Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)

[Blown2CV]

"everyone who sees it as an investment rather than a currency" - so everyone then... although some not viewing it as a lucrative one clearly.

[RichTT]

Condi said:

Why is it questionable? The ability to float currencies is a huge buffer or crash barrier against economic conditions, by actively making the country more competitive and so going some way to offset the economic hardship of the people.

Unless you have a considered opinion to the contrary, rather than just dismissing it because in your idealised world you don't like the idea.

The considered opinion to the contrary is Austrian economics. Of which there are many proponents who repeatedly call out the ultimate and messy failure of every centrally managed and easily printable fiat currency throughout historical example. Read some Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, or Menger.

Hell, if you haven't, go read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. You can't argue the for position without understand the basics of the against position. Outwith the boundaries of this forum.

If Keynesian economics worked we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is no successful example of Keynesian economics. It didn’t work for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s. It didn’t work for Japan in the 1990s. It didn’t work for Bush in 2001 or 2008, and it didn’t work for Obama. It didn't work for any of the countries through the GFC or the pandemic QE.

Keynesian economics looks to transform saving into consumption (hence an almost complete collapse in savings). But a recession or depression exists when national income is falling. Shifting how some of that income is used does not solve the problem and creating money from thin air is only papering over the cracks of a lack of savings. If people had savings in something that couldn't be devalued easily, then hardships can be survived.

In reality, the idealised world you are talking about is where MMT and Keynesian economics actually works. The rest of history dictates that it doesn't.

Edited by RichTT on Tuesday 7th May 13:51

[ERIKM400]

Condi said:

ERIKM400 said:

You're not proving anything. The point you are making is entirely separate to the one I am making, either you don't understand that or are ignoring it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Great, you've made money. Congratulations.

However, it's still a terrible store of value and is too volatile to be of any use as it was originally intended, ie as a currency or payment method.

OK, let's take this argument down to the most basic level.
What is a store of value?
For me it is an asset that will garuantuee that my future purchasing power will be at least equal to or preferably superior to my current situation.
I have shown you that my crypto investments do just that: 100% gains over just one year and I can show you > 1000% over the last six years.
But, still you consider it to be a bad store of value?
So please tell me, what is it that I should be investing in instead?
Everyone who has invested in BTC and held on for 4 years or more is in profit.
Each and everyone. Bear markets and all that.
The only way you can drive your point about volatility home is by using carefully selected short time frames when the market goes down.
As I have said numereous times before: it's all about the time frame you're using.
Spoiler alert: markets going down is when you buy, markets going up is when you sell. That's how you make money and get rich. Free advice.

[ERIKM400]

Condi said:

ERIKM400 said:

Maybe you (or anyone else) could answer a very simple question - What use does Bitcoin or any other crypto have? Dimots will tell you it's the worlds future reserve currency. You may say an investment. Someone else may say it's a gambling asset. Morgan Stanley would might say it's simply a product they can charge huge fees for customers to access.

It's protecting the wealth I managed to accumulate by hard work from the continuous devaluation of fiat currecy through inflation (which you think is a good thing although you still have not explained this to me).

And by the way, still eagerly awaiting your comments on the BTC ETF's

[Condi]

ERIKM400 said:

For me it is an asset that will garuantuee that my future purchasing power will be at least equal to or preferably superior to my current situation.
I have shown you that my crypto investments do just that: 100% gains over just one year and I can show you > 1000% over the last six years.
But, still you consider it to be a bad store of value?

Lol, can you read a chart?!

What about this is guaranteed? You have no idea where Btc is going next, all you're doing is looking at it over a time frame and going "its guaranteed to go up" when it has had several large dips which have resulted in 50%+ reductions in price and have taken years to recover from. If it was guaranteed to go up it wouldn't have this big drops would it? If you bought in 2017 it might have taken 3 years to be in profit, if you bought in 2021 it could have taken 3 years again. I wouldn't consider something which can drop 50%+ in a matter of months and take years to recover "guaranteed to go up" or a "good store of value". What if you need that cash when it's 50% down (which it could do, over the next few months, you have literally no idea)? A good store of value is not volatile, but is predictable, Bitcoin is anything but.

