I didn't read every comment so it may have been said elsewhere, but Pete doesn't seem to acknowledge that gold doesn't have an inherent value either. Goods can be made from it, just like steel or aluminum, but it's value was originally derived from its scarcity and while there MAY be a day when all the gold has been mined and all that exists is in circulation there's no way to truly know now or ever, how much gold is in existence. Cryptocurrencies don't have that handicap. Nor does he acknowledge that a store of value is whatever a group decides is valuable. True, Bitcoin has no inherent value either, but nothing does. A chicken may hold significant value to someone who likes fresh eggs or chicken but it's worthless to someone who doesn't. Even considering barter value one has to invest in it to keep it producing or edible until it can be traded for other goods. I don't think it's far fetched that a generation has come along and decided (or will decide) that a digital currency that has the best of both cash and plastic with little to none of the drawbacks should be the dominant store of value for the future, even if it is inherently worthless, because the benefits it brings to the table far outweigh that inherent worthlessness. I agree this sounds like a guy who's only preaching what he knows and is oblivious to what lies ahead.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: