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

[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