weemac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:23 pm
I think it's scarce partly because only a set number can exist - not sure how many but it's limited.
People spend $1,000 on an iphone, but they don't have to; they could buy a Chinese phone that does the same stuff for a tenth of that. They pay subs and fees to Microsoft for Word and Excel but could do much of the same stuff for nothing. Similar idea with Aston Martin - just a moving box on 4 wheels, but people pay big bucks to own a big brand name product.
So what other coins don't have but bitcoin does is brand identity. Corporations pay billions for that, so along with limited supply, its value is a masterstroke of genius, albeit most likely originally unintentional. Like Apple, Visa or Amazon, a huge part of its value lies in its brand.
To me 'Currency' or 'Store of value' is a utility.
Where as Iphones, Aston Martins or the other products you mention have a utility component, but also a value attributed to fashion, comfort, efficiency, status symbol, etc...
If the premise that crypto is 100% utility, they are not scarce as 1000's of them provide the same utility. (as does traditional banking facilities etc). Which ever performs it function best is what typically gets chosen....for example, you don't see too many people turning down $100 notes when 2x$50 notes can achieve the same thing. (speaking generally
)
Is that premise wrong, and Is bitcoin really a fashion statement? Maybe...but I think it's fairly widely agreed that bitcoin is useless as a currency. More widely contested that it's a useful store of value.... like really...are you going to pay more so you can tell your buddies you've got bitcoin rather than blahcoin for the purposes of a hedge against civilisation ending? Surely, they'd laugh at you on two fronts?
The value of Fashion probably relies on the greater fool principle as well (or is it the greater fool theory).
