Why Bitcoin doesn't work well as a store of value.

[Cryptmuster]

Yes, feeling based buying, which shows that your time in putting money in Bitcoin is what makes difference between it being safe way to protect money and huge danger. You are correct that in short term, risk of safe way to protect money is too high to be hedge, especially when people buy high due to influence and only think about easy money, which makes their plans weak. However, when you make investment based on one or two half life of holding, long term way of looking at it will allow true value of Bitcoin to protect against inflation. Difference is easy, therefore, person who buys high and wants to hold is hedging, but person who buys high and hopes to make quick profit is just gambling.

That is true, and this is exactly why it is so important to be able to analyse the market and understand which phase of the market you are currently in. If you buy at the highs, it will make your goals much more difficult to achieve. You can't just buy bitcoin whenever you want, like Saylor does, because he has a completely different position and completely different possibilities. If you want to preserve your money and make a profit, you need to clearly understand the difference between a bull market, and a bear market and never buy at the highs.

[headingnorth]

Another serious problem for bitcoin and crypto is the common use of extreme leverage that doesn't exist with any other kind of investment
(stock market, real estate, precious metals, etc).

The extreme amount of leverage that is commonly used with bitcoin is almost to the point of absurdity (ie: 10x, 20x, 50x, 100x or more).
Bitcoin is already highly volatile enough but the leverage makes it much worse while also creating a great downward pressure on the price.  

That kind of thing is what you see happening in some run-down shady back-alley casino, not a serious place for investing one's life savings.
No asset class can hope to be taken seriously as a long-term store of value as long as it exists imo.

The common use of these crazy leveraged bets means people are using bitcoin to make a quick buck not as a store of value.

[qurbanshah02]

OP I strongly disagree, what is a store of value to begin with, it is the ability to sustain purchasing power over a long period of time, and Bitcoin had fulfilled that definition 100%, heck bitcoin has increased it's value much more than any asset u can think of over the last decade and it even have a bright future, all these points ur giving to invalidate it being a store of value is completely invalid cause it already fulfills the most important rule, sustainable purchasing power over time

Exactly. And if Bitcoin doesn't work well as a store of value for OP personally, I can say, sorry, I'm really sorry, man, that you had such an excellent store of value as Bitcoin in your hands and you failed, probably by panic-selling it during a bear market, and now have nothing else left than spreading your sad theories. I mean, I realize that it can be sad for you and I'm sorry, but don't tell other people that will end up in the same position, please.

It was very bad for that person to sell Bitcoin although I think he was either scare or needed it because that is often the reason why people sell Bitcoin. If I had that Bitcoin I would have been very happy and would have kept it until then. When Bitcoin went down I was also scare but it was a fear that was in my mind without thinking so we should not have rushed into Bitcoin at that time. Yes you have said it completely right because those people will also think that the Bitcoin market is not safe at that time although they may have told something to understand or they may have been taking people opinion as to whether I did it wrong. If enough people are involved in one thing then when one of them has the courage to tell others it creates fear in the hearts of others. But I think nothing would have happened because many people think that we have to sell our Bitcoin in 2050.

[d5000]

Bitcoin is already highly volatile enough but the leverage makes it much worse while also creating a great downward pressure on the price.  

Why only downward pressure? The nice short squeezes we saw several times is also a product of this and propelled Bitcoin to several ATHs.

Yes I agree actually that this isn't ideal for volatility reduction. But it should become less attractive over time, as there are always a similar amount of winners and losers, which will lead to exhaustion eventually. People can now bet on Saylor with the same effect (but without directly affecting Bitcoin's price).

And judging by the decreasing volatility of Bitcoin's price, this is already happening. Even in 2021, the jumps were much bigger -- 30 and 60-day volatility was twice of 2025's. 2017/18 or 2013? The downward movement in the last weeks would have exceptionally low volatility back then

@Dogedegen: I overall agree with your rant about the OP's biased negativity. The think which annoys me a little bit however is the (imo exaggerated) focus of the Bitcoin community on the US and in part Europe, when in other parts of the world the economic growth and thus also the adoption potential is much higher.

[headingnorth]

Bitcoin is already highly volatile enough but the leverage makes it much worse while also creating a great downward pressure on the price.  

