Is Bitcoin the future of the global economy or just another commodity like Gold?

[efiminzer]

So lately I've been thinking about the global financial economy and the way it works. 

During my BA, I had a course with a professor that played a very high role in the central bank of Israel.
I asked him "Is the bank preferring for the day after the economy will collapse?" the answer he gave me was not clear. I saw him struggling to answer that.

But when I examine Bitcoin and other crypto coins, I see it not as a replacement of money, but just as a replacement of the central bank money printing. Because eventually, we'll all look for a place to keep our money safe (a bank) and someone to give us a loan on occasion.

So my question is, is it really the future of the economy? or just the "new gold"? 

[1715653814]

1715653814

[1715653814]

1715653814

[1715653814]

1715653814

[Upgrade00]

So my question is, is it really the future of the economy? or just the "new gold"?  

It is a digital asset, built on a P2P platform, giving holders autonomy over their funds and bypasses the need for a 3rd party. What it has shaped to be at the moment and what it would be in the future depends on lots of factors. Bitcoin is not regulated; so there's no road map or set agenda planned for it. We have Bitcoin improvement proposals which are proposals aimed at improving the network to keep it running efficiently, but not a plan of what it would be in the future.
Whether it would be used as a store of value or a (global) staple currency is yet to be seen and we cannot predict it.
I would suggest you move this thread to the economics board. You can find the option at the bottom left hand of this page.

[BIT-BENDER]

. Because eventually, we'll all look for a place to keep our money safe (a bank) and someone to give us a loan on occasion.

Bitcoin is different. With printed money there is need for storing your money in the bank, but you can store your bitcoin in your bitcoin wallet. And you can seek loan in bitcoin from those in that service.

bitcoin and crytocurrency has greater use economically than printed money

[efiminzer]

So my question is, is it really the future of the economy? or just the "new gold"?  

 and bypasses the need for a 3rd party

but will it really bypass the need? I mean, the need for 3rd party is not a part of any structural need, but a psychological need (fear). People started using 3rd parties as a way to keep their money safe crossing bridges etc in the old days. It wasn't a government need until the public "demanded" that (with actions). Won't it be the same with Bitcoin? people will need to find a way to protect their wallets, and 3rd parties will jump on the opportunity.

BTW, I couldn't find where to move the topic to "economy". Is it possible that you'll screenshot it for me?

[Upgrade00]

but will it really bypass the need?

That's the reason I put that part in italics.
The Bitcoin network is primarily designed to connect individuals and enable then transact directly. But with the growth of Bitcoin and the inclusion of other factors, we have seen a growing number of platforms intended to connect buyers to sellers, streamline the transaction and protect both parties, such as; centralized exchanges, escrows, payment processors etc. If you use any of these, it's no longer a trust less exchange as one needs to rely on the trustworthiness of the exchange, or the escrow provider. 3rd parties have jumped on this opportunity already.

If you want to bypass this, you can use direct OTC (Over The Counter) trades and decentralized exchanges.

[gantez]

But when I examine Bitcoin and other crypto coins, I see it not as a replacement of money, but just as a replacement of the central bank money printing. Because eventually, we'll all look for a place to keep our money safe (a bank) and someone to give us a loan on occasion.

This is really deep and requires a deep reasoning. As for the replacement of the central bank money printing, I will say to that , that blockchain can do that role as one key factor of blockchain is data preservation. But if whether there will be a replacement of central bank money printing, I believe at some point money need to be printed is it is still being in use.

On loan too, bitcoin can be given as loan to be returned for same value as at when received by the borrower and maybe interest too could be added in bitcoin.

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin can never be a commodity, commodities by definition have some sort of industrial utility, and Bitcoin was created to be digital money. So, you are comparing very different things when you ask about Bitcoin being a future of global economy, because it has nothing to do with definition of Bitcoin.

As for the first part of your question, it's very unlikely that Bitcoin will become "the future of the global economy", the adoption rate is extremely slow, and governments can easily reduce adoption if they will feel threatened by Bitcoin. But this doesn't mean that Bitcoin is losing or that it is useless, millions of people find it useful.

