Bitcoin is a collectors items(meltdem.substack.com)
meltdem.substack.com
Bitcoin is a collectors items
https://meltdem.substack.com/p/bitcoin-is-a-collectors-items
59 comments
You bring up a whole bunch of good points which I think people need to focus on your one line of greater fool theory. Theres such a huge misunderstanding of "value". Scarcity within itself does not create value. It's the mix of demand and scarcity that does, but to have demand there needs to be some inherent value in it along with timeliness.
One of the biggest fascinations I had in games was the EVE marketplace. If you dont know, EVE is a scifi mmo. The economy in the game is so legit, the devs have an econ PhD to analyze it and use it to help balance the game when new gear is in. Theres a good youtube video about this to help give a better explanation, but the jist of it, items in EVE are not permanent. Other mmos you can use whatever item indefinitely then sell it when you get something better. Dying and collecting your gear is trivial. Thus items have lower values, especially when better ones come in over time. In eve, when your ship goes boom, only 25%-50% or so of it survives... and whoever killed you nabbed it. This keeps the market value stable(ish). A bigger better gun or ship is no longer neccesarily better. The value, and I'm not talking about just price but the overall market demand, goes up for parts and ships that are niche and cost effective.
I'm on a phone and this is getting too long. Overall bitcoin is an investment vehicle based on privacy and scarcity. The first part no one can deny is rather brilliant and as far as I know has worked out as advertised (though let's not kid ourselves who 90% of that demographic is). The second part... I swear to everyone reading this, just get The Great Courses so you can listen to their Econ 101 class. Or just get it from the library or even get a random econ textbook. Read it. I bet you within 30 to 50 pages you'll fully grasp how childish bitcoin is. At that, everytime a major media news source has their econ expert talk, you'll realize they were all at the bottom of their classes.
Oh, somewhere in there I meant to say your comparison to Mario was bad because that game has inherent value, both nostalgia and still fun to play. You're comparing to something with no value other than giving utility companies more money due to the excess electricity generated to mine bitcoin. I still say Satoshi was just elec execs who drunkenly came up with this crypto scam: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
One of the biggest fascinations I had in games was the EVE marketplace. If you dont know, EVE is a scifi mmo. The economy in the game is so legit, the devs have an econ PhD to analyze it and use it to help balance the game when new gear is in. Theres a good youtube video about this to help give a better explanation, but the jist of it, items in EVE are not permanent. Other mmos you can use whatever item indefinitely then sell it when you get something better. Dying and collecting your gear is trivial. Thus items have lower values, especially when better ones come in over time. In eve, when your ship goes boom, only 25%-50% or so of it survives... and whoever killed you nabbed it. This keeps the market value stable(ish). A bigger better gun or ship is no longer neccesarily better. The value, and I'm not talking about just price but the overall market demand, goes up for parts and ships that are niche and cost effective.
I'm on a phone and this is getting too long. Overall bitcoin is an investment vehicle based on privacy and scarcity. The first part no one can deny is rather brilliant and as far as I know has worked out as advertised (though let's not kid ourselves who 90% of that demographic is). The second part... I swear to everyone reading this, just get The Great Courses so you can listen to their Econ 101 class. Or just get it from the library or even get a random econ textbook. Read it. I bet you within 30 to 50 pages you'll fully grasp how childish bitcoin is. At that, everytime a major media news source has their econ expert talk, you'll realize they were all at the bottom of their classes.
Oh, somewhere in there I meant to say your comparison to Mario was bad because that game has inherent value, both nostalgia and still fun to play. You're comparing to something with no value other than giving utility companies more money due to the excess electricity generated to mine bitcoin. I still say Satoshi was just elec execs who drunkenly came up with this crypto scam: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
You may not personally value a Bitcoin for its nostalgia, but many people would. I disagree that Bitcoins have no inherent value. There's a lot of history surrounding Bitcoin, so the argument that they have value purely from a collector's standpoint is valid.
