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

[Dunamisx]

What do we interpret from a store of value as, something that has a future potential to profit realization, because this must first be well understood by us and one of the reason why Bitcoin was created was to serve an alternative digital currency, also along the line a lot of potential has been discovered with the use of Bitcoin whereby it serves as a store of value over time, we can trade and also engage on any other profitable means by the use of Bitcoin for our own personal benefits.

[HONDACD125]

2. Bitcoin doesn't have a stable source of demand.

By that I mean there is little to no demand for bitcoin beyond speculation. For example, Apple has a strong stable source of
(non-speculative) demand because billions of people in the world are buying iPhones and Mac computers every day.
Only 10 to 20% of demand comes from people speculating on Apple stock while 80 to 90% is from commercial product sales.
That contributes to the price stability for Apple. Same thing for gold. The primary source of demand for gold is the commercial
market for jewelry and other products. Unlike bitcoin gold doesn't rely on the speculation market nearly as much and is
what helps makes gold such a good store of value.

I don't agree with this at all. How can you say that Bitcoin doesn't have enough demand and there is only speculation? What do you call daily trading volumes then? Isn't that just like a company selling products? For example, if Apple is getting a total of $1B in sales every day, Bitcoin gets over $2B in trading volume only on Binance, the overall figure is way higher than that. I know that these two things are a bit different, but when someone buys Bitcoin, it is just like how someone is buying an iPhone, the difference is that they can then sell them as well, but it simply shows that Bitcoin does have a lot of demand.

So, whether people are speculating or anything, Bitcoin does have a lot of demand, and that is the reason why it is worth so much today. The supply and demand mechanism doesn't work like that, and since Bitcoin has a limited supply and a lot of demand, it is why it managed to reach $125k in value, beating every asset in the world and making a record in itself. This is why I think it is wrong to say that Bitcoin doesn't have a stable source of demand.

[lizarder]

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.

Just because Bitcoin is highly volatile doesn't mean it isn't a store of value. Perhaps you can look back at Bitcoin's history from its launch to the present day and see how reliably it maintains its value. While Bitcoin may be quite speculative in the short term, looking at the long term, perhaps we can all see that Bitcoin is a fairly good store of value and can even provide maximum returns for its holders.

If people can't afford to hold Bitcoin due to the price decline, then it's wise to avoid it and seek alternatives like gold. When we are ready to accept investment risks, worries about this are not a big problem because eventually Bitcoin will find a recovery, bringing it to a higher price. Volatility should not be a major problem for the investments undertaken because the most important thing is how the asset can grow over time.

[serjent05]

If people can't afford to hold Bitcoin due to the price decline, then it's wise to avoid it and seek alternatives like gold. When we are ready to accept investment risks, worries about this are not a big problem because eventually Bitcoin will find a recovery, bringing it to a higher price. Volatility should not be a major problem for the investments undertaken because the most important thing is how the asset can grow over time.

This is the reason why many think that Bitcoin does not work well as a store of value.  It is believed that a store of value should be stable and resistant to fluctuation.  Bitcoin is weak in the short term and we can see it through market price movement.  As for the long term, it is speculative so it is considered not a stable one.

Not because it is an emerging store of value means it is a good store of value.  It is unstable, which does not meet the core value of what we called good store of value.  A good store of value must perform well under stress, and Bitcoin does not, as we can see how wild its price fluctuates every time there is some pressure on its market.

[krishnaverma]

Do you agree or disagree? I myself used to believe bitcoin was the greatest store of value ever created,
but after giving it a lot of thought I no longer believe that is the case, and here is why.


1. People often say bitcoin is a store of value, but in the same breath also tell you it is highly volatile.
Those are two contradictory things. A store of value has to be more or less stable in price. It cannot be both
highly volatile and a good store of value imo.

When something is very volatile, it tends to shake people out and cause them to panic and sell.
That is why most people will not be able to HODL bitcoin for long. Of course there are some hardcore HODLers
who are able to hold it for many years (I was one of them) but they are the exception not the rule.

HODLing and "never sell your bitcoins" are nice slogans but in reality it is easier said than done for most.