[DoublerHunter]

^ I definitely agreed to the idea that bitcoin will replace the central bank and not the printed money since cryptocurrency has its own regulations that manage everyone's assets. We may find it decentralized because it is not being controlled nor affiliated to any government institution, having own rules, and implementing regulations already shows that we are already being governed. It also belongs to our instinct that we look for security not only for ourselves but also in all our properties rest assure if printed money will be replaced by bitcoins or any cryptocurrency still people will soon look for an institution that will protect what or how much they own in the crypto world.

[fabiorem]

It was, some years ago. Today its just a commodity.
The correlation with the stock market shows it is just another speculative asset.

This happened after futures contracts were implemented for bitcoin, "legitimizing" it for the legacy (ie, fiat) system. Some people loves this "legitimation" idea, because they gamble in the derivatives markets.

The idea of a digital currency still exists, though, so some other asset might replace it as a coin for daily use. Which one will be, we dont know. Right now there is Bill Gates wanting to implement a global cryptocurrency, using vaccines with nanotransmitters, nanosensors and enzymes for proof-of-work (where the human body will be used for mining), and 5G tracking (including a satellite network).

[hugeblack]

When you hear the word "new gold," this does not mean that it will replace the current gold, but rather it will be a store of value next to gold or a new way to save money, which I do not think will happen unless Bitcoin has gained high market capacities.
The intrinsic value demonstrated by BTC is the possibility of issuing funds away from the central bank’s authorities, and therefore there is no need for the entire “bank-based” financial system to issue, print, and guarantee money.

[carter34]

This kind of question looks like it always show up. Replacing central bank isn't an easy goal. Central bank is an institution that has different role to play in a country and one of them is printing of the country's money. Some other role is regulating the commercial banks and the country's financial system. So if bitcoin replaces printing of money, what about other duties of central bank

[Twentyonepaylots]

When you hear the word "new gold," this does not mean that it will replace the current gold, but rather it will be a store of value next to gold or a new way to save money, which I do not think will happen unless Bitcoin has gained high market capacities.
The intrinsic value demonstrated by BTC is the possibility of issuing funds away from the central bank’s authorities, and therefore there is no need for the entire “bank-based” financial system to issue, print, and guarantee money.

Well the word new does not really mean to replace, it just mean a contemporary thing for another just like bitcoin who is for some considered as the "new gold". But still for me bitcoin is not going to be the new gold or at least a safe haven for storing values simply because it is decentralized, this fact about bitcoin is worth considering by most people who is only here for in and out investment. And I find nothing intrinsic with bitcoin's value whose price is moving over supply and demand. What the governments should think for now is how they are going to attain a bitcoin like centralized asset, it's just easy coz they got almost everything they need.

[Ucy]

Guess you mean "preparing" instead of preferring.
Well, there are couple of bank-like Bitcoin exchanges you could use if you think that bank is safer for you. Bitcoins are better held by their owners. It's good for the network by the way...it helps keep it more decentralized.

[avikz]

So lately I've been thinking about the global financial economy and the way it works. 

During my BA, I had a course with a professor that played a very high role in the central bank of Israel.
I asked him "Is the bank preferring for the day after the economy will collapse?" the answer he gave me was not clear. I saw him struggling to answer that.

But when I examine Bitcoin and other crypto coins, I see it not as a replacement of money, but just as a replacement of the central bank money printing. Because eventually, we'll all look for a place to keep our money safe (a bank) and someone to give us a loan on occasion.

So my question is, is it really the future of the economy? or just the "new gold"? 

"Future of Economy" is too heavy for bitcoin to carry. It doesn't have the power to carry such title and it is absolutely not possible for bitcoin to become the future of economy. Bitcoin simply can't be scaled to that level.

It is great if you see it as an asset/commodity only. It makes it easier for bitcoin to carry and makes sense too!

[silversurfer1958]

I believe that cryptocurrencies are widely accepted in the future by the following advantages. Firstly, cryptocurrencies contribute to the development of cashless payments like the online shopping application at famous companies in the world such as Amazon or Alibaba. Second, cryptocurrencies will help governments save a lot of money on printing out new money and the cost of replacing damaged or old cash.