However, it does not follow that therefore a valuation of thousands of dollars per unit of Bitcoin may be justified and not just due to speculative frenzy. I'm picking the NES game because it has roughly the same amount of units available and most people own them as a collectible, not to actually play it.
However, it does not follow that therefore a valuation of thousands of dollars per unit of Bitcoin may be justified and not just due to speculative frenzy. I'm picking the NES game because it has roughly the same amount of units available and most people own them as a collectible, not to actually play it.
These are bad comparisons. Other collectibles are tangible; Bitcoin is invisible.
It will take effort to prove that you indeed do have one or more of the "finite" (21 million is a big finite when it comes to collectibles) bitcoins.
Collectors like to show off their collections. And since most people in the world, many techies included, cannot discern what is true from what is counterfeit when it comes to virtual items, there will be many times more fake bitcoin collections than real ones.
You're better off collecting words. Those are finite too, and some fall out of use or even exist only in some dead languages.
It will take effort to prove that you indeed do have one or more of the "finite" (21 million is a big finite when it comes to collectibles) bitcoins.
Collectors like to show off their collections. And since most people in the world, many techies included, cannot discern what is true from what is counterfeit when it comes to virtual items, there will be many times more fake bitcoin collections than real ones.
You're better off collecting words. Those are finite too, and some fall out of use or even exist only in some dead languages.
>> It will take effort to prove...
This statement could not be further from the truth. It's far easier and more reliable to prove that you own an authentic Bitcoin than it is to prove that you own an authentic painting.
In fact, Bitcoin is the most auditable asset in the history of mankind. The audit process can be done in a decentralized way and carries 0 risk and unlike the auditing processes of other valuable assets, it can be carried out quickly, cheaply and at any scale.
All other auditing processes rely on trusting a third party, not Bitcoin. It's the perfect asset.
Sooner or later, the reserve banks of the world are going to be forced onto cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is better than gold in terms of supply inelasticity and auditability; these are the two most important features from a reserve asset. Bitcoin is also gaining ground in terms of universal recognition which is the third most important feature.
This statement could not be further from the truth. It's far easier and more reliable to prove that you own an authentic Bitcoin than it is to prove that you own an authentic painting.
In fact, Bitcoin is the most auditable asset in the history of mankind. The audit process can be done in a decentralized way and carries 0 risk and unlike the auditing processes of other valuable assets, it can be carried out quickly, cheaply and at any scale.
All other auditing processes rely on trusting a third party, not Bitcoin. It's the perfect asset.
Sooner or later, the reserve banks of the world are going to be forced onto cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is better than gold in terms of supply inelasticity and auditability; these are the two most important features from a reserve asset. Bitcoin is also gaining ground in terms of universal recognition which is the third most important feature.
If bitcoin is still in circulation, then proving is easy. If it is a relic, and something of interesting collectible nature, then it would be like proving your tablet IOU from the BC times is legit.
But in any case, most users have a hard time understanding cryptocurrency systems. Thus, it would be very easy to provide bogus info which looks convincing to a layperson. And because fakes would be common, it would take extra care to _really_ prove your collection is real.
But in any case, most users have a hard time understanding cryptocurrency systems. Thus, it would be very easy to provide bogus info which looks convincing to a layperson. And because fakes would be common, it would take extra care to _really_ prove your collection is real.
It's a shame you put that last paragraph, because that one is very much opinion, while the rest is a good explanation of why the GP is wrong
"21 million is a big finite when it comes to collectibles"
It's worse than that. You can divide BTC into a lot of tiny pieces. So there are lot more than 21 million pieces. Most collectibles are valuble as the whole thing, not little pieces sliced off of them.
It's worse than that. You can divide BTC into a lot of tiny pieces. So there are lot more than 21 million pieces. Most collectibles are valuble as the whole thing, not little pieces sliced off of them.