2. Bitcoin doesn't have a stable source of demand.

By that I mean there is little to no demand for bitcoin beyond speculation. For example, Apple has a strong stable source of
(non-speculative) demand because billions of people in the world are buying iPhones and Mac computers every day.
Only 10 to 20% of demand comes from people speculating on Apple stock while 80 to 90% is from commercial product sales.
That contributes to the price stability for Apple. Same thing for gold. The primary source of demand for gold is the commercial
market for jewelry and other products. Unlike bitcoin gold doesn't rely on the speculation market nearly as much and is
what helps makes gold such a good store of value.

3. It is easy to HODL it when prices were low.

In the early days of bitcoin there were many bitcoin OGs who bought it very cheaply. You can buy one bitcoin for a few dollars,
or even a hundred bitcoins for very little. Of course, it is easy for you to HODL it for many years even during extreme volatility,
because it cost you almost nothing. Even if the price goes to zero you aren't losing much.

But it is not so easy to HODL for those who bought in later when prices are much higher, because you now have a lot more to lose.
When the volatility hits you are more likely to hit the sell button. That is why the path from zero to $100K is a lot easier.

But the path from $100K to $200K will probably be much tougher and longer IMO, assuming it will get that high.


4. Bitcoin is too correlated to risk assets and the economy.

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.

It is volatile if you track daily. But if you consider based on longer time intervals like 2-3 years, it has always been on steady rise.

One more point , I do not agree that early buyers were able to hold for long time because they bought for cheap. One unit was cheap but anyone buys bitcoin worth amount which is affordable for him. One more thing, they took lot of risk in believing something that had very few users.

[john_egbert]

What do we interpret from a store of value as, something that has a future potential to profit realization, because this must first be well understood by us and one of the reason why Bitcoin was created was to serve an alternative digital currency, also along the line a lot of potential has been discovered with the use of Bitcoin whereby it serves as a store of value over time, we can trade and also engage on any other profitable means by the use of Bitcoin for our own personal benefits.

As for now, it's that.

In the decades to come - who knows?

Bitcoin is fluid.

It changes, and the stance of the people on it change as well.

[27QVUTZj8rgZP1]

The higher the price goes, the harder it will be to move higher. It requires an always increasing demand that becomes harder to sustain.

Bitcoin once was great, and I actually used it. But today I do not use Bitcoin anymore and consequently stopped believing in it. I like to invest in things I actually use, and unfortunately Bitcoin is not one of those things anymore. Why? Better options appeared on the market. Today I cannot see a reason to use, buy or hold Bitcoin.

It has been years since the last time I made a Bitcoin transaction on-chain. And I still do not understand why some people use it while there are better alternatives available. They probably are fanboys, not rational consumers.

[Dogedegen]

Volatility is everwhere. It's definitely not exclusive to bitcoin.

An S&P500 that is considered as a stable for long term retirement savings and pension fund also occasionally have volatility.



Even your favourite fiat's value goes up and down every second and there is reason why forex trading exist. There's no such thing as absolute stability. As long as an asset has proven to be having a good growth from the beginning to date why does it matter if it's volatile on the daily candlestick?.

Bitcoin's growth record has proven that it's actually a good store of value and surpass the threshold of just beating inflation.

We live in a world that is becoming increasing unstable, fast paced and crazier. So yes when we talk about Bitcoin we should not bring up volatility as a big negative given that volatility is present everywhere. Just recently gold crashed like 5% or something in a day, and we are talking about a material that has been valued for millennia, has countless industrial applications, and is universally considered a store of value. It stands to reason that Bitcoin should be allowed to be more volatile without this point being used as a criticism against it, otherwise we would have to criticize gold for its potential to crash too. Anyway there days Trump is not help with the lack of stability of the world, because his style of ruling is quite chaotic even if he does some good things. For now we will continue to live in a world of more stability, and I am eager to find out what will happen when interest rates come very close to 0% again. Will we experience a period of stability or will that just be the calm before a big storm?

I thought in their estimates they counted only active users as a "Bitcoin user". Well, it's even better then. I thought the number of current users is is around 500 mil. If it's 50 times smaller then you are probably right about $1 million per 1 Bitcoin, it will happen much sooner than in 25 years. I mean, if the number of users increases from 10 million to 3 billion — that’s 300 times — the price should rise at least 20 times, right?

