Because the US dollar is money and BTC is a speculative asset.
For that, I prefer to hold my gold and silver coins. Feels better than a bitcoin wallet.
1 Like
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say there. I’m talking about buying/selling Bitcoin on the exchange when I say “change hands”. I agree that on-chain analysis does not include this activity (for a large part it just can’t), but to me that just means that you can not possible have any data to prove/disprove that 90% of transactions are trading/gambling. It’s just an estimate based on publicly available, but not verifiable data (such as trading volume).
1 Like
I don’t think anyone care tbh, in most wallets and exchanges you can input both.
Let’s play a game, I send you a dollar over the lightning network and you send me a dollar worth of gold (or silver), and we compare experience. Okay?
The lightning network visualized :
Its organic nature is 
1 Like
Let’s play a game - we check volatility of gold or inflation -linked government bonds and Bitcoin to compare them as a store of value and we check Revolut/Twint and Bitcoin to compare them as a payment system. And we compare experience. Okay?
1 Like
But that’s the point: Most payers - and people in general - want to trust someone.
The don’t want to irrevocably send money to an anonymous (wallet) number.
Also: they don’t trust themselves to handle cryptographic keys as the sole means to control one’s financial wealth.
7 Likes
That was my problem too. I only started speculating on Bitcoin when Swissquote started offering crypto investing.
Very good and important one, and how bitcoin mining can be beneficial for the environment
OK, what’s your time horizon for the store of value?
He took me 5 days (FIVE!!!) to have a payment go through Revolut this week, so I am quite confident which one is the best. And this was not the first time it happened to me… As for twint… I give you my US Iban and we test okay 
Yeah, burning off methane may be good for the environment. When the entire Bitcoin mining capacity uses as much energy as entire mid-sized countries, the net effects aren’t. And the reality is that Bitcoin mining doesn’t happen in the most environmentally-friendly countries and circumstances - quite the contrary (no, Kazakhstan certainly isn’t a green electricity producer).
Nothing irks me more than these blatant greenwashing attempts that disingenuously deny reality.
What are you trying to prove here?
Most people in Switzerland have most of their friends, colleagues and families in Switzerland (or Europe). Most people don’t have a US bank account. Go, ask ten random people at work or on the street if they have TWINT and/or a working Bitcoin address to receive funds. Even normal people have TWINT.
So… Bitcoin is a valid solution for use cases few people have?
Side note:
The US doesn’t have even IBAN numbers, so you won’t have on either 
4 Likes
First let’s compare daily volatility, then weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly and every 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 years. We will see which one is more stable in these different intervals.
I don’t have such problems and I doubt many people do. And even those who do have these problems, they still don’t use Bitcoin for payments - which says a lot about adoption potential of this technology.
well at least I know you did not listen to the podcast, you should try, 1-hour of education is not lost! It has nothing to do with anything you said.
That’s we need better technology than twint for the 7b+ people out there…
That’s not what a store of value is made for… Do you mean an emergency fund maybe?
My time horizon is 2028, and my unit of account is bitcoin, I am expecting a nice positive trend. Bond market might be already dead by 2028 anyway.
Just check revolut support center… Last comment from two days ago: Been well over a week and my money still hasn't been credited (SOLVED, after 2 weeks) - #17 by mozo1993 - Feedback - Revolut Community
No, I don’t mean positive return on speculation - I mean a predictable and stable conservation of value. Bitcoin might be dead by 2028 and it might lose 90% of value within few months at any time. This is not store of value - this is lottery. In similar sense somebody could say that ARK ETFs are store of value.
PS. As Wikipedia says:
A store of value is any commodity or asset that would normally retain purchasing power into the future and is the function of the asset that can be saved, retrieved and exchanged at a later time, and be predictably useful when retrieved.
The most common store of value in modern times has been money, currency, or a commodity like a precious metal or financial capital. The point of any store of value is risk management due to a stable demand for the underlying asset.
4 Likes
Not gonna happen, bonds are debt and countries/people love spending on credit. 2028 is tomorrow, I’d take that bet and you could even pay me in bitcoins through whatever solution is up to date by then, provided bitcoins still exist, have a non-zero value and have enough liquidity to be sold in a matter of a few days.
5 Likes
Warning: I am not versed on macroeconomics, but…
At some point this has to stop, doesn’t it? If there are European countries with a debt of their 100% of GDP or more and growing fast as years pass by, when is it going to stop? At 250%? At 1000% At 6000%? What is the point of lending money to someone that will never be solvent to pay it back? It is a humongous bubble.
And if it bursts, it is going to hit hard both the creditors and the debitors.
Or you think we will not see such a scenario in our lifetime?
Genuinely asking.
1 Like
PS. Guys Ben Felix got a series of podcasts on crypto:
1 Like
looks like Tsla sold a good portion of its btc…
2 Likes
Signs of adoption and real fundamentals.
„YoY, operating income was primarily impacted by the following items:
(…)
- higher raw material, commodity, logistics and expedite costs
- higher per unit fixed costs in Shanghai due to shutdowns
- negative FX impact
- Bitcoin impairment
…
As of the end of Q2, we have converted approximately 75% of our Bitcoin purchases into fiat currency.“
So far, I‘m glad they didn’t do it similarly to Tesla.
6 Likes
I think you can easily find articles how sovereign debt is of different nature to corporate. It doesn’t mean any amount of debt is sustainable (and it also depends on what the debt is used for), but it’s still different (eg. main criteria is prob ability to pay interests).
Maybe start on Wikipedia to learn about the mainstream view before diving on the heterodox viewpoint (and understand which are heterodox, and thus considered more fringe among economists)
3 Likes
A formal default would be painful and politically unacceptable.
What was decided 10 years by the ECB (and the Fed before) was to reduce the cost of interest payments.
Some countries have taken that opportunity to balance their budgets and reduce their debt load, other have drawn the opposite conclusion: since debt costs almost nothing, it’s an incentive to make more deficits.
There are two ways of defaulting: formally, by being unable to pay back or paying interests, or by devaluing the currency: you let inflation devalue the debt - it is what is happenning currently.
I recommend the book “This Time Is Different”. Around half of the book is about the 1st default method, 2nd half is about the 2nd…
3 Likes