Had a thought today while running...
There has been much discussion over the value of a Bitcoin when one removes its use as a money. There are issues with the regression theorem, etc.
Gold clearly has value beyond its use as money. Primarily, it looks pretty and is thus perpetually desired for ornamentation. There are other uses, but this is where gold originally got its value - from its pretty shine. Observers of gold are fascinated by it - attracted to it due to its properties.
Well... is this not also true with Bitcoin? When Bitcoin was first discovered and released, was it not initially desired for its curious nature? Were initial adopters not attracted to it due to its strange properties, much like ancient man was attracted to gold? Of course, it's the geeky crypto people who were initially attracted, but I think it's a fair point that they picked up these early bitcoins purely because "they were cool to look at and hold" - albeit on a digital drive.
Even for those like me who don't fully understand the cryptography, Bitcoins are damn cool. They are intrinsically interesting and attractive. Gold is also intrinsically interesting and attractive. Both commodities attract the observer, and their monetary usage subsequently sprang forth in like manner because both commodities possess those properties which make them great forms of money (scarcity, divisibility, authenticity, etc.). Does this not satisfy the regression theorem?
I agree with this 100% a value of anything will only depend on how many people are actually interested and attracted on it. As of the moment even though the price is around $3800 -$4000 there are still millions of people who don't know what Bitcoin is and also millions are still not invested on it. Once more people will invest in cryptocurrency i assure you the price will be 10x more the current price.
