It must be nice to be able to just state something is thoroughly debunked and not have to give any evidence, despite billions of people not knowing, and be magically right...
That's quite the amusing comment, given the fact that crypto-bros reiterate that crypto is somehow money in spite of if repeatedly failing each and every single trait that makes something a currency.
Now, when someone points out that fact, here we are with a newfound passion for argumentative formalities as if you can make this fact go away by petitioning the ref.
I have a bank account with FIAT, and I also have BTC. I use both to pay for things. Although I mostly use FIAT, I also have a credit card that I charge with BTC to pay for things, but if I have the option I also pay with BTC directly. How is that "not a currency"? Because some people use it as a way to run scams and pay off ransomwares? Because people prefer to hold it and sell it at a higher price to get rich? Or simply because you do not understand it?
This blend of arguments is either terribly ignorant or disingenuous.
The definition of money is not "something that might have value to someone". Money has a very concrete definition, which lies in three key traits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money
Point out exactly which of these key functions do you believe any crypto thing complies with.
BTC is a medium, measure, standard and store of value.
BTC is also durable, divisible, portable, acceptable and scarce.
Sadly for fungibility you need to look at XMR, which I prefer exactly for this reason.
But saying crypto is not money is a terribly ignorant and/or disingenuous argument.
I've exchanged potatoes for tomatoes once.
Doesn't make 'em currency.
I can go to the local market and exchange a bag of potatoes for some lettuce.
A potato is still not money.
A lot less of that going on now, with the current argument being all about "due diligence". Crypto works as an inefficient payments mechanism and a ledger for trusted and equal peers. It somehow did not magically break the fundamental rules of investment nor collective ecosystems.
A transparent anonymous and independent system of transactions is possible, but it is vastly different from the incentives existing in the space now.
* that so many people think crypto is either perfect or totally evil and admit no middle ground.
* that both groups constantly claim their (rather extremist) views are facts but refuse to substantiate them.
I wonder how long it will take for people to agree that crypto neither cures cancer nor causes it...
Such a strawman right in the leading hypothesis. What makes it so hard for you to face the actual criticism directed at crypto? Do you find it so indefensible that you prefer to avoid it altogether?
Because if you do, you already agree with me.
And if not, you're going to have to explain how you know literally everything about 1000s of projects with a billion users...
That's the problem with the ultra extreme position the article and many many people here take.
I'm not here to defend crypto. I am not a true believer. I just find it strange that such a huge complex thing with so many users etc apparently is not just 99.999% scam, but 100%. And some how people have discovered this and know if for fact. And yet are unable to share their sources, or methods...
It's almost like such people have no more idea what is happening than the true believers...
Crypto didn’t stop humans from being humans. There are always people trying to make a quick an easy dollar. The tech really has little do with this aspect of human behavior.
Even bitcoin proponents no longer claim it’s a currency - many of them even pretend never to have claimed otherwise when it interferes with the sales pitch - and the investment claims have been similarly defined by lots of people losing money and learning what an unsecured asset run by less than fully forthcoming people means.
If you disagree with the conventional wisdom on either point, the onus is on promoters to back that claim up with hard data. In particular, data from sources who weren’t making glowing claims about Luna, 3 Arrows, FTX, etc. right up until reality asserted itself.
And if such an economist were challenged on whether the USD is stable, he would presumably be able to cite decades of data of inflation rates, FX etc.
It would be a bit crazy to write a whole article about one thing, but say nothing because the thing is obvious and widely accepted (so why write it)...
Plus, "Crypto Is All a Scam" is the claim here. So if people making claims are the ones obliged to support them then...
As I say elsewhere, I am not some crypto evangelist. I am just tired of both sides being so vacuous and relying on prejudice and publishing such poor materials...