Why only downward pressure? The nice short squeezes we saw several times is also a product of this and propelled Bitcoin to several ATHs.

Yes I agree actually that this isn't ideal for volatility reduction. But it should become less attractive over time, as there are always a similar amount of winners and losers, which will lead to exhaustion eventually. People can now bet on Saylor with the same effect (but without directly affecting Bitcoin's price).

There are short squeezes that can temporarily send the price higher but these often don't last long and the overall effect is negative for the market.
The price can often drop back down almost immediately after the short squeeze, or within a couple days as traders exit their positions to lock in short-term profits.

The high volatility has the effect of scaring away potential long-term investors, or causes them to panic sell if already invested.
But at the same time the volatility and crazy leverage does attract a lot of short-term traders, which makes it even more volatile, and you end up
with this rather shaky unstable negative feedback loop, which is not a good thing for those seeking a viable long-term store of value.

[GigaBit]

When the economy tanks so do risk assets such as bitcoin. Which shows that people do not generally view bitcoin as a flight to safety
or a good store of value when times are bad. To the contrary it is one of the first things that gets dumped. Again, this is tied
to the fact that bitcoin has no strong or stable source of demand outside of speculation. Without it bitcoin may be forever
destined and limited to the niche market.

In the case of gold, there was volatility in the beginning, which has almost stabilized after a long time. In the case of Bitcoin, we will not be wrong if we expect the same in the long term. Bitcoin has a fixed supply, which is not the case with gold. That is why Bitcoin can be identified as a good store of value. Those who were buyers in the beginning will always benefit more, which was the case with gold and the same is true with Bitcoin. Moreover, just as there is risk in the short term in the case of gold, the same is true with Bitcoin.

[Agbamoni]

Everything is correlated to the big events in the world, both BTC, and stocks, and all the rest of the stuff out there.

We will talk about how much BTC will fall once its cap becomes trillions, not just almost two of them

I am disappointed since I noticed the political influences on Bitcoin. It wasn't like that a few years ago. If there is anything I would wish for, it is for Bitcoin not to be correlated with the stock market.

What you dont seem to understand is that the bigger the market cap of bitcoin, the harder for whales, political manipulation, hypes, or panic sellers to move the price radically.

[headingnorth]

When the economy tanks so do risk assets such as bitcoin. Which shows that people do not generally view bitcoin as a flight to safety
or a good store of value when times are bad. To the contrary it is one of the first things that gets dumped. Again, this is tied
to the fact that bitcoin has no strong or stable source of demand outside of speculation. Without it bitcoin may be forever
destined and limited to the niche market.

In the case of gold, there was volatility in the beginning, which has almost stabilized after a long time. In the case of Bitcoin, we will not be wrong if we expect the same in the long term. Bitcoin has a fixed supply, which is not the case with gold. That is why Bitcoin can be identified as a good store of value. Those who were buyers in the beginning will always benefit more, which was the case with gold and the same is true with Bitcoin. Moreover, just as there is risk in the short term in the case of gold, the same is true with Bitcoin.

People can invest in bitcoin if they want but I wouldn't put more than 1 to 2% of my portfolio into it, as Blackrock recommends.
Most of the major banks in the US are now recommending a 60/20/20 portfolio. 60% in stocks, 20% precious metals, 20% bonds.

As an option set aside a couple percent into something more speculative like bitcoin.

I used to have 90% of my net worth in bitcoin but I started buying it years ago (using DCA) when prices were 10 to 20 times lower.
But if I was a first-time buyer today there is no way I would have that much invested in bitcoin, when prices and marketcap are so much higher.

[₿itcoin]

When the economy tanks so do risk assets such as bitcoin. Which shows that people do not generally view bitcoin as a flight to safety
or a good store of value when times are bad. To the contrary it is one of the first things that gets dumped. Again, this is tied
to the fact that bitcoin has no strong or stable source of demand outside of speculation. Without it bitcoin may be forever
destined and limited to the niche market.

In the case of gold, there was volatility in the beginning, which has almost stabilized after a long time. In the case of Bitcoin, we will not be wrong if we expect the same in the long term. Bitcoin has a fixed supply, which is not the case with gold. That is why Bitcoin can be identified as a good store of value. Those who were buyers in the beginning will always benefit more, which was the case with gold and the same is true with Bitcoin. Moreover, just as there is risk in the short term in the case of gold, the same is true with Bitcoin.

