It's only scarce when it isn't very useful and the market has little real adoption, as now, where the only real reason 99% of people have it is speculation.
If we actually needed a lot of cross border transfers, you can print an infinite amount of different coins/systems to duplicate that function (this is ignoring BTC actually has more money printing via Tether than any other "currency"). This isn't even including just having new systems for moving electronic US dollars around in Apple wallets etc, and cashing into local currency as needed through other services.
Bitcoins "real" value is a storage of value, which is currently based on speculation desires of holders, which in theory could hold forever (or at least longer than you can remain solvent as a short or long enough for you to 10x or 100x so who cares) but could also disappear forever and not be missed once gone.
The only moat is belief, which really who knows if that is sticky or not. There is no tangible functional moat.
>you can print an infinite amount of different coins/systems to duplicate that function
But what does it take to bootstrap trust? The idea of conjuring instruments to move money has a long history. I found value in knowing that such a system already exists: Hawala[0] which means "transfer" or "trust". Its existence clamps, in my mind, the possibilities of the "how do we make value transfer systems" question. The Bitcoin network with its proof of work clamps the other side of that question. In some way, the altcoins and other various systems of payments exist somewhere between these two systems.
Bitcoin's current speculation is based on the theoretical "it'll replace fiat", otherwise what other utility does it have?
Gold technically can be melted down to be used for jewelry, wiring, etc. so in theory it would never go zero. If BTC doesn't work out and no one ever uses it to transact, then in theory it can go to zero.
this is more than just corona. oil prices have dropped 30% which generally should mean all asset/price levels should come down, at least if the drop is prolonged.
It's only odd if you look at the community part of a decentralized coin as only the miners. You're missing the other critical parts which are its users and the exchanges.
A cryptocoin is worthless to miners if it cannot be exchanged, and it's worthless to exchanges if no one wants to trade it.
Bitcoin transaction times aren’t much better - I see recent times in the 15-80 minute range on average, well in the thousands range earlier this year.
It’s also odd not to acknowledge that banks have had electronic transfers for decades. You wait seconds for a card transaction and almost every financial institution allows you to do transfers without visiting a physical office.
I can transfer value within seconds using Zelle, Venmo, Paypal, Square, etc., for free right where I'm sitting now. Nowhere near a bank.
AFAIK, Bitcoin takes a minimum of 10 minutes assuming that I wish to pay the going transaction fee, or as long as 3 days (or even never!!!) if I use a de minimis fee. And that's assuming a significant risk that the value of the value transferred will not have the same value by the time the transaction actually goes through.
Preston takes an insulting tone towards the basis team. Fine to critique, but assumes the visionaries of this project are uneducated, or haven't given things proper thought. I assure you they are thoughtful...
I think perhaps the right way to approach critique of the OP is to provide citations or proof against the author's claims. It isn't a productive conversation to take offense at the general tone.
It also shows quite a bit of bias when you describe the people involved with the project as 'visionaries' and a vague assurance that aforementioned visionaries are thoughtful.
I thought you were arguing from a position of authority but looking at your comment history all I can find is "I'm a blockchain investor at [redacted]" which leads me to a placeholder website. You'll have to come up with something a little more convincing if you want us to trust your judgment.
If you glance at their whitepaper, stability analysis, or old FAQs they had up, it’s clear they’re thoughtful.
Therefore, comments like these underestimate the founders:
“Please. Figure out what a government bond is, first. Then we can have a little chat about scalability.”
"electric boogalo"
"But you need to study politics, economics and history to learn things like this, which I understand are not computer science and are therefore unpopular"
If they actually wrote "one day, Basecoin might become so widely used as a medium of exchange that it actually starts to displace the USD in transaction volume" then they deserve whatever is thrown at them
The problem is that synthetic blockchain assets are an idea where we already have a significant history of competent, serious people misjudging the tech and making unrealistic promises. Hence, you can't just argue away problems by claiming the devs are "competent and serious".
That said, I agree Preston's writings should be taken with a grain of salt: he's a curmudgeon at heart and provides value to the community from that perspective.
