[JumpCrisscross]

> Government bonds are stable if you ignore tail risk

Nothing is eternal. That doesn’t make everything ephemeral equally risky. Bitcoin is a speculative asset. Speculative assets are volatile by design (you want them to go up).

More critically, government bonds’ role as a store of value is ancillary to their core purpose: to enable public deficit spending.

> Bitcoin is however similar to a government bond in that it a) has value, b) is not directly useful for consumer transactions

My cat has value and is useless for consumer transactions. That doesn’t make him a government bond.

[awt]

The point is not that Bitcoin is a government bond, if that wasn't obvious, but that just because some people said it's a currency and proceeded to build failing businesses on that faulty premise doesn't preclude it having actual, unrelated uses, such as a store of value with a vastly different risk profile than any other asset ever known.

[JumpCrisscross]

> a store of value with a vastly different risk profile than any other asset ever known

For which there (a) is zero evidence and yet (b) are lots of unsophisticated investors throwing money at. This combination is well known in financial engineering circles, which has had a habit of dreaming up assets with inobservable specialness since the days of John Law.