People can invest in bitcoin if they want but I wouldn't put more than 1 to 2% of my portfolio into it, as Blackrock recommends.
Most of the major banks in the US are now recommending a 60/20/20 portfolio. 60% in stocks, 20% precious metals, 20% bonds.

As an option set aside a couple percent into something more speculative like bitcoin.

I used to have 90% of my net worth in bitcoin but I started buying it years ago (using DCA) when prices were 10 to 20 times lower.
But if I was a first-time buyer today there is no way I would have that much invested in bitcoin, when prices and marketcap are so much higher.

I'm not saying the recommendations from BR and US banks are wrong, but everyone has different financial situations, capital, and goals. Therefore, how much we allocate to Bitcoin, or which asset class to choose, will depend on each person's preferences and risk tolerance. There is no one size fits all formula.

It's not because I'm a Bitcoin investor and I'm advising people to invest more in it. But honestly, if someone is looking for a relatively safe investment with the potential for significant long term returns, there are currently few better options than Bitcoin. Compared to gold, stocks, or bonds, Bitcoin will still be the best option. Despite Bitcoin's market capitalization is no longer small, I believe that in the long run, it will still outperform most other investments.

[abaeze]

The biggest reason is excessive price volatility.The price of Bitcoin fluctuates a lot, so not all classes of investors are yet able to trust it. But a good thing or something that investors consider trustworthy is that its Store of Value is stable, for example: We all know what it is to hear, once the price of gold was also unstable, but over time it is now stable and has been established as a Store of Value around the world. Although it has volatility or the price goes up and down. So I think time is the biggest thing because to get Bitcoin as a Store of Value completely, we need to give it more time. That is, we need to wait another 10 to 20 years.

However, real Bitcoin lovers or investors still consider Bitcoin as a Store of Value, where CEOs of other big companies did not value Bitcoin at all in the beginning.

[Dareo]

Bitcoin is already highly volatile enough but the leverage makes it much worse while also creating a great downward pressure on the price.  

Why only downward pressure? The nice short squeezes we saw several times is also a product of this and propelled Bitcoin to several ATHs.

Yes I agree actually that this isn't ideal for volatility reduction. But it should become less attractive over time, as there are always a similar amount of winners and losers, which will lead to exhaustion eventually. People can now bet on Saylor with the same effect (but without directly affecting Bitcoin's price).

And judging by the decreasing volatility of Bitcoin's price, this is already happening. Even in 2021, the jumps were much bigger -- 30 and 60-day volatility was twice of 2025's. 2017/18 or 2013? The downward movement in the last weeks would have exceptionally low volatility back then

@Dogedegen: I overall agree with your rant about the OP's biased negativity. The think which annoys me a little bit however is the (imo exaggerated) focus of the Bitcoin community on the US and in part Europe, when in other parts of the world the economic growth and thus also the adoption potential is much higher.

However, I think we often forget one thing in the discussion of leverage, which is that leverage itself is not bad, it is bad when people do not understand how to use it properly. Leverage actually makes the market unstable because most traders make decisions based on emotion, not logic. So downward pressure is created on the price very quickly. And I see the decrease in Bitcoin's volatility differently. It is not just because the market has matured, but also because new people are no longer entering at the same rate as before, behaving recklessly. That means there are no crazy cycles like before, everyone no longer brings that lottery mentality. So the decrease in volatility is also natural.

Finally, the point that has been said, the excessive focus on Western countries, is really a strange phenomenon. Because the real need for Bitcoin is greater in developing countries. Where inflation is terrible, banking facilities are limited, there is more opportunity to use Bitcoin in practice. Yet the discussion has turned to the United States and Europe. So in my view, if the next big wave of Bitcoin comes, it may not come from trading rooms, but from countries that truly feel the need for an alternative system.

[Dogedegen]

Another serious problem for bitcoin and crypto is the common use of extreme leverage that doesn't exist with any other kind of investment
(stock market, real estate, precious metals, etc).

It is not a serious problem as you make it out to be, and it has nothing to do with Bitcoin itself. Instead of placing the blame where appropriate, so at the people, you are misplacing it at Bitcoin.

The common use of these crazy leveraged bets means people are using bitcoin to make a quick buck not as a store of value.

