US for example? Maybe just criminals? Also I don't think civilization falling is really much to worry about. It would take years for civilization to fall, and if it does we can just buy gold or something with a real tangible value. Or maybe we can move to a crypto after it falls, which is something we can do after the fact. And TBH there's no reason why any specific coin used today would be used in that situation either. In that event we can just create a new Blockchain to avoid the ponzi effect.
Nothing personal but your view of Govt is very very trust based, while mine is of skepticism. Executive order 6102[1] where the US Govt seized Gold from rank and file citizens is an example of the State's power when they chose to exercise it. This was back in the day when USD was pegged and the Govt didn't have money. So no, not just criminals, in fact, holding gold was criminal. BTC being seizure proof is critical as the power dynamic changes completely.
Moving to crypto or gold after it falls is much too late as your holdings would lose its value, but that's up to you. I can't say what would be used in such a case, but if countries with failing currencies are an example, they moved to buying USD, Bitcoin etc. Ultimately, you move to the best alternative and in the case of fiat, BTC imo is the one but who knows. I don't think you can just create a new blockchain and expect it to all work out after the fact :)
I'm not actually born/raised in US, only moved here 5 years ago. Thanks for the response as I wasn't aware of the gold seizures.
I would still say based on the practicality if you look at any cryptocurrency it would falter under the load of transactions as large as the whole US for example. So it's a bit early to bet the farm on any one of them. Also if a govt will support cryptocurrency they will create their own one so they can profit off their own ponzi, so to speak. They wouldn't be in favor of enriching Bitcoin whales just to take advantage of the 1s and 0s previously established in the btc Blockchain
The govt can create their own but would you trust them? Central bank digital currencies are simply a Blockchain version of fiat and comes with the same list of problems - centralized issuance (ie infinite printing), but much worse eg. Govt adding code to control how you spend - which can help control spending during inflationary times and absolutely kills any notion of a free market. What the govt wants isn't always what happens especially in the west.
Lightning network on Bitcoin already supports a higher throughput than visa
Sure but what if the US govt decided to launch a 51% attack on btc anyway?
I don't argue that blockchain tech will keep improving. I just say if it's going to be a currency of the future why do we have to spend money on it now? Won't we be able to create parallel blockchains to increase token supply? It's not an intrinsically valued asset, like buying a stock (which some have returned more money than speculative bitcoin purchasing). Why should the bitcoin believers tell everybody to buy it if there's nobody accepting it for payments?
I recommend googling Andreas Antonopolous videos on 51% attacks by nation states.
Re: parallel Blockchain- there are thousands of Bitcoin copycats since 2011. They're either dead or dying. See the top ten list on coinmarketcap over time. Point is that value will accumulate on what everybody agrees on and there's no way somebody's CrapCoin where they own 60% of tokens and dump it on the market will gain traction with it's inherent risks (security, centralization, lack of differentiation etc).
Bitcoiners themselves don't spend using Bitcoin yet but this change is happening as more and more people believe in it as something that holds value and isn't going to 0. It'll take time and I have patience.
A 51% attack is on specific counterparties, not the entire network. counterparties have other ways to punish such an attack: 1. Refuse repeat business, 2. Decrease credit rating etc.
The only thing it does have going for it is a perfect pump and dump economics. Crypto "believers" are really only truly believing in this ponzi scheme economics, which is a shame since they'd make more money by using real financial instruments. If crypto was really so good, we shouldn't have to worry about "investing" in it, we'd all just buy some to use it for day to day transactions. Which categorically is not viable at all any time soon.