[beambot]

Most people I know keep less than 3 months of their net worth in currency. The vast majority of their net worth is placed in real estate (largely, their primary residence), stocks, or ETFs. You can make a case about net-present value of future dividends, but the S&P dividend yield is 1.4% -- i.e. less than inflation. So quite literally, every asset they have as a store of wealth is "just HODLing in the hopes that some other buyer will come along who believes it will become (worth more)".

In this light, how is Bitcoin any different?

Note that currency has two functions: store of value (Bitcoin) and medium of exchange (Ethereum? Ripple? Carbon credits? Other?). That we can split these functions should not be surprising. Plus, our modern money system is a fairly new invention and it's clearly being disrupted. Hell, even the idea of an electronic ledger to track stock ownership was only really developed in the 1980s by Cede and the DTC -- and it still takes 2 days to fully settle.

[fny]

Primary residence has utility. Additional properties typically have a real cash flow. Stocks have price appreciation typically due to higher current and projected earnings, dividends, and buybacks, and yes they are somewhat inflation resistant since they also have limited supply. This makes for average returns of 10% plus dividends.

Bitcoin is a collectible. It is very much like gold, which has a far longer history and similarly high transaction costs. Gold, in my view, is also a collectable, and it's frequently advertised as such. (Just look at the gold coin ads and compare to BTC.)

Controversial view: fiat currencies are also a collectible. The difference being it's universally accepted tender, its government enforced, you're taxed in it, transaction costs are cheap, and insanely fast (moving money can be a pain). This is what makes fiat a proper currency. Also, while we like to make fun of central banks for money printer go brr, there's real value in the stability they provide. The Great Depression was a disaster because of the lack of monetary response, and banks of the world have learned since.

Also, there are heavy incentives for governments to drive use of their currencies, and there's a LOT of competition from governments to dethrone USD. China, for one, is trying to internationalize the renmimbi and dethrone USD in its sphere of influence. Do you really think they're going to give BTC the space to thrive?

Now, let me be clear, my view on crypto is nuanced--I'm very exited about DeFi and ETH2, but my longterm view on BTC is a bit sober.

[viklove]

> Stocks have price appreciation typically due to higher current and projected earnings

Yes, projected earnings. Speculation. Just like cryptocurrencies.

[gajotron]

In terms of numbers, your logic is slightly off because of the distortions of tax law, which means in fact, the bulk of the S&P's distributions in any given year are often buybacks. It makes the net yield of the S&P500 closer to 5% over the last decade: https://www.yardeni.com/pub/buybackdiv.pdf

People rationally buy 5% perpetual yields to cream the asset, not HODLing in the hopes some other buyer will come.

Absolutely I would make a case about the net present value of future distributions - the clearing IRR is currently around 4%, having been around 5% last year.

Similarly real estate pays rent or owners equivalent rent (the value the owner derives from living in it rather than paying market rents). Here, the market seems to clear around 2-3% net of maintenance, having previously cleared around 6% when interest rates were higher.

Bonds pay interest, albeit at this time the clearing yield level is very very low.

What is the clearing yield of bitcoin? Undefined, because it has no expected future intrinsic cashflow payable to the owner.

Bitcoin hodlers have only one possible way to collect a future cashflow, sale to another person for either fiat or goods/services.

[n4r9]

I guess one difference is that real estate and stocks are more functional. With real estate you're providing a service for yourself or someone else. With stocks you're giving a company to continue business.