[mu_enrico]

Let's see the property of Bitcoin:
* Fixed supply;
* Can be used to transfer from A to B without a trusted 3rd party;
* Secure.

That's about it! The system won't lend you money, so you still need lending services that accept deposits, giving interest for such deposits (because of credit default risk), and giving credit score. Oh, it is essentially a bank.

[vaultman]

Bitcoin is not the cryptocurrency of the future, because Bitcoin has too high fees and very long transfers. Today, almost all cryptocurrencies are ahead of Bitcoin in terms of convenience. So, cryptocurrencies are money of future, but not bitcoin.

[bearexin]

Loans are also possible when it comes to the cryptocurrency space, you can take loans from platforms such as Nexo.
The difference is that they are not really the ones that will be offering the loan, I think it comes from people and you will have to give your crypto assets as a collateral for the loans you're taking.

There is really not much difference between the way banks give loans and how it's being done in cryptocurrency. Although recently I have been seeing banks that are rolling out some loans without collateral, it's kind of a mini loan where you start from the lower level and keep increasing.

[exstasie]

Bitcoin can never be a commodity, commodities by definition have some sort of industrial utility, and Bitcoin was created to be digital money.

That's not the definition of a commodity. It doesn't matter why Bitcoin was created. A commodity is simply an economic good that has fungibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity

Bitcoin is a commodity. That's why BTC can have futures markets, and it's why the CFTC claims jurisdiction over them.

So my question is, is it really the future of the economy? or just the "new gold"? 

That's difficult to say. It's very much a gold-like asset in terms of its hard money characteristics and it's likely to keep being speculated on as such by the markets. Whether central banks will adopt BTC as a reserve asset is another matter.

[PaySpace]

So lately I've been thinking about the global financial economy and the way it works. 

During my BA, I had a course with a professor that played a very high role in the central bank of Israel.
I asked him "Is the bank preferring for the day after the economy will collapse?" the answer he gave me was not clear. I saw him struggling to answer that.

But when I examine Bitcoin and other crypto coins, I see it not as a replacement of money, but just as a replacement of the central bank money printing. Because eventually, we'll all look for a place to keep our money safe (a bank) and someone to give us a loan on occasion.

So my question is, is it really the future of the economy? or just the "new gold"? 

Bitcoin is a scarce currency and has a fixed supply volume of 21 million. Therefore, cryptocurrencies will remain the means of speculation and nothing more, until a better economical breakthrough occurs.

[fiulpro]

I would like to say Bitcoins is most fitting as a commodity like Gold , yes it does have many similarities to the Fiat and other currencies but at the same time it is not a very good idea to use it for day to day activities , therefore I do think Bitcoins is more or so very fit for being something similar to gold and stocks .
But at the end of the day it is all about the preference of every single person out there, they can choose to use Bitcoins as a Currency or save it up for later . It is all on them.
At the same time the government implications have limited the use of Bitcoins and also the percentage of people comfortable about using it .
Not many people know about it out there , the ones who does they do not get many chances of using Bitcoins , since not all stores and countries are alike .

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin is a scarce currency and has a fixed supply volume of 21 million. Therefore, cryptocurrencies will remain the means of speculation and nothing more, until a better economical breakthrough occurs.

Your post makes no sense at all, what does fixed supply has to do with speculation? And do you know that a lot of coins are inflationary, and they are still more speculative than Bitcoin. And what economic breakthrough are you talking about?

Bitcoin is speculative because it's not widely adopted, and there's a lot of uncertainty about how much adoption it will get. Bitcoin's supply is irrelevant to its adoption.

[Yatsan]

Bitcoin can never be a commodity, commodities by definition have some sort of industrial utility, and Bitcoin was created to be digital money. So, you are comparing very different things when you ask about Bitcoin being a future of global economy, because it has nothing to do with definition of Bitcoin.