It's actually much harder to prove that your conventional collection is worth what you think. Sure it might be a pretty collection but maybe only for the collector himself. With bitcoin it might be easier to lie but it is also easier to verify the lie.
Resistance to fraud you say? Almost as if that’s a feature! ( of the crazy internet money ledgers)
Tangibility is overrated. Just stack sats.
Bitcoin collectors are definitely showing off their "collections" to their family and friends. Verification is even better than any collectible, just show them a screen of your coinbase account.
> It will take effort to prove that you indeed do have one or more of the "finite" (21 million is a big finite when it comes to collectibles) bitcoins.
Is it really? Here's how you can verify wallet ownership in about 10 minutes:
- The one who like you to verify the ownership generates a signature file from whatever they want
- Ask the owner of the wallet to add the hash of that file to OP_RETURN in a transaction from their wallet
- Wait for the transaction to be validated (longest step)
- The one who wants to verify the ownership can now compare the latest transaction from the wallet to the hash of their signature file
Same process applies for proving ownership of bank accounts, although if done in the weekend/evening, verifying the bank account will take longer time and you need to have a receiving bank account to read the signature hash, otherwise the process is mostly identical.
The rest of your comment is based on that you can't prove you own any bitcoins, hence worthless as you can prove you own bitcoins, it's trivial really. A quick search before thinking out loud would have shown you the answer.
Is it really? Here's how you can verify wallet ownership in about 10 minutes:
- The one who like you to verify the ownership generates a signature file from whatever they want
- Ask the owner of the wallet to add the hash of that file to OP_RETURN in a transaction from their wallet
- Wait for the transaction to be validated (longest step)
- The one who wants to verify the ownership can now compare the latest transaction from the wallet to the hash of their signature file
Same process applies for proving ownership of bank accounts, although if done in the weekend/evening, verifying the bank account will take longer time and you need to have a receiving bank account to read the signature hash, otherwise the process is mostly identical.
The rest of your comment is based on that you can't prove you own any bitcoins, hence worthless as you can prove you own bitcoins, it's trivial really. A quick search before thinking out loud would have shown you the answer.
That procedure is for recording a hash in the blockchain, which is overkill in this case. There is no need to make an actual transaction.
If you only want to prove ownership of an address, you can simply sign a message with the private key behind it. There's a "sign message" feature in the bitcoin qt client for this purpose. I think Electrum also supports it.
If you only want to prove ownership of an address, you can simply sign a message with the private key behind it. There's a "sign message" feature in the bitcoin qt client for this purpose. I think Electrum also supports it.
That's 10 minutes more than it takes to show off any other collectible: "Here's my collection of beanie babies!", "Look at my lovely Van Gogh painting!"
Now, to prove authenticity of an item obviously takes a lot longer - you need art experts to validate your Van Gogh, and some beanie baby specialist to affirm that your toys aren't counterfeit, but that's besides the point: when you show off a collection, you are doing so to let people view and admire it, not authenticate it.
Now, to prove authenticity of an item obviously takes a lot longer - you need art experts to validate your Van Gogh, and some beanie baby specialist to affirm that your toys aren't counterfeit, but that's besides the point: when you show off a collection, you are doing so to let people view and admire it, not authenticate it.
Have some imagination will you?
Just as you say, you don't want to verify ownership every time someone views your thing. You do it once with a trusted 3rd party, get a certificate or whatever you want, and hang it next to your piece.
If you now wanna show off your bitcoin worth, get a e-ink display connected to a raspberry pi that shows the current value of your bitcoin wallet. Have the certificate you acquired for this wallet right next to the e-ink display. Now exactly the same as if you were to show off your Van Gogh.
Bit false of you to compare showing a Van Gogh with verifying a bitcoin wallet. More appropriate to compare verifying a Van Gogh with verifying a bitcoin wallet, and we both surely know which one is faster and more reliable.
Just as you say, you don't want to verify ownership every time someone views your thing. You do it once with a trusted 3rd party, get a certificate or whatever you want, and hang it next to your piece.
