[panarky]

> They've all been around for many years and are backed by trusted entities

That's so obvious it probably doesn't need to be stated.

The GP's argument is that cryptocurrency wealth is somehow lesser because it's "paper" wealth.

You didn't really answer how cryptocurrency is any more or less "paper-like" than other intangible assets.

[jstandard]

Everything I mentioned in my comment is why it's less than other intangible assets. Not all intangible assets should be valued equally at their same level of converted fiat. The riskiness of an asset in particular is an important factor.

$100 of XRP is worth less to me than $100 of Google stock because it's 1) less liquid, particularly in times of crisis. 2) More likely to be worth $0.

[panarky]

What you're saying is so obviously true that it's virtually meaningless.

Of course XRP is less liquid than Google common stock and more likely to go to zero. XRP is also more likely than Google stock to increase 10x.

It's so obvious it should go without saying that some assets are more risky than others. Nobody would disagree.

If the price of your Google common stock doubles, is that not a "paper gain"? And if the price of your XRP is cut in half, is that not a "paper loss"?

All gains and losses in typical assets are "paper", so this seems to be a distinction without a difference.

[jstandard]

It sounds like you're talking about a more binary approach to categorizing wealth. It either "is paper" or "is realized". To me, not all paper is created equal.

I see assets representing wealth as a spectrum. There are shades of paper wealth that make it closer to realized wealth than others. Google stock doubling is a paper gain that is more substantial than a paper gain in XRP because Google stock has larger current utility than XRP.

Everyone has different ways of calculating utility which impact how substantial they feel a gain in a certain asset is when compared to another.

That's my theory, how do you see things?