Honestly, if you look at this chart and think it's "guaranteed to go up" and is a "good store of value" then there is little point continuing this discussion.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[greengreenwood7]

@condi....

you asked about 'which institutional inestors' are investing in BTC....

well for starters there's 700+ who effectively own/back it by having bought shares of MSTR....i'm guessing you'd agree that they didn't bu the shares on the back of MSTR's software business - but rather the BTC which they've owned/added to since before the US ETF's were launched.
among those insitutions, yeah, blackroak themselves, vanguard and various other banks, includin the national bank of norway....


but hey, keep calling it currency and keep banging on about how it can't be a currency.....and in doing so, you're attributing a label and then arguing your point on that label!

and as for your thoughts/comments about blockchain etc....
So VISA starting to trial/rollout crossborder payments on Solan is a nothing burger then? ie/ one of the major payments vehicles has publicly acknowledged that blockcahins such as SOL will have a role to play, due to the speed of finality and crazy cheap costs.

Time will tell, and prob not that far into the future.....
meanwhile:
who decided that sparkly stomnes were a currency/investment/store of value - how long that take to catch on
same with sparkly metals
same with evolution from promisary note to banks, central banks etc

and forget the tinfoil.....coins used to be worth an mount of corresponding 'hard currency' - whether silver/gold, guess what, the governments fked everyone by dilutiing the amount of said precious metal. Ring a bell? or any alarm bells - national debts around teh world that cannot ever be repiad, - so they turn on the money printer.
so yeah, i kind of like the fact that there's only ever going to be around 15-17M BTC ( albeit highly divisible)...and before you bang on about 'there's 21M' - yep, correct, but umpteen have been proven to have been lost in the early days.

[RichTT]

Condi said:

Lol, can you read a chart?!

Can you?

1yr return on weekly DCA - 83.52%
2yr return on weekly DCA - 143.17%
3yr return on weekly DCA - 112.78%
4yr return on weekly DCA - 165.23%
5yr return on weekly DCA - 269.27%
6yr return on weekly DCA - 423.82%

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dollarcostave...

Edited by RichTT on Wednesday 8th May 06:28

[Condi]

RichTT said:

Can you?

1yr return on weekly DCA - 83.52%
2yr return on weekly DCA - 143.17%
3yr return on weekly DCA - 112.78%
4yr return on weekly DCA - 165.23%
5yr return on weekly DCA - 269.27%
6yr return on weekly DCA - 423.82%

This doesn't make it a good store of value, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Store of value is about the volatility of the instrument, ie how likely is it to be worth today's value in 1/3/6/12 months time. Bitcoin is absolutely terrible for that because it is volatile. This isn't something made up, it's mathematical, it's measurable.

Also, those figures above only look good because of Btc's current price, if in 6 months it has gone down by 20/30/40% (hardly unprecedented) then they'll look nowhere near so favourable. You cannot predict where it will be in 3 months or 6 months.

[Condi]

greengreenwood7 said:

@condi....

you asked about 'which institutional inestors' are investing in BTC....

well for starters there's 700+ who effectively own/back it by having bought shares of MSTR....i'm guessing you'd agree that they didn't bu the shares on the back of MSTR's software business - but rather the BTC which they've owned/added to since before the US ETF's were launched.
among those insitutions, yeah, blackroak themselves, vanguard and various other banks, includin the national bank of norway....

You don't think these companies own MSTR because they're massive holders of market tracker funds and so buy into all listed companies? And you think that the company has a market cap of $22bn because it owns $5/7bn of Btc - that's one hell of a premium to pay!!

greengreenwood7 said:

So VISA starting to trial/rollout crossborder payments on Solan is a nothing burger then? ie/ one of the major payments vehicles has publicly acknowledged that blockcahins such as SOL will have a role to play, due to the speed of finality and crazy cheap costs.

Possibly so, but I can guarantee you one thing, Visa will not be buying SOL coins to use it. Blockchain/token asset tech may well become a thing, but it will be mainly B2B and will be paid for by those using it without the need to buy volatile price coins.

greengreenwood7 said:

so yeah, i kind of like the fact that there's only ever going to be around 15-17M BTC ( albeit highly divisible)...and before you bang on about 'there's 21M' - yep, correct, but umpteen have been proven to have been lost in the early days.

So what prevents people from simply hoarding it? Why would anyone ever sell something which has a known, finite quantity if they believe it has some utility or value? Our money supply increases on purpose - to discourage exactly what I've described - to discourage people from simply sitting on it without it doing any useful work. There are clearly issues with both (deflationary and inflationary) but of the 2 a moderately inflationary money supply is generally seen as preferable for an economy to work.

