![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcfUG0fM.png&t=666&c=paVeDRo-PhEsPQ)
"We expect further declines in the future given our view that these cryptocurrencies do not fulfill any of the three traditional roles of a currency: they are neither a medium of exchange, nor a unit of measurement, nor a store of value."
We can't say they were completely wrong when it comes to cryptocurrencies in general, but when it comes to Bitcoin it's hard to find any significant bank or financial institution that thought differently 4+ years ago. Banks should therefore never be a benchmark or an indicator of someone's decision to invest or not in something - they just want to appear smart from time to time, as if no one in the world knows elementary mathematics.
I'd have to disagree. Crypto can easily be a "a store of value". Over any reasonable timeframe
so far, crypto has demonstrated that it is a good store of value. Of course fiat is definitely not a "a store of value".
As far as a medium of exchange, for proof it is a medium of exchange, just ask silk road and all the other places that have used bitcoin for transactions over the last 14 years. There are plenty.
Perhaps it is not a unit of measurement yet, but 2 out of three equals or beats most fiat.
Banks should therefore never be a benchmark or an indicator of someone's decision to invest or not in something
if you had good investment advice, would you:
1. start shouting about it, to everyone, all the time
2. keep quiet and buy/sell the maximum you can while no-one else notices
this financial news stuff is comprehensive market manipulation, but also quite subtle. Number 1 subtle message in financial news stories is: "and that's why you need to read the financial news, you needed to know this story, right?"
Precisely. Many of the people at the investment banks are paid to do "something" even if that something is just writing articles to share with clients and those employees are never judged on the records that their calls have.