As for the first part of your question, it's very unlikely that Bitcoin will become "the future of the global economy", the adoption rate is extremely slow, and governments can easily reduce adoption if they will feel threatened by Bitcoin. But this doesn't mean that Bitcoin is losing or that it is useless, millions of people find it useful.

In the aspect that bitcoin would be the 'future', it is a bit sketchy at this moment despite of the adaptations being made by economies of different countries especially those wherein cryptos are being used nowadays. What makes the vision blurry, is the issues being faced by not only bitcoin but also other cryptos with regards to the market price volatility, decentralizations and other matter we know, slowing down the acceptance of such technology. What gives a possibility is the demand of blockchain related skills by many companies nowadays, given that it has a strong relation with Bitcoin, so I doubt it would only end up as something being traded due to lack of stability in its price, which could either be good or bad in some periods just like with other goods in the market.

Digital currencies would more likely be the future but we are lacking assurance that it would be bitcoin that will represent what future would look like, since there are other digital currencies being more widely used by this time. It would mainly depend on how will its futher developments become.

[hatshepsut93]

Digital currencies would more likely be the future but we are lacking assurance that it would be bitcoin that will represent what future would look like, since there are other digital currencies being more widely used by this time. It would mainly depend on how will its futher developments become.

Digital currencies aren't the future, they are the present - online banking and internet payment companies were around for decades. Yes, they use existing fiat currencies, and it's okay, there's no reason to create a brand new currency if you can use the existing and well-adopted one. Of course it doesn't apply to crypto, because you can't really put an existing currency on a decentralized blockchain, all stablecoins will always be centralized.

[Reid]

Dont doubt this.

But when I examine Bitcoin and other crypto coins, I see it not as a replacement of money, but just as a replacement of the central bank money printing. Because eventually, we'll all look for a place to keep our money safe (a bank) and someone to give us a loan on occasion.

It will happen.
They are just afraid to swallow the truth.
It became the love for tradition or those who just don't want any change in their lifestyles.
I understand it. In remote rural areas you could see them still leaning on fiat but you could also see they are now changing using smartphones and computer.
That just means they are also moving and trying to follow with anything that is new.
It could be done, it is just the matter of when.

[KrisAlex18]

Bitcoin has the possibility to do so, but for me bicoin is onlya digital assets, it is only an alternative currency for first currency, there are many things that bitcoin can do just like what a standard currency can but I think the volatility of it's characteristics makes it exluded fo being future for the global economy.

Bicoin could go for so many years and maybe in the future, it can be canside as a standard currency all over the world, even though bitcoin starts on 2009 and it is now living for 10-11 years as of now, bitcoij can do more in the future.

[Subbir]

Bitcoin never ends so soon for therefore a few years when Bitcoin has survived it'll go an extended way ahead Bitcoin is that the way forward for the planet economy and Bitcoin is worth quite gold. When the worth of gold goes down the demand for it goes down but the demand for bitcoin doesn't go down. Everyone holds on for the longer term Bitcoin investment not only makes a profit but also helps to enhance a country's economy Bitcoin is prospering round the world.

[efiminzer]

Bitcoin can never be a commodity, commodities by definition have some sort of industrial utility, and Bitcoin was created to be digital money. So, you are comparing very different things when you ask about Bitcoin being a future of global economy, because it has nothing to do with definition of Bitcoin.

As for the first part of your question, it's very unlikely that Bitcoin will become "the future of the global economy", the adoption rate is extremely slow, and governments can easily reduce adoption if they will feel threatened by Bitcoin. But this doesn't mean that Bitcoin is losing or that it is useless, millions of people find it useful.

By the future of the global economy, I' referring to the financial aspect of the economy. Of course, it will not replace real-life commodities.

And Bitcoin is useful, that I agree with. Having 1 unified coin to serve the entire world will make a tremendous change, maybe even change the balance of powers between nations.

[abhiseshakana]

By the future of the global economy, I' referring to the financial aspect of the economy. Of course, it will not replace real-life commodities.

And Bitcoin is useful, that I agree with. Having 1 unified coin to serve the entire world will make a tremendous change, maybe even change the balance of powers between nations.

