[dangoor]

> One argument seems to be that cryptocurrency is purely speculative, which is apparently a dirty word. What about the stock market? What about any kind of investment?

I recommend not using the "what about the stock market?" tactic to defend cryptocurrencies. Crypto is more speculative than the stock market because companies have physical assets, ongoing revenue and profits, dividends that they pay out to their shareholders.

[aaaaaaaaata]

> companies have physical assets, ongoing revenue and profits, dividends that they pay out to their shareholders.

Exactly!

If Uber ever shuts down for any reason, they can take all of their vehicles, buildings, gold, and whatever else they own, and evenly distribute them for all shareholders!

[JumpCrisscross]

> they can take all of their vehicles, buildings, gold, and whatever else they own

Uber owns billions of dollars of property, equipment and leases [1]. But your broader point holds. Uber has massive intangible value, which is close to impossible to distribute.

The difference between it and Bitcoin is one can buy Uber, all of Uber, and capture that value. M&A is the ultimate disciplinarian of the stock market, much more so than dividend cash flows. (Though the latter ultimately drives the former.) If you buy every Bitcoin, you destroy it.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/0001...

[SideburnsOfDoom]

That's pretty much what would happen, yes. With the intermediate step of selling those assets.

[mantenpanther]

Bitcoin is anchored in physics and math. And used by millions without western privileges.

[mlac]

Highway infrastructure is also anchored in physics and math. It doesn’t mean we should treat highways like a currency that should be purchased and traded.

Starting a business is open for millions “without western privileges” - and stock is owning a business. Starting a profitable business that adds value (people are willing to pay you for a service) is a lot more useful to society than spinning up another coin that does nothing.

[throwthere]

> Highway infrastructure is also anchored in physics and math. It doesn’t mean we should treat highways like a currency that should be purchased and traded.

Clearly, the world needs highway-based NFTs. Knowing that their ephemeral infrastructure is represented on the blockchain, something that is permanent, will lead to engineers building safer bridges. It will encourage the development of new fields of engineering, perhaps subfields related to structures and others related to materials.

Contrast that to the stock market, where companies sell ownership shares in their businesses tracked in ledgers maintained by western corporations. And some of the underlying businesses have no plans to ever to distribute cash to their stock owners-- look at Berkshire Hathaway! Look at Google! People buy and sell those shares only because the next person will buy them for more. It's a classic speculative investment, not like crypto which is backed by the full faith and power of NVIDIA.

/s. Or is it?

[mantenpanther]

A neutral, permissionless currency adds value.

[CabSauce]

At least until someone creates another one... and another one... and another one.

[aaaaaaaaata]

But there are tens of thousands now.

The real value is in the consensus, which is gotten by having:

Trust (longest chain) Technical security/other intangibles lowering risk Liquidity

Not necessarily in that order for all people.

[cmiles74]

US currency is backed by the government, a mortgage is backed by property. In my opinion, "physics and math" do not provide the same kind of underlying value as a government or real estate.

[aaaaaaaaata]

Then why has no government currency ever been perpetually valuable?

[mlac]

Bitcoin will not be perpetually valuable. No cryptocurrency will be.

Forever is a mighty long time.

[ATsch]

I think you'll find it rather hard to trade the abstract concept of physics and math for some food or shelter.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Just ask Tesla.