Bitcoin does not dictate what people think or do during a bad economy, Bitcoin is neutral. It does not change the fact that it is a store of value, no amount of people who gamble because they are poor or addicted will change that.

@Dogedegen: I overall agree with your rant about the OP's biased negativity. The think which annoys me a little bit however is the (imo exaggerated) focus of the Bitcoin community on the US and in part Europe, when in other parts of the world the economic growth and thus also the adoption potential is much higher.

The user is providing an extremely biased take, as I have demonstrated with my view of an opportunity. On the note of the focus, I think it is primarily the US right now and Europe is not much in focus at the moment. But this is natural because Europe seems to be going towards some totalitarian nightmare, the politicians there hate Bitcoin as it gives people freedom to choose to live outside of a system of control. Most of the positive steps and good regulation in recent time was in the US so of course the focus must be there. I don't hear much about Chinese or Indian people who live there actually fighting for the approval of Bitcoin from the government side of things. Neither normal people nor very rich individuals who can influence the government. There is a lot of untapped potential there, but is anyone making it happen? Do you have some information on that?

[d5000]

There are short squeezes that can temporarily send the price higher but these often don't last long and the overall effect is negative for the market.

That's usually the case for the last short squeeze of a row of short squeezes, but there were short squeezes since the 15,500$ low in late 2022 and while the market often corrects a bit a bit jump, it then recovered and reached new highs one after another. So I would highly doubt that the effect is "overall" "negative".

you end up with this rather shaky unstable negative feedback loop, which is not a good thing for those seeking a viable long-term store of value.

The feedback loop is weakening, above all after 2017. It is still in place though. And I think that the Bitcoin community should indeed focus on those changes, both technically and economically, that make a wider adoption possible. For example, instead of focusing so much on strategic reserves and Wall Street adoption, focus on Lightning and Ark adoption (related: Ark provider recently released a mainnet beta). And accelerating changes like OP_CTV which could make Layer2's much more decentralized.

Most of the positive steps and good regulation in recent time was in the US so of course the focus must be there.

The regulation in the US is still quite strict, US citizens still are banned from several international crypto services at least. And the market there is more saturated than in other countries (15% of people own crypto, vs. 5-10% in Europe for example). Thus my interpretation is that the potential in the US for growth and further adoption is lower than almost elsewhere.

Basically the focus on the US is a very short-term oriented focus. The logic is: Today the US adoption is one of the highest, and thus small changes in the economic conditions there could change the short term price evolution. That's true to some extent. But the real potential in Bitcoin lies in long term adoption and network effects. Not in 1% more US citizens speculating or 0.001% of businesses in the US considering Bitcoin treasuries.

There is a lot of untapped potential there [in China and India], but is anyone making it happen? Do you have some information on that?

At least in India the development was partly positive. The government and central banks for a long time considered much harsher restrictions until a few years ago. And these are off the table, also due to the protest of the local Bitcoin lobby. It's interesting that Chainalysis ranked India even higher than the US regarding crypto adoption in a study based on on-chain data.

In China the situation is of course more difficult as the country is far more authoritarian. The recent "re-enforcement" of restrictions was however targeting centralized stablecoins. There are lots of countries afraid of them because they could weaken the local currency.

[headingnorth]

you end up with this rather shaky unstable negative feedback loop, which is not a good thing for those seeking a viable long-term store of value.

The feedback loop is weakening, above all after 2017. It is still in place though. And I think that the Bitcoin community should indeed focus on those changes, both technically and economically, that make a wider adoption possible. For example, instead of focusing so much on strategic reserves and Wall Street adoption, focus on Lightning and Ark adoption (related: Ark provider recently released a mainnet beta). And accelerating changes like OP_CTV which could make Layer2's much more decentralized.

Another serious problem for bitcoin and crypto is the common use of extreme leverage that doesn't exist with any other kind of investment
(stock market, real estate, precious metals, etc).

It is not a serious problem as you make it out to be, and it has nothing to do with Bitcoin itself. Instead of placing the blame where appropriate, so at the people, you are misplacing it at Bitcoin.

The common use of these crazy leveraged bets means people are using bitcoin to make a quick buck not as a store of value.

