Bitcoin's volatility is a non-issue

[Uberse]

I know that this subject has been discussed many times before, but lest we forget when yet another conventional financial journalist, investor, money manager, perceived thought-leader et al pronounces on why Bitcoin will fail because it is too volatile to be used as a currency or store of value:

• Each Bitcoin transaction is a zero-sum game -- one party benefits to the same extent that the other does not benefit. So one party is guaranteed always to be fine with the volatility. And neither party knows for sure (or at all) who that beneficiary will be.
• The purchaser of a bitcoin has still spent the same amount of fiat no matter what the volatility after the purchase.
• The premise that the aggrieved party could have done this or that instead of send someone a bitcoin that later appreciated in value has no more merit than to say that that party could have bought a stock or bond that later did well too. In each case, they simply did not have the information needed in time. Shoulda coulda woulda is not a valid argument.
• If Bitcoin were impractical as a currency, the dark web would not use it. There would be no Bitcoin-using dark web. 
  
• Many things have been used as currency. Anything tradeable and of proven long-term value (like gold) or expected shorter-term value (like packs of Kent cigarettes in communist Romania) can be used as a practical currency, and have. Before WWI, travelers checks had the rate of conversion printed on them because it was expected that the gold-back currencies backing them would be stable. And so they were. The fact that fiat currencies require electronic conversion-rate signs today shows that their stability is entirely an illusion. They are not stable.
  
  

The argument that Bitcoin's volatility specifically negates its value as a store of value is clearly false as well. Stocks and commodities and their futures (as well as the effective interest rates of some bonds) are highly volatile. The mantra is that you accept their risk in exchange for growth. Fine. But volatile Bitcoin has growth potential too -- lots of growth potential. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum, as systems of decentralized, immutable, economical, sustainable, and perfectly legal data-registration means that everyone will become their own notary public. The implications for intellectual property protection are arguably beyond what we can now imagine.

Underlying all of Bitcoin's volatility is an unchanging protocol that is proven to work -- and expected to grow.

[Sinecoin]

Volatility isnt a issue when it comes to bitcoin/crypto investors because there are many other types of volatile investments too.  People take issue with volatility because bitcoin is mean to be used as a currency and if its value keeps changing then merchants cant rely on it as an accepted payment method.

[Elderman87]

It is a very big issue alright. Bitcoin is meant to be a base currency where virtually all other cryptocurrencies trade against. If its volatility begins to affect the coin movement of the community of altcoins, then it should be seen as a very serious issue that will hamper the growth of other coins

[pooya87]

bitcoin's volatility IS an issue but it is not that big. the media and the FUDsters love to make bigger. the fact is when bitcoin is so volatile that price can move up to 20% in one day it makes it harder to either invest or use as a currency. it doesn't mean people can't or won't use it. they are still investing in bitcoin and also using it as a currency even though it is volatile.
the difference is if it stops being that volatile, it will be used more as both a currency and an investment.

[Spaffin]

The arguments that the volatility of the crypto currency is not at all a problem is unconvincing. So far, due to the large volatility of the crypto currency, and primarily bitcoin, the states are very critical of it and this is one of the reasons for their rather weak and slow legalization.
It may also be that, at large price values, large volatility of bitcoin can lead to its complete or partial depreciation. If bitcoin will be very expensive, a sharp drop in it with normal volatility, if it coincides with negative information, can lead to panic that will work as a domino effect and bitcoin may depreciate in one or several days. Is this not worthy of attention and is not a problem related to volatility?

[pinkflower]

I like Uberse's style. He stealthily included Ethereum in the article in a sentence that says both BTC and ETH are good stores of value lol.

Ethereum is not a good store of value because what it promises to deliver will not be delivered. Lets watch how long they can keep the ongoing scam last.

[HabBear]

• Each Bitcoin transaction is a zero-sum game -- one party benefits to the same extent that the other does not benefit. So one party is guaranteed always to be fine with the volatility. And neither party knows for sure (or at all) who that beneficiary will be.