[RichTT]

Condi said:

RichTT said:

Can you?

1yr return on weekly DCA - 83.52%
2yr return on weekly DCA - 143.17%
3yr return on weekly DCA - 112.78%
4yr return on weekly DCA - 165.23%
5yr return on weekly DCA - 269.27%
6yr return on weekly DCA - 423.82%

This doesn't make it a good store of value, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Store of value is about the volatility of the instrument, ie how likely is it to be worth today's value in 1/3/6/12 months time. Bitcoin is absolutely terrible for that because it is volatile. This isn't something made up, it's mathematical, it's measurable.

There's no such thing as 'store of value', because value does not reside in objects. Value is in the mind of the person, and is entirely subjective. Therefore considering anything as a store of value is a logical fallacy. What you can say is that there is a relative amount of certainty that your bitcoin will not be diluted by the extension of the issuance, so 1 bitcoin will always equal 1 bitcoin. Unlike fiat which is diluted consistently. Simply because it is auditable and verifiable at a protocol level and governed by the Nakamoto Consensus. In this sense, it is the most stable thing on Earth.

The 'store of value' for Bitcoin is in knowing that your ownership of a percentage of the total supply will never be diluted, and some people value that more than others.

What you can also say is that given the price history over the last 15 years, you can calculate the risk adjusted performance (in fiat denominated terms) using Sharpe ratio, power law modelling, and moving averages (for example) to make objective predictions of the increase in fiat value.

https://charts.bitbo.io/sharpe-ratio/

TwoOcean said:

Bitcoin's Contribution to Risk Adjusted Returns

Given the substantial increase in returns with very little added risk, it follows that a small position in bitcoin should positively impact the portfolio's Sharpe ratio. Figure 5 confirms this logic. The Traditional Portfolio produced Sharpe ratios well below 1.0 during the past 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods. Adding just a small position in bitcoin would have substantially increased the portfolio's Sharpe ratio. In fact, just a 3% investment in bitcoin would have increased the 10-year historical Sharpe ratio from 0.77 to 1.00.

https://www.twoocean.com/post/revisiting-the-case-for-bitcoin

Condi said:

Also, those figures above only look good because of Btc's current price, if in 6 months it has gone down by 20/30/40% (hardly unprecedented) then they'll look nowhere near so favourable. You cannot predict where it will be in 3 months or 6 months.

Unless someone has found a way to predict the future with 100% certainty, then the same is true for every single market and asset on the earth. Bitcoin is no different in this regard.

Edited by RichTT on Wednesday 8th May 09:12

[dimots]

Condi said:

This doesn't make it a good store of value, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Store of value is about the volatility of the instrument, ie how likely is it to be worth today's value in 1/3/6/12 months time. Bitcoin is absolutely terrible for that because it is volatile. This isn't something made up, it's mathematical, it's measurable.

Also, those figures above only look good because of Btc's current price, if in 6 months it has gone down by 20/30/40% (hardly unprecedented) then they'll look nowhere near so favourable. You cannot predict where it will be in 3 months or 6 months.

Bitcoin is provably a much better store of value than FIAT. I can prove it, I've been turning all my worthless ye olde pounds sterling into super modern techno bitcoin and now I'm absolutely loaded.

[Blown2CV]

BandOfBrothers said:

Blown2CV said:

decentralisation is only a benefit to a particular group of the population; mainly tinfoil hat people. The rest of the population either believe centralisation is a good thing, and the rest don't give a fk... certainly not enough to have to deal with the complexities and volatility of crypto.

I wonder if the Russians thought that 3 years ago too?

Not to mention that the vast majority of the Western governments have national debts levels that would have been considered crippling even only a decade ago. That all has to unwind somehow too.

you're missing the point. I am not saying the public are correct in their thinking and prioritisation, but i am saying this is how it is. We the 'enlightened' few can argue the toss about the economic, mathematical, cryptographic and philosophical details in places like this, but it doesn't matter one bit because if crypto is to become a true currency you need to get the masses bought into it. Maybe a massive catastrophic financial event will be what it takes to achieve this, but again it's just conjecture.

[Blown2CV]

RichTT said:

There's no such thing as 'store of value', because value does not reside in objects. Value is in the mind of the person, and is entirely subjective.

so then what you are buying is confidence and trust. I refer you to my above point.