Bitcoin does not dictate what people think or do during a bad economy, Bitcoin is neutral. It does not change the fact that it is a store of value, no amount of people who gamble because they are poor or addicted will change that.

Yes bitcoin is neutral, but you can say that about almost anything. Drugs are neutral. Firearms are neutral, but either of these things can be misused or abused.

From an investment perspective, the public's perception of something is very important IMO. Because people are not going to invest in something
that they have a negative perception about. And rightly or wrongly, many if not most people still have a negative perception of bitcoin. Every day
on the news you always hear about bitcoin and crypto being used to scam people and that feeds into the negative perception. Most people don't even
understand what bitcoin is, and probably never will. And when you don't understand something, you will probably have a negative opinion about it and
think of it as a bad thing.

Why is public perception important? Because for the long-term success of a new asset class, it needs to be widely adopted and understood
by the masses. That is kind of hard to do when the average person has a hard time just trying to understand what it is. They have a hard time
wrapping their head around it.

The lack of understanding is a huge barrier to adoption that should not be underestimated. Everyone knows what an Apple iPhone is and understands the value of a cellphone or a Mac computer. Even little kids always want an Apple iPhone for Christmas or birthday. You don't have to explain to anyone what an iPhone or a cellphone is and why these are very desirable things. By the same token, you don't have to explain to anyone the value of a gold or silver necklace, a gold watch, a gold ring, etc. Practically everyone on earth owns jewelry, owns a cellphone, a personal computer, etc. and they use them in their everyday lives not
just for speculating. That is true mass adoption.

You can literally spend hours trying to explain what bitcoin is to a friend or relative and why it has value, and they still won't understand it
(believe me I have tried more than once). Admittedly the concept of bitcoin is not an easy thing to grasp. Even for me as a long-time holder
of bitcoin it took me months and countless hours of study and research to finally grasp what it is.

If you cannot easily explain something so that even a child can understand it, then you may have already lost.
That is why I agree with Jack Dorsey that to remain relevant in the future bitcoin has to be widely adopted as more than
just something to speculate on. In the case of bitcoin it should be widely adopted as a payment method.

If you can simply say to someone "bitcoin is used as money to pay for stuff" then that is much easier to explain
than trying to convince them why they should gamble their hard-earned money on it. It's a long shot but perhaps one day
it will be commonly used as money.

[impulse709]

Bitcoin is already highly volatile enough but the leverage makes it much worse while also creating a great downward pressure on the price.  

Why only downward pressure? The nice short squeezes we saw several times is also a product of this and propelled Bitcoin to several ATHs.

Yes I agree actually that this isn't ideal for volatility reduction. But it should become less attractive over time, as there are always a similar amount of winners and losers, which will lead to exhaustion eventually. People can now bet on Saylor with the same effect (but without directly affecting Bitcoin's price).

And judging by the decreasing volatility of Bitcoin's price, this is already happening. Even in 2021, the jumps were much bigger -- 30 and 60-day volatility was twice of 2025's. 2017/18 or 2013? The downward movement in the last weeks would have exceptionally low volatility back then

@Dogedegen: I overall agree with your rant about the OP's biased negativity. The think which annoys me a little bit however is the (imo exaggerated) focus of the Bitcoin community on the US and in part Europe, when in other parts of the world the economic growth and thus also the adoption potential is much higher.

However, I think we often forget one thing in the discussion of leverage, which is that leverage itself is not bad, it is bad when people do not understand how to use it properly. Leverage actually makes the market unstable because most traders make decisions based on emotion, not logic. So downward pressure is created on the price very quickly. And I see the decrease in Bitcoin's volatility differently. It is not just because the market has matured, but also because new people are no longer entering at the same rate as before, behaving recklessly. That means there are no crazy cycles like before, everyone no longer brings that lottery mentality. So the decrease in volatility is also natural.

Finally, the point that has been said, the excessive focus on Western countries, is really a strange phenomenon. Because the real need for Bitcoin is greater in developing countries. Where inflation is terrible, banking facilities are limited, there is more opportunity to use Bitcoin in practice. Yet the discussion has turned to the United States and Europe. So in my view, if the next big wave of Bitcoin comes, it may not come from trading rooms, but from countries that truly feel the need for an alternative system.