If you now wanna show off your bitcoin worth, get a e-ink display connected to a raspberry pi that shows the current value of your bitcoin wallet. Have the certificate you acquired for this wallet right next to the e-ink display. Now exactly the same as if you were to show off your Van Gogh.
Bit false of you to compare showing a Van Gogh with verifying a bitcoin wallet. More appropriate to compare verifying a Van Gogh with verifying a bitcoin wallet, and we both surely know which one is faster and more reliable.
And how do you prove the certificate is authentic?
You can prove any given bitcoin is yours just by transfering exactly the amount requested by the viewer from one address to another (also yours). It costs whatever single transaction costs and takes exactly as long. You can do it as many times as you need, and you don't need any third party, just a computer connected to the internet that is sufficiently secure for you.
You can prove any given bitcoin is yours just by transfering exactly the amount requested by the viewer from one address to another (also yours). It costs whatever single transaction costs and takes exactly as long. You can do it as many times as you need, and you don't need any third party, just a computer connected to the internet that is sufficiently secure for you.
I took 5 seconds to verify my balance and 5 more seconds to share this with you:
https://btc.monokh.com/address/tb1qfapwkjkhe5vh592ypym6qj8k5...
In just about every way, digital bitcoin proofs are better than art collections in terms of display and verification.
- Is your art collection independently verifiable by everyone?
- How long does it take to verify your art?
- Can you share your original piece of art + an "original certificate" digitally with anyone in the world?
- Can you share your art collection without risk of theft or damage?
For Bitcoin, the answer to all those is yes and much more.
https://btc.monokh.com/address/tb1qfapwkjkhe5vh592ypym6qj8k5...
In just about every way, digital bitcoin proofs are better than art collections in terms of display and verification.
- Is your art collection independently verifiable by everyone?
- How long does it take to verify your art?
- Can you share your original piece of art + an "original certificate" digitally with anyone in the world?
- Can you share your art collection without risk of theft or damage?
For Bitcoin, the answer to all those is yes and much more.
Well you can publish your address and everyone can look up your balance, or "collection of coins", on a bitcoin explorer
[deleted]
I disagree that Bitcoin is a collector's item. Bitcoin is a network composed of many different kinds of software systems, the Bitcoin cryptocurrency represents the core unit of account of this network; the value of Bitcoin is thus derived from the demand generated by its network. Through the economic value that they provide, software systems which integrate with Bitcoin (either as a payment system or store of value) generate a constant stream of automated demand for BTC.
Bitcoin therefore acts like a share of the economic value provided by its network. Not so different from fiat currencies such as Dollars and Euros but its value is more tightly integrated with its network since software systems have a stronger technical lock-in factor (whereas fiat relies more on legal and psychological factors for lock-in).
Bitcoin therefore acts like a share of the economic value provided by its network. Not so different from fiat currencies such as Dollars and Euros but its value is more tightly integrated with its network since software systems have a stronger technical lock-in factor (whereas fiat relies more on legal and psychological factors for lock-in).
How good an investment are these collectibles though? You always hear of the price going up, yet few hard-nosed hedge funds would follow a collectible investment strategy.
I've read that as the number of people interested in a given kind of collectible shrinks, the market gets increasingly illiquid, but the nominal values don't change much - people don't want to sell at a loss, so when the value is much lower than the last posted trade, trades just don't happen.
I've read that as the number of people interested in a given kind of collectible shrinks, the market gets increasingly illiquid, but the nominal values don't change much - people don't want to sell at a loss, so when the value is much lower than the last posted trade, trades just don't happen.
Like every market it relies on three large groups existing. One large holding the asset with no intent to sell over the next “horizon” whatever that’s defined at. One group holding the asset and needing to sell it soon. And finally one group holding USD (or your local context equivalent) looking to buy into the asset. The winners and losers as far as appreciation of the asset (I made money holding it!) or depreciation of the asset (I recovered 70% of my value) are determined by how large each of those groups is.
