Bitcoiners ask the same thing about holding a bank account full of dollars, or in many other countries (like Lebanon, etc.) even worse currency, or they can just freeze your account, etc.

Anyway, it should be clear to people that the 7% in an outside currency has to come from somewhere. And most of this stuff has been a zero-sum game so the money comes from:

1) Investors who bought the top

2) Traders who got liquidated

3) IPO investors who bought shares in a money-losing business model like WeWork

4) Advertisers whose ads didn’t pay off (yes, advertising is a zero-sum game too)

Sadly, most people do not realize it’s a zero sum game and the bagholder class only grows and grows until the speculative bubble pops.

> Bitcoiners ask the same thing about holding a bank account full of dollars

It’s a good question. The answer is deposit insurance and, perhaps, narrow banking. Not self custody for the masses.

If you have enough money, you will not be immune to rubber hose decryption attacks or other shows of force.

Either you live in a country where you can trust your money system, or you don't.

It's always been my take that the reason ideological Bitcoin ghouls are so enthusiastic about directly contradicting their entire argument against government control over money, by lobbying countries like El Salvador to adopt Bitcoin as a national currency, is because they recognize (cf. lead pipe attack) that there is ultimately no replacing men with guns when it comes to defending the value of money. Quote back by math quote doesn't cut it when someone has a mortar aimed at the middle of your mining farm. Or even someone with a couple Jerry cans of gasoline, matches, and nothing to lose after some anon creep chilling in a Thai brothel pulled their life savings to fund his 'tech nomad' lifestyle.

And since they are too fragmented and comically self-serving to organize anything like their own soveriegn state, they need to piggyback off an existing one.