Bitcoin Forum

The ecosystem around bitcoin is still changing, but U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo said the popular cryptocurrency is part currency, part security and part digital coin.

"Bitcoin and a lot of its other virtual currency counterparts really have elements of all of the different asset classes, whether they're meeting payment, whether it's a long-term asset," Giancarlo told CNBC on "Fast Money" Monday, live from the annual Milken Conference in Los Angeles.

Read more https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/bitcoin-has-elements-of-all-of-the-different-asset-classes-cftc-chairman-says.html

Bitcoin is a multifunctional tool, that's what's making it so powerful. If at some point a large part of the regular economy realizes that as well, there is no limit as to where Bitcoin's price will be peaking. It will be the moment where large percentages of capital starts moving from all traditional assets to Bitcoin, and if we look at how even 1 or 2% of that capital accounts for tens of billions of dollars, then just brace yourself for what has to come if we see a 25% capital allocation.

I expect a strong shift eventually from people and large investors holding paper Gold, which is nothing more than an empty promise that you hold a certain amount of Gold. Just think about it, what do you prefer to hold, a piece of paper stating you hold x amount of Gold (or basically any other asset), or a piece of paper containing a private key loaded with x amount of Bitcoin that you can access and redeem at any time of the day. ;)

Exactly. I have noticed this several times. Presumably this is one of the many reasons why most governments have not very well classified what Bitcoin is up to now. But you know, being that they are in power, they can always make a classification as to what Bitcoin is, along with all other cryptocurrencies. It is just that to me Bitcoin seems like a combination of all those types of investments due to its general makeup- price, characteristics, features, selling point, among others. And if you look closely, you can say it can be classified as an asset rather than a payment system to which it purports to be. It is truly confusing but what is making things worse is the fact that most governments shun away from Bitcoin by not categorically defining it nor outrightly banning it. Seems to me they are just being lax about it like as if nothing is supposed to be a problem.

I don't see how Bitcoin is a security, it doesn't generate any profit on it's own like shares or bonds, people get profit purely from speculating or mining. I also don't think that Bitcoin is a commodity - it's unusable for non-financial purposes, unlike gold that has many industrial applications. So, we've only left with money, and that's exactly what Bitcoin is - even when it's hard to use on day-to-day basis, it still has situations when it beats other forms of money. I think a lot of economists and government officials are scared of calling it money because they don't want people to use it as such, so they try to downplay it as an "asset" or "commodity".

Bitcoin is a beast on its own and therefore it cannot be classified. It's everything and nothing at the same time: remember bitcoin don't exist, they are simple entries in a ledger. We control keys not bitcoins. And so on...

In a way, it's reassuring that some people in senior regulatory positions are finally starting to comprehend some of the nuance involved.  This is a reasonably positive development.  Or, at the very least, I don't think anyone can deny it's a clear improvement over the usual (and more than a little tedious) "speculative bubble" or "tulips" talk we normally get from the fiat functionaries. 

There's clearly still some ground to make up, but they're finally starting to look as though they're at least heading in the right direction.  Hopefully it's not just limited to a few individuals and they all start to comprehend a little better before too long.