The global economy is currently in a phase of digital transformation and is driving economic digitalization in all sectors. Digital technology and information are used as the main key in the factors of production, consumption, and distribution. Digital digitalization will create added value and efficiency because digital technology triggers innovation and economic growth.

Algorithms and blockchain will be the foundation of the development of AI which means it has a crucial position in the future. For bitcoin will only be an asset or treasure in the future because its nature is contrary to state sovereignty.

[dothebeats]

Banks are always there serving to events that are precursor to economic crashes. We have seen it throughout history since the idea of banks were materialized, and there's no denying that banks and the government working together to print money that the economy can churn has always turned out to be bad. Not that I'm saying that banks are always pure evil, but there has to be some sort of reboot or change in the banking system in order for economic crashes to be prevented--or at least cause little damage--in the future.

Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin serves as a bank for those who doesn't have the means to open their own bank accounts and pay for the initial deposit. It also serves as a hedge against inflation and economic crisis, similar to what is happening currently. It may not be as smooth as what the banking industry does, but it sure helps people get the most out of their hard-earned money--only if they really know the advantages of keeping some of their assets in bitcoin and stash it for the long run.

[efiminzer]

Digital currencies would more likely be the future but we are lacking assurance that it would be bitcoin that will represent what future would look like, since there are other digital currencies being more widely used by this time. It would mainly depend on how will its futher developments become.

Digital currencies aren't the future, they are the present - online banking and internet payment companies were around for decades. Yes, they use existing fiat currencies, and it's okay, there's no reason to create a brand new currency if you can use the existing and well-adopted one. Of course it doesn't apply to crypto, because you can't really put an existing currency on a decentralized blockchain, all stablecoins will always be centralized.

I'm referring to the cryptocurrencies, not fiat digitally produced currency.

[davis196]

So lately I've been thinking about the global financial economy and the way it works. 

During my BA, I had a course with a professor that played a very high role in the central bank of Israel.
I asked him "Is the bank preferring for the day after the economy will collapse?" the answer he gave me was not clear. I saw him struggling to answer that.

But when I examine Bitcoin and other crypto coins, I see it not as a replacement of money, but just as a replacement of the central bank money printing. Because eventually, we'll all look for a place to keep our money safe (a bank) and someone to give us a loan on occasion.

So my question is, is it really the future of the economy? or just the "new gold"? 

What do you mean by "the future of the new economy"?
I don't think that any financial asset can be "the future" of a new economy.
The real future of the economy lies in technology innovations like producing cheap and clean electricity or replacing oil.Financial assets(even digital assets like cryptocurrencies) are a just a tool used for wealth re-distribution.Some people lose money on the markets,while others win money.It's zero sum game.
Bitcoin is an alternative to fiat and money printing,but that doesn't mean that it will totally replace fiat money some day.

[shoreno]

 btc is not the future of the economy but it was like a gold  .  future means it has a big responsibility but btc is not too complex enough to handle those   .  btc has a fixed supply and cant print more money so why you think its like a bank and can replace banks   .  but you can store money on it although its not safe  . laslty it cant provide you loans because btc is not an institution like a bank  but its only a kind of currency  .  there are loan service that offers crypto loans tho

[el kaka22]

I see it as something in between and one or another, there is a middle ground. For example if you look at money right now, like dollar or euro so forth it is still a bit of "investment" for other nations, if you live in a country that uses its own fiat and is not using dollar or euro, and if you are not a nation that is doing well, "buying dollar" could be considered a way of investment as well, because your fiat will become less valuable against dollar. That is what I see bitcoin like, sure this analogy doesn't work for people in USA or Europe but it works for other people.

You are basically "investing into money" and that is rare thing and not really a proper investment idea normally but it could still be done, so if you live in let's say in Colombia, you can invest and buy dollars but also do the same for bitcoin as well.

[Intisar555]

I think it's a nice comodity

[Rafael_Carrero]

There is no the only one correct answer. Because I'd say that Bitcoin is a commodity, or store of value because of its high volatility which makes it not a perfect medium of exchange. But Venezuela's currency crisis demonstrated that Bitcoin was an innovative solution.