The stock market has been great because the population has been booming. The holders looking to sell have no trouble finding buyers looking to buy so they lock in their appreciation. The real estate holders in Detroit and now maybe SV (recent buyers) didn’t do great because demand for their asset cratered.
It’s anyone’s guess what will happen to Bitcoin. Will it go mainstream causing the buyer class to massively outstrip the seller class and lock in huge gains for the current holders (to the moon!) or will it become as illegal as heroin in the major markets causing all legit holders to exit and the price to tumble to next to nothing?
Only one thing is certain, in this time of uncertainty, you will certainly have no trouble finding lots of people willing to tell you which one it’s going to be with absolute certainty in their conviction.
The stock market has been great because the population has been booming. The holders looking to sell have no trouble finding buyers looking to buy so they lock in their appreciation. The real estate holders in Detroit and now maybe SV (recent buyers) didn’t do great because demand for their asset cratered.
It’s anyone’s guess what will happen to Bitcoin. Will it go mainstream causing the buyer class to massively outstrip the seller class and lock in huge gains for the current holders (to the moon!) or will it become as illegal as heroin in the major markets causing all legit holders to exit and the price to tumble to next to nothing?
Only one thing is certain, in this time of uncertainty, you will certainly have no trouble finding lots of people willing to tell you which one it’s going to be with absolute certainty in their conviction.
Unless a collectible also provides some emotional or intrinsic (such as gold, which is used in manufacturing) value to the holder, it is essentially a vehicle in a ponzi scheme.
Once the market of interested collectors dries up, the value vanishes. So to play the collectible game on true value-less items, one must time the entrance and the exit to take advantage of other players.
Once the market of interested collectors dries up, the value vanishes. So to play the collectible game on true value-less items, one must time the entrance and the exit to take advantage of other players.
It works out because there are always going to be new dollars entering the system but very little bitcoin. In that regard it is like digital gold. It's about network effects and convenience. You can use any element as a store of value but storing say oxygen will require huge tanks to store very little money. Gold is small and easy to handle.
> That which is finite.
Finite-ness is over-rated [1], and for Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies, harmful to long-term stability [2].
[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su...
[2] https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CC...
Finite-ness is over-rated [1], and for Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies, harmful to long-term stability [2].
[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su...
[2] https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CC...
Finite in the context of collectibles thus far tends to mean "a small few". Even if it means "quite a few", it's still an absurd stretch to say that 21 million is the kind of finite that makes for a collectible.
[deleted]
Bitcoin isn't a collectible, because Bitcoin isn't unique or rare, it's infinitely divisible, and highly liquid. However, like a mint-condition beanie-baby, the value of Bitcoin is highly debatable. While most people would agree there is some non-zero value of having a distributed and decentralized currency, without a historical basis for valuation, justifying the price is difficult. It's better to think about crypto as an independent asset class with its own dynamics that are probably correlated to the balance of power between private and public interests. Ask yourself: in the long run, and globally, does the value of decentralized currency system increase or decrease relative to our current inflation-based monetary system?
I don't really agree with the main idea of the article.
Based on what I've seen lately, Bitcoin seems to be perceived as a sort of exotic asset that is however becoming more palatable to 'serious' institutional investors. If things continue down this road, my feeling is that Bitcoin and perhaps a few other crypto currencies will end up with some sort of gold-like role in the investment landscape.
Note however that I'm referring to bullion, not rare coins that are collected for their own sake and that can fetch prices that far exceed those of their gold content.
Based on what I've seen lately, Bitcoin seems to be perceived as a sort of exotic asset that is however becoming more palatable to 'serious' institutional investors. If things continue down this road, my feeling is that Bitcoin and perhaps a few other crypto currencies will end up with some sort of gold-like role in the investment landscape.
