I get that anything is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. That’s besides the point. My point is, beyond speculation, what do crypto coins represent?
I also understand that the value of the US dollar is being questioned almost as much without the backing of gold.
But what I really want to know is what is at the foundation level of Bitcoin that people are buying into?
I have a basic understanding of the blockchain, etc. I sold 1BTC in 2017 for $1200 when I thought that was as high as it would go. At this point, at over $100kUSD and rising steadily, what is the $ limit and what is that limit based upon? I thought it was based on the value of mining to check transactions but this seems… not worth $100k to me.
I’ve been thinking, the only tangible value I personally see in Bitcoin, because it’s not really being used as legitimate currency, is for criminals. By now, there must be trillions of dollars in BTC acquired by criminals holding corporations hostage. When you’ve got people like Trump involved (either explicitly or by way of manipulation) with an executive order to establish a crypto czar, this suggests to me that he’s creating pathways for bad actors to more effectively gain more wealth. These are the people who are most excited in Bitcoin, beyond speculation.
I mean, there’s little to nothing on the up and up with crypto, right? It’s a scam. Right?
Please, factual answers only. I’m looking for someone to dispel my speculation with genuine economics of the matter.
When it was first released, I was interested in the decentralized nature of it as a currency. I liked - well, I still like - the idea of a currency that isn’t controlled by a government. At the time (2009-ish?), I also thought it was anonymous, which also appealed to me; cash is mostly anonymous, but it can’t be used online, and even then the fact that society was increasingly moving toward cashless - and very traceable, and usary-heavy - credit cards was clear. Stripping privacy is critical to control.
Bitcoin isn’t anonymous, but other cryptocurrencies are, and bitcoin laid the groundwork. To your question, I, and many other people, paid some money to get some bitcoin - I think I spent $120? Mainly so I had enough to explore the space and play with it, because even then mining seemed painfully slow. Once money was spent on it, by whomever and for whatever reason, it acquired value: the value that, if you had some, you could sell it to someone else, or trade it for goods. In that way, it has the same value as an IOU on which I’ve scribbled “Good for $10 from Ruairidh Featherstonehaugh” and signed my name. Flawed metaphor, but you get there idea - the paper itself has no intrinsic value.
Despite that mining is so horrible for the environment, the concept that motivated Bitcoin still IMHO has value. An entirely digital, cashless system, not controlled by any one organization but rather by the community of participants. If Bitcoin didn’t have the environmental cost - if it has been proof-of-stake rather than proof-of-work, or if the computational work was actually something useful to society like gridcoin.us, it wouldn’t be so controversial. Sure, people are still going to be bitter about not buying into it early, but as long as people are willing to trade goods and services for it, it’ll have real value based on market rates.