[Wexnident]

It depends on how the world goes about it tbh and isn't really a question answerable right now. Right now it just stands as something similar to gold in a sense of it being a commodity. Gold never became something like fiat cause of it being a hard asset, one of which is very difficult to diffuse to smaller entities, and fiat being a reproduced item has that ability. BTC may be limited in supply but it can be infinitely divided into smaller units which is satoshi after all, making it have the ability to be spread in the world for a long time. It still depends on how banks and governments are able to attack the issue of cryptocurrencies though. On another hand, once digital currencies are pretty much finalized and adapted to the world, fiat should probably be gone or be rarely used as much as compared to now I think.

[Latviand]

Bitcoin can never be a commodity, commodities by definition have some sort of industrial utility, and Bitcoin was created to be digital money. So, you are comparing very different things when you ask about Bitcoin being a future of global economy, because it has nothing to do with definition of Bitcoin.

As for the first part of your question, it's very unlikely that Bitcoin will become "the future of the global economy", the adoption rate is extremely slow, and governments can easily reduce adoption if they will feel threatened by Bitcoin. But this doesn't mean that Bitcoin is losing or that it is useless, millions of people find it useful.

Bitcoin is somehow can be a commodity because it is a raw material that can be mined though or in a digital form. Don't be so literal when it comes to treating raw material as physical thing, sometimes there are things that can be treated as a raw material digitally. Bitcoin can be a future of global economy once it achieve a mass adoption that we are all rooting for.

 It is not that hard to attain that position because there are governments that still don't want to use bitcoin in their community. If they don't feel any comfort and confident in using cryptocurrency in their economy then, they will not use it to prevent downward movement in their economy. I just don't get it why people are judging bitcoin without even trying it.

[mahilchii]

Well BTC can be considered as a most powerful asset but it is not a commodity, there is no doubt digital money like crypto is going to be the future.

People need a change on their savings and they are opting for crypto currency instead of banks, share markets etc I am pretty confident that crypto is going to boom the entire globe, those who Invest in this crypto are millionaires tomorrow..

[abhiseshakana]

Banks are always there serving to events that are precursor to economic crashes. We have seen it throughout history since the idea of banks were materialized, and there's no denying that banks and the government working together to print money that the economy can churn has always turned out to be bad. Not that I'm saying that banks are always pure evil, but there has to be some sort of reboot or change in the banking system in order for economic crashes to be prevented--or at least cause little damage--in the future.

Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin serves as a bank for those who doesn't have the means to open their own bank accounts and pay for the initial deposit. It also serves as a hedge against inflation and economic crisis, similar to what is happening currently. It may not be as smooth as what the banking industry does, but it sure helps people get the most out of their hard-earned money--only if they really know the advantages of keeping some of their assets in bitcoin and stash it for the long run.

Banking is good but Bank is evil. We as individuals can contribute to changing the imbalance in world economic conditions by stopping the movement of saving money in banks. This movement will encourage banks to transform from margin oriented to service-oriented.

The practice of bank interest is prohibited in the economy in the real sector to avoid the accumulation of assets in a group of people, which allows the exploitation of the economy, both exploitation between actors, and exploitation of the system to economic actors. The absence of the practice of bank interest prevents disruption in the real economy such as inflation and declining macroeconomic productivity and encourages the creation of fair, stable, and sustainable economic activities through productive profit sharing systems.

In the contemporary economy, the existence of bank interest changes the function of money as greasing the transaction into a commodity loaded with the practice of speculation and debt on the monetary market. The inhibition of the synergy of the real and monetary sectors causes an imbalance in the economic structure, due to the ease of obtaining profits from the practice of fixed and predetermined returns, the monetary sector absorbs most of the money in circulation, which results in a decline in the performance of the real sector and the economy. The interest system causes inequality of business interaction, exploitation, and mislocation of resources and false economic development.