Something is a better store of value if it is less likely to suddenly cause the holders to lose confidence and sell up.... unlike say, crypto.

[RichTT]

Blown2CV said:

RichTT said:

There's no such thing as 'store of value', because value does not reside in objects. Value is in the mind of the person, and is entirely subjective.

so then what you are buying is confidence and trust. I refer you to my above point.

Something is a better store of value if it is less likely to suddenly cause the holders to lose confidence and sell up.... unlike say, crypto.

Market participants are not equal, but individual. Short term volatility and pricing is set on the margin by the traders. Whilst the correlation of bitcoin (and by proxy crypto) to risk on equities is fairly high, the fact that it is a 24 hour market allows those market participants to capitalise on volatility and uncertainty. This is short term price action. The difference is that whilst all the other cryptos trend to zero against bitcoin, bitcoin continues to make higher highs and higher lows on a long term basis. No other asset has returned from being 'dead' so many times, nor has an asset bubble ever crashed and gone on to make new ATH's, let alone 4-5 times.

Those who use a longer view and tend to set the price floor during dips and market corrections will use these opportunities to accumulate more. This is measurable and verifiable through on-chain analysis. It has been happening every single cycle. But every time this occurs the drawdowns reduce, the volatility reduces and the distribution of the asset becomes wider and more even. Yes, it's still highly concentrated, but even by now, the distribution is better than the wealth concentration of fiat monies between rich and poor.

[OoopsVoss]

RichTT said:

Market participants are not equal, but individual. Short term volatility and pricing is set on the margin by the traders. Whilst the correlation of bitcoin (and by proxy crypto) to risk on equities is fairly high, the fact that it is a 24 hour market allows those market participants to capitalise on volatility and uncertainty. This is short term price action. The difference is that whilst all the other cryptos trend to zero against bitcoin, bitcoin continues to make higher highs and higher lows on a long term basis. No other asset has returned from being 'dead' so many times, nor has an asset bubble ever crashed and gone on to make new ATH's, let alone 4-5 times.

Those who use a longer view and tend to set the price floor during dips and market corrections will use these opportunities to accumulate more. This is measurable and verifiable through on-chain analysis. It has been happening every single cycle. But every time this occurs the drawdowns reduce, the volatility reduces and the distribution of the asset becomes wider and more even. Yes, it's still highly concentrated, but even by now, the distribution is better than the wealth concentration of fiat monies between rich and poor.

From a trading perspective - fair points. But as an store of value in exchange for labour (that most people equate actual money) - is terrible store of value. Its an asset (a highly volatile one) - not a stable store of value. This is partly why stable coins exist. You absolutely wouldn't take AAPL (Apple Inc) shares in exchange for your labour - there long term price vol is too high (even the regulations for banking say this deeming then non-liquid whereas other equities are). Just because it can be very valuable does not not make it meaningful to most at the short end who exchange labour for money to live.

This is the blocker to adoption, the time lines being banded about have little relevance to man on the street. They are not saving or investing all the labour earning but spending it - constantly. Obfuscating about hash rates - means that the BTC advocates don't understand the herd of elephants in the room. Simple thought exercise.

Your daughter wants to go shopping to buy a pair of trainers, retailing at 100quid. You give her satoshi's to the value of 100quid at 9am when you drop her of at the bus station, but by 11:30 when she wants to buy them - daughter only has equivalent of 90quid in satoshi's -so she leaves empty handed wasting bus fare and time. Maybe on a good day she has 110quid worth of satoshi's - but you have no idea what way its going because its speculative.

Its basically rubbish for money at the short end - you cannot get around this. Its an investment that "may" have great long term pay-off, but only IF you can afford to take losses - that most people cannot when dealing with actual money.

[RichTT]

OoopsVoss said:

From a trading perspective - fair points. But as an store of value in exchange for labour (that most people equate actual money) - is terrible store of value. Its an asset (a highly volatile one) - not a stable store of value.

That's why I said there's no such thing as a store of value, let alone a stable one. That measure is simply an appraisal of how much 'moneyness' a thing has. I don't mean in the financial markets sense, I mean more in terms of economic theory. People in the UK believe that a house is a good investment because it tends to appreciate steadily in fiat value over a long time and the volatility is low. Is a house a store of value? You can argue for it. Yet it is highly illiquid, subject to outside market forces (interest rates etc) and can suffer complete destruction or confiscation. So it has a degree of moneyness that people value, can appraise, yet still actually be a very poor financial instrument for storing the fruits of your labor.