Note however that I'm referring to bullion, not rare coins that are collected for their own sake and that can fetch prices that far exceed those of their gold content.
But is this rare item something people are interested in “collecting”? From my understanding, if there are future collectibles popular to the level of Beanie Babies or Funko Pops, money will go there instead, where the asset is more interesting than just a number. Seems something like Flow [0] assets fit the specific concept of “collectibles” more than BTC.
For analogy, I’d be curious how the vintage currency collectible market compares with that of other collectibles.
[0] https://www.onflow.org/
For analogy, I’d be curious how the vintage currency collectible market compares with that of other collectibles.
[0] https://www.onflow.org/
[deleted]
What this article doesn't mention is all the failed attempts at creating collectible value, leading to a survivorship bias that implies rare+finite=value. Something being rare doesn't imply value, it's the combination of being rare and desired that makes a collectible worth anything. Although, I'm not even sure it should be considered a collectible, as the desire to own bitcoin is one that diminishes the less it's worth.
There are failed collectibles of crypto world.
Desire to own any collectible thing decreases with the value of given collectible. At least in most collectors.
Desire to own any collectible thing decreases with the value of given collectible. At least in most collectors.
Bitcoin requires a large Twitter army to maintain its value.
With collectors items, I wonder how much of the value is driven by people being nostalgic about their childhood?
For example, is stamp collecting still as big as ever, or is it going away because of email?
When I was younger people had started collecting phone cards (which were used in my country to make phone calls from phone cells). Since phone cells and phone cards don't really exist anymore, do new collectors even enter the market?
For example, is stamp collecting still as big as ever, or is it going away because of email?
When I was younger people had started collecting phone cards (which were used in my country to make phone calls from phone cells). Since phone cells and phone cards don't really exist anymore, do new collectors even enter the market?
Bitcoin is not a collectible. Bitcoin has all the properties of collectibles, plus two: fungibility and divisibility.
Bitcoin is money.
Bitcoin is money.
It's not money because the few people who bought things with it always regretted it. People prefer to hoard it which is generally something that is not done with money.
Money is an instrument for transferring wealth. The reason you need it at all is because the barter system is incredibly inefficient. If buying things off of Amazon with bitcoin is quicker, cheaper, safer than using my Amex, I'm happy to link my bitcoin wallet to my Amazon account and use that instead.
But that isn't what people are talking about, they are talking about investments. The only reason to move investments over to bitcoin is if you think that you are getting in at the beginning of a pump and dump scheme.
But that isn't what people are talking about, they are talking about investments. The only reason to move investments over to bitcoin is if you think that you are getting in at the beginning of a pump and dump scheme.
I am constantly using Bitcoin as money. I earn a significant percentage of my income in cryptocurrencies (as a consultant in the field), and I pay with crypto for other people’s services (e.g. frontend development). Also I have a Bitcoin debit card which I use to pay for groceries. Don’t see any problems there.
[deleted]
As long as there's a black market for drugs, there will be one for bitcoin and other crypto. People may be buying "jets, cars, watches, etc" and maybe even use it just to hoard, but that's not what is really driving bitcoin's value.
Please explain how bitcoin is better drug money than cash
I too predicted [1] that in the future Bitcoin will be comparable to works of arts, not to digital gold, as hoarders like to think. A collectible is even better comparison. But I disagree with the price prediction. People are already buying it because they expect the price will raise. This is a bubble. It's not what happens with collectibles or arts.
[1] https://dandanua.github.io/posts/why-i-wouldnt-recommend-usi...
[1] https://dandanua.github.io/posts/why-i-wouldnt-recommend-usi...
> People are already buying it because they expect the price will raise. This is a bubble. It's not what happens with collectibles or arts.
It's absolutely what happens with collectibles and arts.
It's absolutely what happens with collectibles and arts.