For sure it is incorrect, I doubt that 500 million people ever even touched Bitcoin or crypto once. While I can't say exactly what will happen to the price of Bitcoin directly from the increase of users, it will be a positive trend but it is hard to quantify. It will depend a lot on what kind of users, because 3 billion users with 0.1% allocation is not the same as 3 billion users with 10% of allocation. Also which users? Is it primarily poor people so bottom up who are unbanked or need it for some other reason, or is it more top-down so ultra wealthy towards middle class? It depends also on other stuff like printing money and global economic situation. But what we can say is that the future is exciting and the data just shows that the potential of Bitcoin is still enormous, and underestimated. Bitcoin has always been underestimated since the early days, and it still is.

Not even 10 million individuals actively hold Bitcoin. Being a passive ETF holder does not count, most of those don't even know what a Bitcoin wallet is.

You may be correct about the number of on-chain active users.

But for the market, an ETF holder or those holding "Bitcoin IOUs" at their CEX of choice matter about the same as on-chain Bitcoin users. If an ETF holder sells his ETF, then he creates selling pressure on the markets too, because the ETF company will increase their sales. The same of course the other way around. And CEX bitcoins directly are ready to be sold on some market.

My statement was more a rebuttal to the claim that there are 500 million Bitcoin holders, and I don't believe that there are even 10 million active holders. It does not mean that passive holders do not have an impact on the market, you are right about that. It is more about the enormous potential for Bitcoin. In most cases a person that has fully understood and embraced Bitcoin will have at least some on chain! I can't believe that someone relatively young or tech savvy could be fully into Bitcoin and have 0 coin on chains, that would be an oxymoron. 

IMO until Lightning, Ark and other 2nd layers catch up it is not that bad that small holders / users are holding their coins at exchanges, as otherwise the blockchain congestion would be extreme. Ideally we see a trickling from CEXes to on-chain wallets and then to Lightning.

Good point about this, the on-chain capacity right now can not deal with many active users and L2 solutions could use more maturing in the meantime. I wonder from the UX and scalability side what would be the best solution to this. Usually if a user has CEX balance they have to transfer it to a LN wallet to start using it, which would be a lot of transactions. It helps that these balances are in a CEX because of how they batch transactions, so 10M users opening 10M LN wallets would not require 10M transactions at least that is beneficial.

You are probably correct is that the estimates of hundreds of millions of Bitcoin users (500 million seems a bit high, but I've seen credible estimations for 200-300 million) are taking into account users that should not be listed as "active". For example, the crypto.com estimations clarifies in their methodology that they count all users that at some point in history had Bitcoin, either on an exchange, or on-chain. Their estimations are based mainly on CEX data. Coinbase alone for example has around 100-120 million users, but only 10 million of them are "active every month".

I don't think counting registrations or one time purchases is useful data. These people often come in waves when there is massive media hype, many of them barely know what Bitcoin is. Some even thought it is like a company stock. They come and go, for adoption metrics they are meaningless. Active users is good, and to get the total exposure I guess a CEX could publish the number of total holders? So all users who have any balance that isn't like dust, let's say more than $1 or $10 regardless of when they acquired it. Did they publish anything about that?

[d5000]

I wonder from the UX and scalability side what would be the best solution to this. Usually if a user has CEX balance they have to transfer it to a LN wallet to start using it, which would be a lot of transactions.

There are several CEXes offering Lightning withdrawals. So all you have to do is to open a bidirectional channel, which is a single on-chain transaction (currently very cheap). You might need some BTC for the initial capacity and fees. So this means that still there's a limit for new users, but it is much higher than the current "on chain" limit.

The ideal situation would be "Lightning + sidechains". So if you have a sidechain like Nomic or Threshold tBTC (which is marketed as a wrapped Bitcoin subtype, but has much more in common with the sidechain technique, they use existing altcoins as sidechains.) and this sidechain is Lightning compatible, you have practically unlimited onboarding capacity. The only problem is that no sidechain has sufficient popularity/"proven security" to be considered really a Bitcoin alternative. And many depend on some premined altcoins.

Ark would be a gamechanger here, because it doesn't need every user to perform an on chain transaction. And there seems to be a project in public beta, see here (haven't tried it myself).

So all users who have any balance that isn't like dust, let's say more than $1 or $10 regardless of when they acquired it. Did they publish anything about that?