Bitcoin is incredibly liquid, traded 24/7, indestructible and moves at the speed of block propagation with final settlement. So it also has a degree of moneyness that people value, can appraise, and make a decision as to whether it is a good or poor financial instrument for them to be involved in.

For some it's a better money, for some, it's a better long term investment / store of value / risk adjusted portfolio allocation. None of these things are mutually exclusive. It's not perfect for everyone, and that's why it's often said it's for anyone, not everyone. Make your own subjective decision but accept that others make theirs.

OoopsVoss said:

This is partly why stable coins exist.

I agree. People in countries with volatile currencies want dollars and synthetic dollars are the easiest way for them to be able to do this. No doubt about it. But there are still plenty of places that it is easier or preferable to use bitcoin via lightning over non-smart phones (SMS) or in small circular economies. Mostly because there's no KYC or permission required to be involved in the use of them.

OoopsVoss said:

This is the blocker to adoption, the time lines being banded about have little relevance to man on the street. They are not saving or investing all the labour earning but spending it - constantly. Obfuscating about hash rates - means that the BTC advocates don't understand the herd of elephants in the room. Simple thought exercise.

I also agree, and this is a mindset thing. It comes down to societal stability (Lazlo's hierarchy of needs), the confidence to plan on a long term timescale and think further ahead than the next paycheck. It's a cultural shift that my grandparents generation would be shocked by. Borrowing today from your future self, if done unwisely, ends in financial ruin. Or at minimum, it ends up with those who did plan for the future, subsidising those who didn't. This applies equally to nation states who borrow too much from an unknowing future population.

OoopsVoss said:

Your daughter wants to go shopping

Fiat currencies are quite often more volatile than bitcoin, even the great british pound. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-20/uk-pound-is-almost-as-unstable-as-bitcoin)

Current 30 day volatility index for bitcoin is 2.24%. Current 30 day volatility index for gold is 1.74%.

People often mis-state how volatile it is day to day, and under state how much the volatility is reducing over time, without actually looking at the numbers.



https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/volatility-index/

Edited by RichTT on Wednesday 8th May 11:34

[Blown2CV]

RichTT said:

Blown2CV said:

RichTT said:

There's no such thing as 'store of value', because value does not reside in objects. Value is in the mind of the person, and is entirely subjective.

so then what you are buying is confidence and trust. I refer you to my above point.

Something is a better store of value if it is less likely to suddenly cause the holders to lose confidence and sell up.... unlike say, crypto.

Market participants are not equal, but individual. Short term volatility and pricing is set on the margin by the traders. Whilst the correlation of bitcoin (and by proxy crypto) to risk on equities is fairly high, the fact that it is a 24 hour market allows those market participants to capitalise on volatility and uncertainty. This is short term price action. The difference is that whilst all the other cryptos trend to zero against bitcoin, bitcoin continues to make higher highs and higher lows on a long term basis. No other asset has returned from being 'dead' so many times, nor has an asset bubble ever crashed and gone on to make new ATH's, let alone 4-5 times.

Those who use a longer view and tend to set the price floor during dips and market corrections will use these opportunities to accumulate more. This is measurable and verifiable through on-chain analysis. It has been happening every single cycle. But every time this occurs the drawdowns reduce, the volatility reduces and the distribution of the asset becomes wider and more even. Yes, it's still highly concentrated, but even by now, the distribution is better than the wealth concentration of fiat monies between rich and poor.

but the store of value topic was about the building blocks required for crypto to become a useful currency... again you seem to have fallen into the trap of talking about it as an investment.

I realise volatility can make a good investment, but that isn't the argument.

[OoopsVoss]

RichTT said:

Fiat currencies are quite often more volatile than bitcoin, even the great british pound. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-20/uk-pound-is-almost-as-unstable-as-bitcoin)

Current 30 day volatility index for bitcoin is 2.24%. Current 30 day volatility index for gold is 1.74%.

People often mis-state how volatile it is day to day, and under state how much the volatility is reducing over time, without actually looking at the numbers.



https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/volatility-index/

Edited by RichTT on Wednesday 8th May 11:34

I don't think you are wrong on volatility declining - but cable vol isn't eaten by the consumer - but the retailer. They don't reprice trainers constantly...

