BTC RISKS That’s misrepresentation. BTC are tokens (purchased) not debts) so the

BTC RISKS

That’s misrepresentation. BTC are tokens (purchased) not debts) so there is no counterparty risk because there is no debt. But that misrepresents the risk.

On the other hand, it’s entirely possible to shut down the network so that the Tokens aren’t REDEEMABLE, because unlike other instruments redemption is monolithic. ie: the network is a monopoly and the tokens are not tradable without the network.

So yes there is risk. There is risk of being stolen (happens all the time) there is risk of collapse in price (happens all the time) there is risk of state seizure. There is zero access in duress scenarios.

As a store of value (a stock without backing in anything other than demand for savings), yes it has value. As a means of competing with the state and treasuries then no. In fact, the poor transaction performance of BTC is a great example of a bad tech being a market benefit: btc is prevented from functioning as money, only as a stock, and as a stock, only as a token, even if a divisible share (shares divisible into additional token shares.)

So if you mean BTC will serve as an alternative to gold as a means of savings, then I think such a thing is maybe possible if it becomes vastly easier to use, at vastly lower transaction costs.

But it is not the ‘future’ you propose with your overarching argument. In other words, to say a thing has value is not to say it has sufficient value.

I have been consistently right on this subject over time and as far as I know I will remain so and that is because I understand the spectrum of monetary instruments from commodity to money to instruments to debts, and how they function in economies – as such I don’t make the mistake of conflating different types of instruments (when doing so is an act of fraud actually).

I only got involved in the discussion when people in the libertarian and BTC community asked me to. And it’s because it’s not money. it’s a divisible share of stock, sold as a token (dependent upon the network) in a network (dominated by a few vendors) without asset backing only demand backing, and that is costly (in energy and time) to manage. It is less open to scamming than buying interest in gold because it has no reserve (margin) utility. It is however more open to loss so far than any other asset we know of.