You're honestly going to claim that an asset that is down more than 40% YTD is a hedge against inflation?
Also, you do realize this point of view "muh down YTD" is a meme comment yes? Stare at any 6month period of any chart and you can make any argument you want. Are stocks not inflation hedges generally? Yet they are down YTD too. In the period of monetary expansion from 2020 through 2021, did not BTC do just fine hedging this monetary expansion? Even in Wiemar Germany, gold did not go up in a straight line, it was extremely volatile. BTC is more volatile than almost anything else that still long term has worked to hedge expansion of liquidity. BTC moves in line with growth or contraction of liquidity better than anything else. Just look at the charts.
Additionally, my point is this is the framework. It can also be a failed experiment. But there is no scenarios where a finite asset can replace fiat currency. There is theoretical basis for same asset to replace other forms of scarce stores of value. In principle, BTC is a SoV asset, not a transaction currency or unit of account by virtue of its technical fundamentals (un-inflatable supply, expensive to transact, slow).
> BTC moves in line with growth or contraction of liquidity better than anything else.
> In the period of monetary expansion from 2020 through 2021, did not BTC do just fine hedging this monetary expansion?
How is it a hedge if it moves in line with liquidity?
Why is expansion of liquidity is something one would need to hedge against?
"mitigate the potential negative effects of" I guess..
>How is it a hedge if it moves in line with liquidity?
I don't know what you're asking? Liquidity expansion inflates assets, and BTC inflates more than almost anything, especially over a multi-year time frame.
It hedges just holding cash. It hedges the opportunity cost of not investing while invest-able assets are going up in value, and wages on a relative basis are not.
>Why is expansion of liquidity is something one would need to hedge against?
Sort of a philosophical question lol. Maybe you don't. If one wants to invest at all (why though?) this is a framework for thinking about that process.
What the everloving fuck are you talking about? Bitcoin is deflationary to the point that nearly everyone uses it as an "investment" vehicle, not to actually transfer money. Do you even know what inflation is?
The control of the BTC is maintained with possession of the private key stored in the bearer asset cash.
Holding gold certificates does not enforce any fundamental claim or control of the actual asset the backs the paper; possession of the physical gold does. You need to trust somehow that the holder will exchange the gold for the paper in the future, as well as actually have the gold at that time.
I don't know if it exactly like gold certificates, but it sounds pretty close to "I'll pay you with cashews" to me. It's not terrible - I bet a many people exchange goods like this every day.
Since we can't know the numbers for fiat, we can at least try to understand it for Bitcoin. As far as I can tell, sources seem to point towards the number being closer to ~2% of wallets hold ~70% of all Bitcoin.
If this is a better/worse distribution than fiat, we will never know.
Bitcoin is a nice mirror to look into. We need to eliminate money, go full star trek post scarcity utopia.
Electricity is scarce, and unholy amounts of it are needed to create this post-money utopia.
Could you source that claim? I find it absurd that you think such studies haven’t considered crypto exchange wallets in their analysis…
It's all public knowledge.
You spend and transact mostly in fiat, you borrow in fiat. You save some percent of your earnings in more finite stores of value (you and everyone else already do this so the concept is not controversial).
The idea is explained here: Ctrl + F "two monies"
http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2011/05/return-to-honest-money.htm...