Current facts, the application of bank interest causes trading on the money market and capital per day amounting to a quarter of transactions in the real sector for a year, often a financial crisis, there is a large voting power for developed countries in world financial institutions such as WTO, world bank, IDB and IMF. Also, the amount of debt for developing countries is even greater.

[mycryptocoin]

Blockchain or Bitcoin's mission is "Decentralized", where everyone is equal and has equal rights, can check each other anytime, anywhere and everything is "transparent". But the reality is completely the opposite. Looking at our Crypto Market, besides Bitcoin - being derelict and decentralized, what about the other currencies - they are all created by an individual or an organization and are athletic awkward it? This goes against the mission of Blockchain.
Moreover, blockchain is about equality - the world does not work in such a way. "The 90-10 rule" is mean 10% of the world's people hold 90% of the wealth of all humanity. The power of tycoons is created by the power of money. If Bitcoin were to be used as the real currency, the power of government would be no more because money is the power of power. Therefore, what we are aiming for, "Crypto is becoming a currency" is probably a long way from becoming a reality.

[Snappycoco]

I agree. It is indeed the future of money and probably everyone should adop with. The good thing with this is that it is decentralized where in everyone has equal rights and transparent to transactions.

[Haunebu]

those who Invest in this crypto are millionaires tomorrow..

No one can guarantee that which is why I would think before writing such statements. A few lucky ones will go on to become millionaires while the rest will probably lose money or break even over the long term. That is how it is basically.

Banking is good but Bank is evil.

Its all a matter of perspective at the end of the day. Most people will continue viewing banks as safe havens while the minority will view them as greedy conglomerates and nothing else.

Their perspectives may change depending on how crypto evolves over time.

[Kulkhan]

Bitcoin is a new invention of Digital economy. I Think it already changes average thinking of economic system. Bitcoin will rule future world Economy there has no Doubt. It spreading Speedy. It is not just commodity it also big thinking of global economy. Usability of Bitcoin increasing day by day. Bitcoin will be the future of Global Economy Becaus,
- Bitcoin is Available worldwoid.
- Trajection cost is very low.
- Trajection is very first from another commodities.
- It is Acceptable every where .
So i think Bitcoin The Future of the would economy.                           

[FanatMonet]

We can’t say for sure, Bitcoin is too vulnerable to volatility, and this is a big minus for all investors who are not ready to monitor prices 24/7. They would rather choose gold, or stocks on the stock exchange, or even real estate, but certainly not crypto.

[brotherwood12]

i think if people are well known about bitcoin , they will prefer on it , and if more and more people are prefer on it , i guess it can replace the global economy and how it works

[deisik]

So my question is, is it really the future of the economy? or just the "new gold"?

Let's cut all the fancy crap and relentless hype here

Bitcoin is a very bad form of money if we talk about money as a currency, i.e. something supposed to be circulating. So it simply cannot be "the future of the economy" just like gold can't unless we get thrown back in our development into the 12th century, end of story. With that said, it doesn't mean that it can't be a good store of value. However, this is not its inherent advantage but rather the ultimate failure of fiat currencies being massively mismanaged (read, printed out of thin air like there's no tomorrow by any government out there)

[Sanugarid]

So my question is, is it really the future of the economy? or just the "new gold"?

Let's cut all the fancy crap and relentless hype here

Bitcoin is a very bad form of money if we talk about money as a currency, i.e. something supposed to be circulating. So it simply cannot be "the future of the economy" just like gold can't unless we get thrown back in our development into the 12th century, end of story. With that said, it doesn't mean that it can't be a good store of value. However, this is not its inherent advantage but rather the ultimate failure of fiat currencies being massively mismanaged (read, printed out of thin air like there's no tomorrow by any government out there)

I could not agree more on this one, bitcoin as a currency would just ruin the financial status of the world if there is no right thinking of government that would adopt it. Imagine having worth $100 now then you wake up with $10 left due to volatility. Even if bitcoin gets all mined, there is no chance that the world would stand on it, what we need is a centralized one fiat currency should be replaced by something digital but it would not be bitcoin. Don't hype the use of bitcoin.