I've unfortunately not found such numbers. The crypto.com report is based on on-chain activity, so I guess that dust amounts (less than $1) should be excluded from that report. But in their methology they state clearly that past owners who sold everything still are part of their estimation.

[lizarder]

This is the reason why many think that Bitcoin does not work well as a store of value.  It is believed that a store of value should be stable and resistant to fluctuation.  Bitcoin is weak in the short term and we can see it through market price movement.  As for the long term, it is speculative so it is considered not a stable one.

Not because it is an emerging store of value means it is a good store of value.  It is unstable, which does not meet the core value of what we called good store of value.  A good store of value must perform well under stress, and Bitcoin does not, as we can see how wild its price fluctuates every time there is some pressure on its market.

That's one reason people might think Bitcoin isn't a store of value because it's quite speculative in the short term. But to assess the overall meaning of a store of value, one should look at the asset's performance in the long term, not just the short term. Store-of-value can also be defined as an asset's ability to maintain purchasing power over time, regardless of prevailing conditions, especially when viewed holistically over the long term in terms of achieving asset value growth.

Bitcoin's volatility tends to be unstable when viewed in the short term. However, considering Bitcoin's initial purpose, we can now see the meaning of store-of-value in terms of purchasing power that can be exchanged for increasing from princes before when it was launched. All assets are affected by market pressures, whether from political issues, the global economy or disasters. Compared to gold, the two may be different and I don't see a balance between the two as gold has been around for a long time long before Bitcoin.

[Dogedegen]

I wonder from the UX and scalability side what would be the best solution to this. Usually if a user has CEX balance they have to transfer it to a LN wallet to start using it, which would be a lot of transactions.

There are several CEXes offering Lightning withdrawals. So all you have to do is to open a bidirectional channel, which is a single on-chain transaction (currently very cheap). You might need some BTC for the initial capacity and fees. So this means that still there's a limit for new users, but it is much higher than the current "on chain" limit.

Yes, I understand that but when I consider these things I like to consider bigger scale right away. To migrate millions of users this way would require millions of transactions which for the transaction capacity of layer 1 of Bitcoin would take a long time. Because of that I am wondering if there are some alternative methods in which onboarding could be done.

The ideal situation would be "Lightning + sidechains". So if you have a sidechain like Nomic or Threshold tBTC (which is marketed as a wrapped Bitcoin subtype, but has much more in common with the sidechain technique, they use existing altcoins as sidechains.) and this sidechain is Lightning compatible, you have practically unlimited onboarding capacity. The only problem is that no sidechain has sufficient popularity/"proven security" to be considered really a Bitcoin alternative. And many depend on some premined altcoins.

Ark would be a gamechanger here, because it doesn't need every user to perform an on chain transaction. And there seems to be a project in public beta, see here (haven't tried it myself).

Thanks, I will do some reading about Ark. I would like to say that even if the solution is technologically great, it does require adoption for it to be a gamechanger. There must be reasons and incentives to adopt it. I've seen some websites that showed many different layer 2 projects being built, but if something significant out of any of them will come will also depend a lot on this. Many layer 2s or even layer 1 altcoin blockchains are basically ghost towns, besides bots there is almost no usage at all.

So all users who have any balance that isn't like dust, let's say more than $1 or $10 regardless of when they acquired it. Did they publish anything about that?

I've unfortunately not found such numbers. The crypto.com report is based on on-chain activity, so I guess that dust amounts (less than $1) should be excluded from that report. But in their methology they state clearly that past owners who sold everything still are part of their estimation.

Yeah I don't like that they include that because that is skewing the numbers positively to show a much higher adoption. Adoption should always be about current users and holders. We can only consider past owners if we want to know how many people actually touched Bitcoin or crypto ever for some reason, but for the current state of adoption that is not relevant. I wish that some entities do better data collection on these matters.

[MusaPk]

That's one reason people might think Bitcoin isn't a store of value because it's quite speculative in the short term. But to assess the overall meaning of a store of value, one should look at the asset's performance in the long term, not just the short term. Store-of-value can also be defined as an asset's ability to maintain purchasing power over time, regardless of prevailing conditions, especially when viewed holistically over the long term in terms of achieving asset value growth.

