|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
1830 days ago
|
|
|
> So you consider it a feature of fiat that it is impossible for a saver to maintain their purchasing power over time unless they risk their capital on volatile assets such as stocks or real estate? Some cryptocurrencies may (in some cases, based on past performance) be good on average as long term stores of value, but even those that are good at this are extremely volatile assets, much more so than, say, blue-chip stocks. So they certainly don’t solve any problem of “you need exposure to volatile assets to not lose value of savings” that you might imagine exists. > Why is is a good thing that widows, orphans, those living in poverty or on a fixed income have no way to save without having to Rick their principal? People without surplus income have no way to save by definition, with or without risking their income. That people with surplus income need to participate in wealth generation to recurve additional wealth from storage of their surplus income is obviously a feature. |
|
|
This is a straw man. The argument was not for some cryptocurrency.
It was for Bitcoin. Bitcoin alone has the potential to become the reserve currency of the internet.
It is the only crypto designed from the ground up to withstand attacks from nation states. Bitcoin is the scarcest asset ever created. It is the most decentralized and censorship resistant, and it is secured by the most powerful super-computer in the world.
Therefore it isn't just about past performance, but rather past performance combined with a fundamental analysis of the unique properties of Bitcoin that make it the best performing asset in the history of assets over it's lifetime.
Bitcoin is a unique snowflake. If you cannot tell the difference between Bitcoin and other cryptos you ARE missing the point.
> People without surplus income have no way to save by definition
Poor or rich, most people can find a way to save some of their income for the future. It may not be much to you but giving them the option to access a store of value that grows on average at 200% per year is a revolution for these folks who often have fewer options to grow savings.
You are cherry-picking poor people to suit your argument. Not all poor people have zero surplus income.
Some simply have too little or too insecure surplus income to escape their plight. I for one applaud giving these people more choices for a better life.