Bitcoin is not a stable enough store of value to work in the short-term, and leveraging further increases its fluctuations. Although short squeezes have the potential to bring prices to new levels, emotional trading and over-leveraging usually bring about quick downward pressure. The more recent slowing of volatility does not imply that the market has come into full maturity it also indicates the absence of madcap new entrants and less of a lottery-style performance compared to the previous cycles. The other point that has been ignored is the concentration on the Western countries. The actual application of Bitcoin is in the developing countries with high inflation rates, access to limited banking facilities, and financial restrictions. With a new significant wave potentially being the practical use in these nations, the use of Bitcoin as a long-term store of value may become even more robust, even as the short term volatility persists.

[Proty]

 The fact that bitcoin is highly volatile doesn't change the fact that it has proven it's worth over the years as a good store of value. Those investors that has been holding bitcoin for like 5-10 years can testify to this. So you are wrong to think that bitcoin isn't a good store of value.
As long as you are doing DCA holding bitcoin whether the price is high or low won't be a problem since you are buying bitcoin at different prices. To hold bitcoin for a long time when the price is high won't be an issue if you understand the nature of bitcoin.

[Alone055]

Another serious problem for bitcoin and crypto is the common use of extreme leverage that doesn't exist with any other kind of investment
(stock market, real estate, precious metals, etc).

The extreme amount of leverage that is commonly used with bitcoin is almost to the point of absurdity (ie: 10x, 20x, 50x, 100x or more).
Bitcoin is already highly volatile enough but the leverage makes it much worse while also creating a great downward pressure on the price.  

That kind of thing is what you see happening in some run-down shady back-alley casino, not a serious place for investing one's life savings.
No asset class can hope to be taken seriously as a long-term store of value as long as it exists imo.

The common use of these crazy leveraged bets means people are using bitcoin to make a quick buck not as a store of value.

Look, no one is supposed to invest their life savings in the futures because futures are a risky trading method, and you can't afford to lose your life savings, obviously. Futures trading is not investing, by the way, it's a form of trading where you either get profits or lose your used capital if you correctly or wrongly guess the price action of a cryptocurrency in the immediate future, like if you think that the price of Bitcoin will go up, you long it, and if it actually goes up, you get profit based on the amount you have used and the leverage you have selected for the trade. Similarly, if you think it will go down, you short it, and the process will be the same again.

So, futures trading is like options trading somehow, but only with some extra features and options, etc. Would you ever use your savings in options trading? No, you wouldn't do that, even if you want to try it out, you will only use an amount that you can afford to lose because you know that the chances are like 50-50% of either winning or losing. Futures is a bit different, and those with enough knowledge and experience might survive, but still, investments are not done in futures, they are done in spot trading which allows you to buy and hold actual assets, and futures only allows you to bid on their price movements.

[Dogedegen]

That's usually the case for the last short squeeze of a row of short squeezes, but there were short squeezes since the 15,500$ low in late 2022 and while the market often corrects a bit a bit jump, it then recovered and reached new highs one after another. So I would highly doubt that the effect is "overall" "negative".

I think there is more manipulation now by the big players because many random people got comfortable with the use of leverage as if they knew what they are doing with it. This is what has been happening this year frequently, the big guys are wiping out the small guy at every step possible. With altcoins it is even worse because they have all those DeFi lending stuff and you can access all of that data and create algorithms that check for chained liquidation opportunities across main blockchains in real time.

The feedback loop is weakening, above all after 2017. It is still in place though. And I think that the Bitcoin community should indeed focus on those changes, both technically and economically, that make a wider adoption possible. For example, instead of focusing so much on strategic reserves and Wall Street adoption, focus on Lightning and Ark adoption (related: Ark provider recently released a mainnet beta). And accelerating changes like OP_CTV which could make Layer2's much more decentralized.

But who is focusing on strategic reserves and Wall Street adoption and where do you see this? When I talk to real Bitcoin people and not the loud people on the internet, they are usually not that interested in those things. Yes we can see more people being tricked into buying paper Bitcoin and promoting it, but those are the type that will talk about it loudly online so we get a distorted picture of the group distribution of Bitcoin users.

The regulation in the US is still quite strict, US citizens still are banned from several international crypto services at least. And the market there is more saturated than in other countries (15% of people own crypto, vs. 5-10% in Europe for example). Thus my interpretation is that the potential in the US for growth and further adoption is lower than almost elsewhere.

