Try convincing any crypto "enthusiast" of that, though. Literally none of them have ever been able to explain to me why cryptocurrencies should have value, but that doesn't stop them from proclaiming it the best thing since sliced bread.
I'd also agree that price bubbles happen and future speculation becomes a dominating factor in their price action, but this doesn't mean they don't have inherent value.
This is what crypto-enthusiasts must be blind to. We could be using bottlecaps to do the same bloody thing. Nobody wants to though. Why? Because nobody else takes the value assertion of a bottle cap seriously. As long as people keep buying into the hype, and the enthusiasm is kept up through selective refusal to accept the realities and externalities of the process, then the gravy train continues.
As with most things in finance, it's all trust at the bottom of it. If there is any doubt, no one will be around to be left with the bag.
That's pretty much true for anything that has financial value, though. Setting aside the chemical properties of gold (conductivity, resistance to corrosion, etc.) that make it more valuable than some other metals, pretty much every financial construct in human culture is only valuable because we decided it was valuable. That's not to say everything is inherently valueless, but crypto is not too dissimilar to, say, digital coins for a game; you just can't usually swap it back in the latter case so it has little/no tangible value. Similarly, the value of stocks, foreign currency, even money itself fluctuates daily. As long as you can swap it back to "real" money, I see it as having tangible value.
That being said, I personally choose not to get involved in any cryptocurrency because I would rather invest in more "established" forms of value, like stocks and bonds and whatnot.
Correct. Maybe a better statement would be "I don't see that the inherent value of crypto is bigger than that of the dollar or gold". This gets even more complicated when you take into account the cost of the transactions that I have discussed with another user.
Newer projects like Uniswap, AAVE and MakerDAO (for DAI) are uniquely new and novel concepts that can't be accomplished trustlessly without blockchain technology.
Bitcoin has a lot of intangibles (name recognition, trust, hashpower) and for many is a more intersting asset (in what it represents) compared to gold.
I would like to clarify something. I didn't say I disagreed with the value of cryptocurrencies (that is, its value in dollars). I said I find their societal cost way too high. In other terms, (Inherent Value of crypto < Societal Costs of crypto).
> would you at least agree that their inhenrant value isn't 0?
I agree with that. Although my previous answer stated "I don't see tangible value in crypto" I suppressed the paragraph that said that crypto may have some inherent value when it comes down to international transactions (or transactions in general). If international transactions in crypto are cheaper than with banks, clearly those who want to make these transactions do see some inherent value in the currency. That is, its value would emerge from its transaction properties.
I did suppress the paragraph because I just don't know enough about the fees of such transactions. I think it is reasonable to expect Banks and Financial entities to offer transaction fees lower than Crypto for all use cases. If that happened, then I just don't see any value in crypto whatsoever.
I have said it a few times on HN: I see more potential into a "Crypto Dollar" than in crypto in general.
> I have said it a few times on HN: I see more potential into a "Crypto Dollar" than in crypto in general.
This, and the potential of smart contracts that use the "Crypto Dollar" are where I see the most potential.
Here are some of the associated costs of crypto:
- Environmental effects for the energy consumption that is not clean and the corresponding breakeven for clean energy.
- Subsidized costs of energy are a direct cost into governments budget.
- By increasing electricity consumption miners are increasing the demand and therefore the cost. This drives up inequality.
I haven't found a better term than "Societal Costs" that summarizes all these costs.
> This, and the potential of smart contracts that use the "Crypto Dollar" are where I see the most potential.
Absolutely!
Does the efficiency with which a game utilizes system resources alter its value?
Sort of the inverse of crypto.
Crypto is an investment the same way $GME or playing the roulette is an investment. Better term would be speculating or gambling. Nothing wrong with either, but let's call it what it is.
Buying assets "as a hobby" that depreciate or generate no income, is just that, buying for a hobby, not investing.
Where did I talk about penny stocks? I was talking about volatile meme stocks like $GME being like playing the roulette.
I don't doubt that is the case, but that kind of reinforces my point. The societal cost of crypto is too high. If we have to justify the electrical consumption of crypto because people enjoy it more when they see its name on their screen, we are clearly doing something wrong.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_properties_of_diamond
I never had that specific opinion, but I have another point of view.
Games bring inherent value to the table. That is, if you didn't play games you would be reading a book, going outside to play, browsing the web... Games fill a purpose and bring value. Whether or not I believe our current consumption of videogames is acceptable is irrelevant.
I don't see tangible value in crypto. Crypto is worth what other people are willing to pay for it. If you wanted to invest in an asset that does not depend on the currency you could buy gold.
(I had a paragraph here making a point about international transaction costs. I removed it because I started to find it offtopic. Long story short: I find the societal cost of crypto way too high).