Both parties benefit the same only in the exact moment in time that the transaction occurs. After that moment one party benefits more than the other. That's a fact, and due to that fact the timing of the transaction is very much an issue for both parties.

• The purchaser of a bitcoin has still spent the same amount of fiat no matter what the volatility after the purchase.

No, I believe you have that opposite. Volatility after the purchase doesn't keep the purchaser from worrying about the issue that is the investment's volatility.

• The premise that the aggrieved party could have done this or that instead of send someone a bitcoin that later appreciated in value has no more merit than to say that that party could have bought a stock or bond that later did well too. In each case, they simply did not have the information needed in time. Shoulda coulda woulda is not a valid argument.

Ok, ok, it's a sunk cost.

• If Bitcoin were impractical as a currency, the dark web would not use it. There would be no Bitcoin-using dark web. 

Are you kidding? The dark web existed long before bitcoin. Bitcoin's practicality is strongest as an investment.

[mk4]

Bitcoin being volatile as a currency is slightly an issue in my opinion. I mean, in a business point of view, you wouldn't want to receive a $50 payment that could be $40 tomorrow(though it could also be $60). But there's almost nothing we can do about it in my opinion. Volatility will decrease as adoption comes.

[aoluain]

My opinion is that if bitcoin was not so volatile that wouldnt suit traders.
Traders love the volatility, well experienced traders that is, the ones who
Can read the charts etc.

And if bitcoin was not so volatile there could probably be mor acceptance
in the marketplace for it to be used as a currency.

[Pursuer]

I like Uberse's style. He stealthily included Ethereum in the article in a sentence that says both BTC and ETH are good stores of value lol.

Ethereum is not a good store of value because what it promises to deliver will not be delivered. Lets watch how long they can keep the ongoing scam last.

good catch. they usually do this! they make an article which is about bitcoin at heart but they slyly include another altcoin's name in it to say this article is also covering that altcoin.
the fact is ethereum is one of the worst things you can invest in, not because of its volatility but because it is inflationary. there is no stopping that. the cap which should have been there is not there and there will be an unlimited number of Ethers in existence eventually. the future of it looks something like future of Doge coin.

[carter34]

The volatility is really an issue. An issue in the sense that it is usually the base currency and naturally, it should be so. It should not border traders though. It rules and control the other cryptocurrencies.

[jseverson]

• Each Bitcoin transaction is a zero-sum game -- one party benefits to the same extent that the other does not benefit. So one party is guaranteed always to be fine with the volatility. And neither party knows for sure (or at all) who that beneficiary will be.

You don't think this is a big issue at all? A small business with razor thin margins could very easily lose money and lose the capability to pay their suppliers in case of a slide. That alone makes accepting it unnecessarily risky and very far from ideal. It's fine peer-to-peer, but when you have an obligation to pay and a business to run, it's a significant variable you could just do away with. They could use a payment processor to mitigate the risks, but that also defeats the purpose.

Volatility could very well be a deal breaker in a few scenarios. While I acknowledge that it gets blown out of proportion here and there, it's certainly not a non-issue. If it works for you, and it does for most of us, great. That doesn't mean it will work for everyone else though. Volatility is a problem that can presumably be solved by time and adoption, and shouldn't be swept under the rug.

[freesia_pnp888]

but it's still concerning lots of people tbh, you juat can't pretend like it ain't there?

[Kakmakr]

While I agree with you that volatility should not influence the store of value, I would disagree with you that it influences the merchants, when they accept Bitcoin directly. Some people cancel out this disadvantage by using payment processors for any payments that are received, but this is not the perfect solution. <This makes you reliant on third party services that are centralized>

The best way to avoid volatility is for you to change strategy. Take say 20% of all bitcoins received and hoard them and convert the other 80% to fiat, almost immediately to avoid too much volatility.

