A low velocity financial instrument is still useful if it stores value, even if it has no other utility. Gold locked in a vault, rolex watch that is stored in a safe, stock whose voting rights are not utilized, a house that nobody lives in, pokemon cards that isn't used in a card game.

The list is endless and I guess if you're really asset poor you wouldn't see a value in these things.

The comment I was responding to was "People ... are fleeing for the exits," which is clearly not the case. The picture given is a stampede, where what's really happening is a few people going to the ATM and placing chips at a roulette wheel.

Very few people watched videos online in 1999, but some people predicted video sites like Youtube back then already. Traditional media called them crazy. Nowadays, people are using barely anything else than the internet for watching videos.

The blockers back then were bandwidth and CPU/GPU power to watch online videos.

As soon as the technology made it practical it took off like lightning.

Bitcoin payments don’t have any such fundamental blockers. Anyone with a smartphone can send or receive Bitcoin easy. Yet acceptance of Bitcoin for payments has not taken off at all. If anything it’s declined in recent years.

> If anything it’s declined in recent years.

This is true when it comes to businesses accepting crypto for non-financial products or services. Even though there are scalability, security and UX issues with crypto, I don't think that the main blockers for business adoption are technological or that people don't want to use it, but related to business risk.

Crypto regulation has tightened over the last couple of years. Depending on local laws, businesses have to follow KYC and AML laws, complicated bookkeeping procedures, check received coins for a potential history of criminal activity and more. It looks like the regulatory risk for accepting crypto payments seems much higher than just using a commercial third party gateway. That's probably why crypto fintech companies are exploding, while many other businesses cannot deal with the complexity.

For the near-term future, I would expect that many of the third-party gateways allow you to use your existing coins, while they deal with most of that complexity and export relevant tax data for you. Many people now own crypto assets, so a subset of them will want or have to use them.

Maybe we will see a push for more crypto-friendly regulation, once regular use of crypto through middlemen is normalized and only then direct use of p2p crypto can really bloom.

It amuses me how cryptocurrency boosters invariably point to other actors being the reason why relative adoption is low, instead of looking within to its own weaknesses, like the user experience sucking. It always has to be someone else's fault.

I don't know what you are talking about. Many people are working on inherent problems, such as UX issues, blockchain trilemma, regulatory integration and so on. That does not mean that there are no external factors too. Why can't we have a discussion about crypto without labeling people as some kind of dishonest idiots?

But back to the point, do you think the external factors that I mentioned do not count?

I mean darknet markets prefer monero over paypal, since they are ignoring regulation anyway and need an anonymous payment method..

> Why can't we have a discussion about crypto without labeling people as some kind of dishonest idiots?

Because 99% of crypto boosters make the other 1% look bad. Admit and address the money laundering, scamming, cult behavior, and planet-destroying aspects of it first, then let's talk.

> Because 99% of crypto boosters make the other 1% look bad.

Many bad painters make Da Vinci look bad?

> Admit and address the money laundering, scamming, cult behavior, and planet-destroying aspects of it first, then let's talk.

I assume you are not using fiat then too, if these standards are a precondition for you to consider a monetary system.

It's relative, not absolute. No system is perfect, but cryptocurrencies have demonstrated themselves to be far worse than the alternative on each of these dimensions.

I think there is a citation needed here, because I don't see how crypto has proven itself to be inherently and fundamentally worse. I think that fiat is the ultimate war money that has cost more human lifes than any other monetary system so far.

> I don't see how crypto has proven itself to be inherently and fundamentally worse

I can't help you if you intentionally choose not to pay attention.

I don't see any actual arguments, just strawman attacks.

Edit: since the end of the thread is reached and I cannot reply to your reply - funny how you proved my point as well, by still avoiding actual reasoning. Have a good day.

Thank you for proving my point!