[jstanley]

My theory is that Fiat currencies and their central banks are beneficial only to the state, and not to individuals. And that for any system to be viable in the long-term, it needs to benefit individuals else they won't use it.

1.) To a first approximation, central bank policy consists of creating lots more money, all the time.

That is a bad thing for anybody holding the currency (everyone). Therefore these people (everyone) are incentivised not to hold the currency, and instead to hold a currency that can not be inflated away from them. For example, bitcoin.

2.) We're heading towards a cashless society. If the manifestation of a cashless society is one based on fiat currency, that means every single transaction and all money are subject to surveillance, censorship, and even seizure. By the state and by private companies.

Anybody who doesn't want those things to happen to them (everyone) is therefore incentivised to use a currency which is not subject to those things. For example, bitcoin.

[charlesdm]

What you're saying makes sense to some extent and I don't necessarily disagree. But instead of holding currencies, why not hold assets? Any asset, for that matter. Whether it's property, one or multiple businesses, royalty generating IP rights, etc.

You describe Bitcoin as a currency. To me, while it looks like a currency, it's not actually a currency. It seems more like a pure asset class.

I mean, maybe I'm a minority here, but who holds significant cash in a checking account these days -- especially with the market booming during the last few years like it has?

If you look at what happened with QE in the last few years, asset holders (i.e. mostly the upper classes) essentially made bank, because debt got extremely cheap and the value of the currency declined. The average saver lost money, or at least yield, because it didn't make any sense to save money.

The reason why I can't see fiat disappearing is because the government is in control and makes laws as they see fit. I don't agree with all levied taxes yet will still pay them. Even if I didn't want to pay them, my only alternative is to relocate to a different country.

Useful PoV though, thanks!

[codingmyway]

"asset holders (i.e. mostly the upper classes) essentially made bank, because debt got extremely cheap and the value of the currency declined. The average saver lost money, or at least yield, because it didn't make any sense to save money"

So if you're a saver, this is the problem that bitcoin solves. A way for savers to protect themselves from being robbed by central bankers to bail out asset speculators.

Bitcoin is also easier to take with you when you relocate. Bitcoin is a weapon is the battle of savers vs debtors.

[charlesdm]

But Bitcoin is an asset as well. And savers don't generally like buying assets, especially not if they're very (very, very) volatile. The average joe could've bought stocks, in 2009, yet mostly didn't. And for those that didn't, then they probably wouldn't have bought Bitcoin either.