Basically the focus on the US is a very short-term oriented focus. The logic is: Today the US adoption is one of the highest, and thus small changes in the economic conditions there could change the short term price evolution. That's true to some extent. But the real potential in Bitcoin lies in long term adoption and network effects. Not in 1% more US citizens speculating or 0.001% of businesses in the US considering Bitcoin treasuries.

Well I like to compare this in trends. If you look at that ownership comparison it makes sense. The regulation in the US has been recently trending towards friendly, but the one in Europe has been strictly trending towards hostility. You've seen MiCa and other stuff, more limits, more reporting, more tracking all kinds of things. Sure there is an exception here and there but the overall picture is negative.

Also I want to ask you where you get that 15% number from?

At least in India the development was partly positive. The government and central banks for a long time considered much harsher restrictions until a few years ago. And these are off the table, also due to the protest of the local Bitcoin lobby. It's interesting that Chainalysis ranked India even higher than the US regarding crypto adoption (https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2025-global-crypto-adoption-index/) in a study based on on-chain data.

In China the situation is of course more difficult as the country is far more authoritarian. The recent "re-enforcement" of restrictions was however targeting centralized stablecoins. There are lots of countries afraid of them because they could weaken the local currency.

Hasn't India started some work in favor of CBDCs and stuff like this? Maybe I misread something but that does not sound promising if they have.

The lack of understanding is a huge barrier to adoption that should not be underestimated. Everyone knows what an Apple iPhone is and understands the value of a cellphone or a Mac computer. Even little kids always want an Apple iPhone for Christmas or birthday. You don't have to explain to anyone what an iPhone or a cellphone is and why these are very desirable things. By the same token, you don't have to explain to anyone the value of a gold or silver necklace, a gold watch, a gold ring, etc. Practically everyone on earth owns jewelry, owns a cellphone, a personal computer, etc. and they use them in their everyday lives not
just for speculating. That is true mass adoption.

No that won't work, you can never make an fair comparison with a product like that. The reason that people want iPhones is not because they understand the value of it, it is because they are brainwashed with continuous marketing and social pressure to get one. The product itself is extremely overpriced, so you could only rightfully say that they misunderstand its value if you wanted to be fair. Bitcoin is neutral, there is no central authority that could do this kind of marketing propaganda for it. Many people claim they understand this concept but they don't. You could say well companies that are working with Bitcoin can make advertising for it? Sure they can, and it is never going to be on the same level. Do you think the companies that produce or repair Apple products could make marketing for them on the same level as the company itself? If they can, why are they not doing it then? 

[Betwrong]

~ I mean, I realize that it can be sad for you and I'm sorry, but don't tell other people that will end up in the same position, please.

It was very bad for that person to sell Bitcoin although I think he was either scare or needed it because that is often the reason why people sell Bitcoin.

Of course I wouldn't blame anyone for selling Bitcoin when they simply need spendable cash because I sold a lot myself at very low prices. I lost only potential income because it wasn't like I bought BTC at a higher price earlier. I got my first BTC from gambling sites and faucets.

~ But I think nothing would have happened because many people think that we have to sell our Bitcoin in 2050.

I think there's a high probability of BTC going over $1 mil in 25 years. Only 500 million people hold Bitcoin in some capacity and I think the number should be over 3 billion.

[khiholangkang]

The fact that bitcoin is highly volatile doesn't change the fact that it has proven it's worth over the years as a good store of value. Those investors that has been holding bitcoin for like 5-10 years can testify to this. So you are wrong to think that bitcoin isn't a good store of value.
As long as you are doing DCA holding bitcoin whether the price is high or low won't be a problem since you are buying bitcoin at different prices. To hold bitcoin for a long time when the price is high won't be an issue if you understand the nature of bitcoin.

Bitcoin fluctuations are an art for profit, that's where people can get big profits, especially having a 4-year cycle will make it clear where bitcoin always gets the ATH price, which if you buy the highest price in the previous cycle will definitely benefit in this way.
Buying with DCA is the same as finding the average price of our purchases, a simple example if we buy 1 bitcoin at $100k, then the next time we buy 1 bitcoin at $50k, then our average purchase price will fall at $75k, the more DCA at the lower price, the lower the purchase price we buy at the upper price.