You may be interested to follow the cryptopunks average and min prices to see if there are big dumps like in "bubbles markets"
https://www.larvalabs.com/cryptopunks/forsale
https://etherscan.io/address/0xb47e3cd837dDF8e4c57F05d70Ab86...
https://www.larvalabs.com/cryptopunks/forsale
https://etherscan.io/address/0xb47e3cd837dDF8e4c57F05d70Ab86...
Of course, people still expect the price raise. But it's hard to imagine it will turn into a bubble.
> This is a bubble. It's not what happens with collectibles or arts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beanie_Babies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beanie_Babies
Collectibles can very much generate price bubbles. Some of them are quite slow to inflate/deflate, and thus not very exciting/newsworthy, but even those are bubbles.
Gold was a collectors item also, and that was the fuel behind it being a currency for a thousand years.
Here is where switching from silver to meaningless metal in Roman currency was one of the big reasons for Rome's collapse. A currency backed up by something with "money printing disabled" is key to a currency not turning devalued over time.
http://i1.wp.com/money.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploa...
Here is where switching from silver to meaningless metal in Roman currency was one of the big reasons for Rome's collapse. A currency backed up by something with "money printing disabled" is key to a currency not turning devalued over time.
http://i1.wp.com/money.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploa...
Scarcity = value only when the underlying asset is actually an asset i.e. it produces something or can be used to purchase goods & services.
Bitcoin is pure mania, it's completely worthless and enables the worst of the worst people in the world.
Bitcoin is pure mania, it's completely worthless and enables the worst of the worst people in the world.
> i.e. it produces something
Bitcoin does produce something.
It produces "facts" that everyone agrees on (entries on the blockchain). Facts that everyone agrees on are somewhat rare, and this provides value as these facts can be used to prove things.
Whether the value this provides justifies the current price of bitcoin is an open question (I doubt it) but anyone relying on the blockchain for keeping a record has an interest in ensuring the value of bitcoin is not zero
Bitcoin does produce something.
It produces "facts" that everyone agrees on (entries on the blockchain). Facts that everyone agrees on are somewhat rare, and this provides value as these facts can be used to prove things.
Whether the value this provides justifies the current price of bitcoin is an open question (I doubt it) but anyone relying on the blockchain for keeping a record has an interest in ensuring the value of bitcoin is not zero
“enables the worst of the worst people in the world.”
Exactly.
“A financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won't change the world for the better.” —I wish I never bought bitcoin; https://www.quitfacebook.org/file/greed.html.
Exactly.
“A financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won't change the world for the better.” —I wish I never bought bitcoin; https://www.quitfacebook.org/file/greed.html.
TL;DR; by doing a little bit of work, you can transfer a cucumber from your possession to your friend's. Same for Bitcoin. Therefore, Bitcoin is a cucumber.
The trillions of dollars in QE are mostly hoarded in banks, not pumped into the markets. This is evident as M0 has increased greatly, while M1 hasn't. The purchases made in QE are mostly government bonds, the revenue of which is mostly spent on government salaries and entitlements. That's why there is very little general inflation, there aren't any big sums of new money flowing into consumer goods.
The trillions of private dollars chasing returns are still mostly risk-averse. It's not venture capital. It's not going to small business or home-owners. It may have gone into government bonds before, now it's going into the S&P. That's asset price inflation.
Buying commodities such as gold (or Bitcoin) as a hedge against inflation is irrational, when assets such as stocks are both inflating in terms of price and appreciating in terms of actual value, at the same time.
Of course, irrationality has never prevented prices to rise, but when your fundamentals are based mostly around "greater fool theory", you should perhaps reconsider your allocation.
"It’s only a matter of time until people figure out that bitcoin is the ultimate collectible."
I wouldn't deny that there's a certain sentimental value to owning one of "only" 21 million Bitcoins, but I wouldn't personally put it anywhere near five figures.
For comparison, like many others, I enjoyed playing the original Super Mario on the NES as a child. It came on a cartridge of which about 40 million units exist, with a current value of around $10.