[talkbitcoin]

i think you are confusing two things. volatility being an issue and volatility making bitcoin useless. there is a big difference between these two. volatility is an issue but at the same time the merchants/businesses will continue to accept it and people will continue to use bitcoin as payment (the millions of dollar that is being processed by the merchants is proving that.
but if volatility stopped and bitcoin became more stable then this usage will be increased by a lot which is showing it IS an issue.

[Uno17]

It is an issue of course because everyone is vigilant with the bitcoin price everyday, but its volatility is also a part of its market fluctuation that we have to pass thru and that cannot be avoided situation, we just have to stay positive and believe that bitcoin is going live and lasts and it is worth investing and one day you will enjoy your profit also😊

[CryptoBry]

Volatility isnt a issue when it comes to bitcoin/crypto investors because there are many other types of volatile investments too.  People take issue with volatility because bitcoin is mean to be used as a currency and if its value keeps changing then merchants cant rely on it as an accepted payment method.

Volatility in connection with Bitcoin can be viewed negatively or positively depending on the person or the type of person we are talking with. I am sure that traders are quite happy with Bitcoin's volatility because it can be an opportunity to earn more money but can be viewed in apposite by a newbie investor that can be rattled fast with the movement of Bitcoin value in the marketplace. Many merchants are also worried about volatility though there are now many ways they can protect their Bitcoin. Less volatility is not actually a guarantee that Bitcoin can be reaching the very mainstream population so the bottom line is that we just have to leave it to the market on what it will decide on this matter.

[Manoj94]

Bitcoin has launched lightening network which would make blockckain network fast and reduces the cost involved in transection. Also Bitcoin can fall 30% to its top value, while other Crypto can fall 10% of their top value So Bitcoin is more stable than other Crypto.

[RNGfight]

I also find it difficult to use bitcoin as a stable currency.
More often just as a zero sum game.

[ETHtotheMOON1]

I know that this subject has been discussed many times before, but lest we forget when yet another conventional financial journalist, investor, money manager, perceived thought-leader et al pronounces on why Bitcoin will fail because it is too volatile to be used as a currency or store of value:

• Each Bitcoin transaction is a zero-sum game -- one party benefits to the same extent that the other does not benefit. So one party is guaranteed always to be fine with the volatility. And neither party knows for sure (or at all) who that beneficiary will be.
• The purchaser of a bitcoin has still spent the same amount of fiat no matter what the volatility after the purchase.
• The premise that the aggrieved party could have done this or that instead of send someone a bitcoin that later appreciated in value has no more merit than to say that that party could have bought a stock or bond that later did well too. In each case, they simply did not have the information needed in time. Shoulda coulda woulda is not a valid argument.
• If Bitcoin were impractical as a currency, the dark web would not use it. There would be no Bitcoin-using dark web. 
  
• Many things have been used as currency. Anything tradeable and of proven long-term value (like gold) or expected shorter-term value (like packs of Kent cigarettes in communist Romania) can be used as a practical currency, and have. Before WWI, travelers checks had the rate of conversion printed on them because it was expected that the gold-back currencies backing them would be stable. And so they were. The fact that fiat currencies require electronic conversion-rate signs today shows that their stability is entirely an illusion. They are not stable.
  
  

The argument that Bitcoin's volatility specifically negates its value as a store of value is clearly false as well. Stocks and commodities and their futures (as well as the effective interest rates of some bonds) are highly volatile. The mantra is that you accept their risk in exchange for growth. Fine. But volatile Bitcoin has growth potential too -- lots of growth potential. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum, as systems of decentralized, immutable, economical, sustainable, and perfectly legal data-registration means that everyone will become their own notary public. The implications for intellectual property protection are arguably beyond what we can now imagine.

Underlying all of Bitcoin's volatility is an unchanging protocol that is proven to work -- and expected to grow.

if people were to have all their money in crypto, it would be an issue. If they put just fraction of the funds there, let's say those eligible for short time spending, then it's not an issue at all