[dkshdkjshdk]

> 1) Granted, but also EURUSD pricing does not work like any AMM [...]

Exactly. So, if I want to put liquidity in EURUSD market, I have no choice but to actively manage it, since traditional financial institutions won't do it for me. That was my point... to bring up examples of use-cases that are not covered by traditional financial institutions.

> 2) Lending can be regulated, so might or might not be ok for you to lend - not a lawyer. What about KYC/AML etc.?

Sure, lending is regulated. But then the problem mostly lies with AAVE (for example), not me (they are the one lending my assets, after all, and the ones possibly subjected to KYC laws), I would assume.

My point is... even if you are willing to go through KYC, and have nothing to hide (e.g. you got your crypto-assets, or whatever you want to call them, legitimately, and file your taxes correctly), there simply is no traditional financial institution that has a "BTC savings account", for example.

> 3) Aren't there specialized prime brokers that do that? (maybe Genesis?)

Probably. But then the argument that "there is no actual use-case for blockchain outside of crime and speculation" kinda breaks down. If you consider Genesis to be part of "traditional finance", then it's clear that "traditional finance" sees value in these things (it's not just vapor). If you consider Genesis to not be part of "traditional finance", then you're just confirming what I implied: there isn't anyone in "traditional finance" providing such services.

[RandomLensman]

On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets)

Depending on which country you are in, things like bitcoin savings accounts are starting to emerge. Also funds might be able to invest.

And yes, traditional finance is starting to see value in providing services for these things (and has so for a while) - not strictly the same as seeing value in the underlyings, but separate point

[dkshdkjshdk]

Ok. So... if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things, it kind of becomes hard to hold on to the idea that there aren't actually any use-cases outside of crime and speculation.

EDIT: Just to address your edit...

> On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets)

And will they be willing to talk to a person that only wants to put 100 EUR + 100 USD into it? I seriously doubt it.

[rostigerpudel]

> [...]if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things,[...]

All this means is there is money to be made. It does not mean that any particular use-case exists. So no, this does not make it hard to hold on to the idea above - no use-cases outside of crime and speculation.

If you provide storage for people's stuff and someone wants specialized storage for tulips you probably do not care whether the tulips are worth anything or useful. You rent them the space to store their tulips if you can make money that way.

[dkshdkjshdk]

And "making money" does not sound like a use-case to you? Ok.

And tulips are not worthless... they just aren't as valuable as people thought they were, during the tulip mania.

[rostigerpudel]

This making money has nothing to do with any intrinsic use-case or value of Bitcoin. As an intermediary (under which I also comprehend banks in terms of "tulip storage") you always make money whether your client wins, loses or absent-mindedly walks over a monetary cliff.

Making money trading or storing something does not mean that something has a use-case (hence the tulips example). So the fact that people make money off other people who think Bitcoin is the best thing since sliced bread does not mean Bitcoin has any use-case or intrinsic value.

[RandomLensman]

Wasn't my claim. And speculation is fine anyway, because it is at the heart of any new business etc.

[dkshdkjshdk]

Yes, I know. But it was the original claim that triggered the current thread.

Either way, thanks for the insight and information you brought to the discussion.