I can see why BTC has attributes people favour - but can't see mass market adoption when its work to live for many and FIAT does have implicit bail out guarantee even if people think its wrong. In anything other than total collapse - FIAT will get bailed out by central authority. BTC has the opposite - so it may be more resilient (if you think it in Nassim Taleb terms) - but you gotta be a real believer to have all your eggs in that basket (that's kinda the problem - for FIAT people are almost 100% bailed in - only a tiny minority have 100% BTC exposure).

For me, BTC is "like" money and has interesting investment potential - but's its not "money",. for reasons given and I can't see the widespread adoption given the hegemony of Western economics and circumventing the likes of OFAC etc.

[Scootersp]

RichTT said:

There's no such thing as 'store of value', because value does not reside in objects. Value is in the mind of the person, and is entirely subjective. Therefore considering anything as a store of value is a logical fallacy.

That's an interesting take because I'd say nearly all value does reside in objects/physical things?

Value in non physical things is a very recent addition to the human experience, and does rely on trust/belief/indoctrination and whether fiat or bitcoin or whatever, it is ultimately one day used to buy physical things? (Physical networks support bitcoin and swift/fiat tracking?)

Bitcoin or fiat billionaires feel comfortable because they can expect that during their remaining lives they can buy everything they ever need, that is not 100% assured, isn't that why diversification is encouraged? Buying everything they need for decades, they could afford to do today but is hugely impractical (for various reasons) unless you went full on homestead self sufficient like the ultimate prepper - like billionaire self sustaining island stories!?

[RichTT]

Blown2CV said:

but the store of value topic was about the building blocks required for crypto to become a useful currency... again you seem to have fallen into the trap of talking about it as an investment.

I realise volatility can make a good investment, but that isn't the argument.

It is a useful money to some, as it is less volatile and more inclusive than local fiat currencies. It is seen as an investment to others. Not mutually exclusive, but I'm talking about it from a relatively secure economic point of view.

Volatility over time is reducing. Whether that means that it takes 2-3 more cycles to become stable enough as a viable currency day to day for more people remains to be seen.

George Selgin wrote a paper back in 2013 that I think is highly interesting

"I argue that the attributes of synthetic commodity money are such as might supply the basis for a monetary regime that does not require oversight by any monetary authority, yet is capable of providing for all such changes in the money stock as may be needed to achieve a high degree of macroeconomic stability."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...

OoopsVoss said:

For me, BTC is "like" money and has interesting investment potential - but's its not "money",.

See paper linked above. Everything is varying degrees of moneyness. There is no absolutes, only shades of gray.

Scootersp said:

That's an interesting take because I'd say nearly all value does reside in objects/physical things?

Value in non physical things is a very recent addition to the human experience, and does rely on trust/belief/indoctrination and whether fiat or bitcoin or whatever, it is ultimately one day used to buy physical things? (Physical networks support bitcoin and swift/fiat tracking?)

Our entire world runs on the concept of intangible digital money. 92% of all money worldwide is digital.

The Visa network has been around since 1958. You can argue that we dematerialised and abstracted our currencies almost 70 years ago with the advent of credit cards. The first internet banking site was launched in 1994 and mobile banking in 2002. People have been buying and 'owning' music or movies from online platforms for many years. Of course we now know that this is an illusion. The bank can alter and freeze your digital balance at any time, the music website owner can remove your ability to use your 'paid for' music at any point. But they can't do that with cash or physical records.

That, in part, was why Bitcoin was revolutionary, you could 'own' something digital without anyone else being able to manipulate or modify it without your permission.

Scootersp said:

Bitcoin or fiat billionaires feel comfortable because they can expect that during their remaining lives they can buy everything they ever need, that is not 100% assured, isn't that why diversification is encouraged? Buying everything they need for decades, they could afford to do today but is hugely impractical (for various reasons) unless you went full on homestead self sufficient like the ultimate prepper - like billionaire self sustaining island stories!?

Nothing is 100% assured. The base status of humanity is chaos and poverty, it is reasonable to assume that we are not immune to that in the west. You make a decision on all the information and plan accordingly. Bunkers, beans, ammo, gold/silver coins assume a complete collapse into anarchy. Billionaires can afford to plan for both a peaceful continuity of the status quo, or a complete paradigm shift.