[deisik]

Imagine having worth $100 now then you wake up with $10 left due to volatility

The other option is as bad

That is, you wake up one morning and Bitcoin has risen x10 overnight. It looks like you have become wealthier but there is no free lunch (for all), and thus someone has to pay for such an increase. In this case it will be producers whose profits, or more specifically, profit margins, will turn negative. At first, you will be able to buy more with as many coins but then the production will plunge and you won't be able to buy anything cause you'll get fired

[mu_enrico]

FYI for those of you who hate interest rate, I'll give some background why it exists.
There are basically two options if you want to raise money:
*1 Debt
*2 Equity

These two are different in nature, with debt you lend the money with the hope of getting the same value of money (at the due date). With equity, you invest the money and buy the portion of the share, basically a profit-sharing scheme. Hence, debt is less risky because if the borrower defaults, the lender can still demand his money back. However, equity is more rewarding if you invest in a unicorn.

Imagine you have idle $10,000 and an entrepreneur wants to use your idle money. He can choose to use debt or equity mechanisms. He free to chose the one he like.
* He may prefer $10,000 debt than to give his equity to you since he is a hard-working and born winner person.
* Or he may prefer $10,000 equity since he thinks "shit if this startup fails I don't have to give him anything."

You also free to choose which options you like. Then the negotiation begins.
Anyway, even with debt, there are various risks you can't get your money back, therefore you need incentive to lend your money. Yes, it is the interest rate.
Without the incentive, no way you want to lend your money (except you are a Dalai Lama).

So what it has to do with Bitcoin?
Well, even with Bitcoin, these two scenarios will still exist.

[deisik]

FYI for those of you who hate interest rate, I'll give some background why it exists.
There are basically two options if you want to raise money:
*1 Debt
*2 Equity

These two are different in nature, with debt you lend the money with the hope of getting the same value of money (at the due date). With equity, you invest the money and buy the portion of the share, basically a profit-sharing scheme. Hence, debt is less risky because if the borrower defaults, the lender can still demand his money back. However, equity is more rewarding if you invest in a unicorn

It is hard to say whether debt is less risky

When the borrower defaults, his debt usually gets written off as that seems to be the whole idea behind a default. Indeed, you can come after the borrower's property or whatever, but typically a default means exactly the opposite, i.e. you can't do anything anymore in legal terms (read, you have to bite the bullet and kiss goodbye to your shekels). Equity is as bad in this regard but as you say yourself, it can be far more rewarding if you invest the shekels wisely

[mu_enrico]

It is hard to say whether debt is less risky

Well, it is a mainstream consensus, see topics about the cost of debt vs cost of equity.

When the borrower defaults, his debt usually gets written off as that seems to be the whole idea behind a default. Indeed, you can come after the borrower's property or whatever, but typically a default means exactly the opposite, i.e. you can't do anything anymore in legal terms (read, you have to bite the bullet and kiss goodbye to your shekels).

I don't know about your local law, mate. AFAIK, the lender still can seize the collateral in the event of default.
Even if there is no collateral, a bankrupt company usually still has some fixed assets that can be sold; therefore, debt holders are entitled to it.

[deisik]

It is hard to say whether debt is less risky

Well, it is a mainstream consensus, see topics about the cost of debt vs cost of equity.

When the borrower defaults, his debt usually gets written off as that seems to be the whole idea behind a default. Indeed, you can come after the borrower's property or whatever, but typically a default means exactly the opposite, i.e. you can't do anything anymore in legal terms (read, you have to bite the bullet and kiss goodbye to your shekels).

I don't know about your local law, mate. AFAIK, the lender still can seize the collateral in the event of default

I guess it is not so much about differences between local law systems as about our understanding, or misunderstanding, of the term "default" and its legal definition in a specific jurisdiction. Let me just say I generally agree that if a borrower fails to pay on a debt what they were due to pay, the lender can seize the collateral provided there is a collateral

In other words, you can take only so much

Even if there is no collateral, a bankrupt company usually still has some fixed assets that can be sold; therefore, debt holders are entitled to it

A thoroughly bankrupted company typically doesn't have much to offer its lenders