If tokenization requires a trusted party to issue the tokens (think stocks) then no blockchain is needed

There's an intermediary scenario to consider: when multiple trusted parties are involved. This is basic computer science, and software engineering: crash and byzantine fault-tolerant systems.

On a related note, blockchains often obscure the true consensus mechanism behind layers of complex jargon. Upon closer inspection, consensus is still built on trusted parties, just not the same ones typically found in the traditional economy. In Bitcoin, for example, you not only have the relatively few powerful miners but also the Bitcoin Core developers, who wield significant influence over which changes are incorporated into the Bitcoin node. For example, enabling the OP_CAT opcode again [1][2].

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoTechnology/comments/19bik6z/u...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/19adyi0/should_op_...

There’s also ASIC manufacturing monopoly

Then that means stablecoins aren’t needed.

And yet, reality disagrees with your logic and stablecoins are on track to be used even more.

Tokenization on Ethereum will end up being way more important and useful than pet rock Bitcoin.

The most popular stablecoins aren't trustless, proving the parent's point.

Parent's point is weak - it's not possible right now for people around the world to hold fiat/stocks in their own centralized, custodial wallets due to stringent KYC/AML, and blockchains currently fill that need for stablecoins, and will fill that need for tokenized stocks, treasuries, etc.

And again, nobody needs blockchains to tokenize centrally issued securities.

> Bitcoin is the useless asset since it's proven that productive assets (think stocks) are better store of values than unproductive ones (think gold).

This has hardly been proven. Gold has been recognized as source of value across several millennia and multiple cultures. I would bet that 1000 years from now gold will still have value, whereas stocks are only valuable in as much as the rights that they represent can be enforced by a court and implicitly the state backing it.

We are <one mile-sized asteroid made of gold> away from gold losing all its value. One such asteroid has been discovered already. It's called 16 Psyche, 140 miles in diameter and made largely of gold and other precious metals. To compare, all gold ever mined on Earth fits into a 22-meter cube.

We are one government/imperial collapse from US stocks losing all value. Historically which is more likely to happen?

Both are more likely to happen than Bitcoin being cracked.

How are you so certain about the composition of 16 Psyche?

NASA was confident enough to send a rocket towards it, it is scheduled to reach 16 Psyche in 2029.

Why would you need a blockchain for tokenization?

If it’s truly digital gold, that will only lead to the demise of the chain as a result of block rewards going down and not enough transaction fees to support the miners. Bitcoin truly has a security budget issue.

You seem to be arguing that if block reward sufficiently drops, everyone will stop mining and new block cease to be generated. Why would it happen?

If everyone stops mining that it would be enough to run mining on cheapest laptop and collect all the reward.

I didn't say that mining would cease - it's that there would be way less incentive for people to mine, so less hash power, and more susceptible to 51% attacks.

Doesn’t it self regulate? If there is too fewer miners then reward goes up? Also, unlike gold, you can anonymously transport it around the world without getting robbed.

Nitpick: the reward doesn't go up, but the difficulty goes down.

except you cannot melt it and wear it to show off

and you cannot produce electronics out of it, nor use it in dentistry, or medicine.

one reason it's better money than Gold, there are no industrial supply/demand dynamics impacting its price. It's pure monetary premium

And gold is a non reactive physical object. Storing gold is cheap compared to the infrastructure required to keep Bitcoin ledger information.

You need gold in a computer to mine bitcoin, but you don't need bitcoin to mine gold.

Why bitcoin instead of doge or any of the other digital golds?

Network effect, first-mover advantage, and fair launch that did not pre-mine coins for insiders. It's the only "pure" one because it was first and honest.

Satoshi ninja-mined in the beginning for themselves. If they had posted about Bitcoin further in advance and had many more people mining, that would’ve been different.

Satoshi embedded the day's newspaper headline in the genesis block, as proof that he did not ninja-mine in the beginning for himself.

There were only few others mining, so they mined many blocks for themselves through information asymmetry.

Would’ve been different if there were way more miners from the beginning

Every human endeavor since the beginning of history has had some form of information asymmetry. Not everyone can be lucky enough to buy AAPL in 2001 or BTC in 2009. Apple management and Satoshi both announced what they were doing publicly to anyone who would listen, but not everyone was listening. Unless you can conjure up a method to deliver every piece of information globally to everyone on earth instantaneously, you'll just have to accept that as a fact of life. It's not bitcoin's problem to solve. Complaining on the internet about how life is unfair certainly won't solve it.

>Satoshi ninja-mined in the beginning for themselves

completely and provably false

There might’ve been only 2-4 others mining so yeah, they mined for themselves through information asymmetry

Doge has unlimited supply, so there is an infinite amount of Doge.

Investing into something which has an infinite amount that will get created for free by the system (and therefore reduce the value of your investment) ?

Because more people have confidence in Bitcoin than the other digital golds because it has been in the news the most over the years.

Also, the price won't be as volatile as the other coins (even though it is much more volatile than dollars) because if someone decides to sell $50 million worth of Bitcoin, the price barely budges because $50 million is such a small fraction of the $2.2 trillion worth of Bitcoin in existence.

The price will move (down) until the sell is fulfilled - if there are not $50MM worth of buyers at that price point then the price will drop until buyers are found.

The 'market cap' of Bitcoin is irrelevant here, only the price sensitivity of buyers. Given there is no underlying income stream from bitcoin, there is no real floor. If nobody wants to buy it, a 50MM sell will go to zero pretty quick.