[briefcomment]

Absolutely. Bitcoin is just of store of value that has some marginally better aspects than many other stores of value.

It won't inflate aways like fiat.

It requires no upkeep like buildings and other property.

It requires less intuition and research than fine art.

It is more portable and storable than gold.

It is more readily accessible than most things.

It is less dependent on products, market fit and changes, executive changes, etc. than companies.

It will take some value from each of the other stores of value based on investors' preferences and abilities.

[dafty4]

Fiat can deflate, though rarely. Just look at '08/'09.

The inflation/deflation curve of US fiat has been much more predictable than BTC. You're statement "just another store of value" is almost a tautology, as any tangible or intangible item in the universe can potentially fit that definition. What matters for a useful currency is that it is a stable store of value.

As long as you admit that BTC is a speculative commodity rather than a currency, we're fine. But this isn't how it was marketed to all of us for the past 10 years. "coin" == "item of currency". Now the narrative has changed to "digital gold" because that's what's selling right now.

And you should further admit that for the past 10 years we've been promised a decentralized currency with lower transaction fees than mastercard/visa/escrow/forex-fees and faster transaction times, and none of those things have happened.

[briefcomment]

Tbh, the market for Bitcoin doesn't care what it "promised" the people before, and doesn't care what the expectations for it are. If people want to put money in, they will. Clearly, enough people don't care about it's instability to store $1tril, and it'll probably get a lot more stable. Labels are one thing, but price and staying power are another.

[phatfish]

"It requires no upkeep like buildings and other property."

I suspect the physical footprint required to keep the Bitcoin network running is actually quite significant. Considering estimated power usage of all the "mining" operations.

[dehrmann]

This brings up an oddity of bitcoin: storing gold costs money, property has upkeep. Endgame (non-inflationary) bitcoin is free to store, at the cost of people actually using it. The other oddity is it's not clear what would happen if no one traded it for n days. At some point, miners shut down, and because of how specialized mining hardware is, the currency might collapse.

[briefcomment]

By upkeep, I mean that investor's would not have to deal with the inconvenience of maintaining an apartment, etc.