Bitcoin's volatility tends to be unstable when viewed in the short term. However, considering Bitcoin's initial purpose, we can now see the meaning of store-of-value in terms of purchasing power that can be exchanged for increasing from princes before when it was launched. All assets are affected by market pressures, whether from political issues, the global economy or disasters. Compared to gold, the two may be different and I don't see a balance between the two as gold has been around for a long time long before Bitcoin.

In just short span of 17 years, Bitcoin price has gone up from zero dollar to $126,000. Not many things in human history has shown such enormous increase and that too in short interval. We are not sure how high Bitcoin will go from current price but their are strong speculations that Bitcoin may touch $1 million in next 10 years or may be before that. Bitcoin value is going up with time and that's mainly because of its volatile price. The price volatility is capable of taking price to extreme in both directions, it's biggest factor that is pushing Bitcoin price to new heights.                         

[Mate2237]

What adds value to a particular product is demand that such a product has on the market and Bitcoin as an asset is a typical example of that. There's a lot of demand on Bitcoin every day that is why in terms of price Bitcoin has been on the increase since it's launching.Bitcoin fulfill the law of demand and supply that is one reason why it's one of the most sought after assets.



Whether the price of Bitcoin is low or high Bitcoin is easy to hold, if you can't hold your Bitcoin asset when the price of Bitcoin is high then you should blame yourself not Bitcoin. Your ability to hold Bitcoin is a personal choice and discipline for anyone going into Bitcoin.

[Dogedegen]

In just short span of 17 years, Bitcoin price has gone up from zero dollar to $126,000. Not many things in human history has shown such enormous increase and that too in short interval. We are not sure how high Bitcoin will go from current price but their are strong speculations that Bitcoin may touch $1 million in next 10 years or may be before that. Bitcoin value is going up with time and that's mainly because of its volatile price. The price volatility is capable of taking price to extreme in both directions, it's biggest factor that is pushing Bitcoin price to new heights.                         

There are several mistakes with this post. Firstly, the huge appreciation that Bitcoin has achieved relies on the fact that its starting market cap was $0. The price of Bitcoin was $0 until there was the first price discovery which I am too lazy now to look for, but it was very low. This is what enabled it to have a history where the returns were very high as it reached maturity and established itself. However, huge value appreciation over a period of time that is unique as this one is not a characteristics of a store of value. As has been talked about in other threads, the main problem that there still is with Bitcoin comes from the percentage negative return that it can have during some periods of time. This is still too high, and we have yet to be proven otherwise. What else to say is that the past is not guaranteed to repeat. While I have a very positive view of Bitcoin, you can't make claims that it is a great store of value because it will increase in price based on historical movements.

What adds value to a particular product is demand that such a product has on the market and Bitcoin as an asset is a typical example of that. There's a lot of demand on Bitcoin every day that is why in terms of price Bitcoin has been on the increase since it's launching.Bitcoin fulfill the law of demand and supply that is one reason why it's one of the most sought after assets.

What you have written here does not say anything at all. Everything that is traded follows the supply and demand, so to claim that Bitcoin somehow fulfills it is wrong. What is that even supposed to mean? The law of supply and demand is not something that you fulfill, and you seem to go in circles here with that. We can say that the rising price reflects increased demand but that does not automatically justify this demand. If you want to talk about the value of Bitcoin, you need to elaborate on the kinds of utility that it provides or functions that will sustain that demand over time. As I have mentioned above, we have seen periods where the negative performance is sharp which shows that the demand in the times preceding such price movements was not sustainable and not based on real value. Bitcoin does work as a great store of value and it will continue to improve its fulfillment of this function, the main issue currently is that many people approach these assets and things the wrong way but that is a global problem that is not directly related to Bitcoin.

[Betwrong]

The higher the price goes, the harder it will be to move higher. It requires an always increasing demand that becomes harder to sustain.
~

I don't get it. What do you mean by "higher"? Higher than what, 1 cent per Bitcoin or 1 dollar? And if the price of Bitcoin is higher than $1/BTC, why exactly the demand is harder to sustain? You see, people were saying this when Bitcoin was approaching $1 per 1 BTC, and now we can see that it was all rubbish. Maybe your words would make some "sense" to some Andromeda’s inhabitants studying how economics works on Earth, but for the Earth’s inhabitants ... well, no, it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Dogedegen]

The higher the price goes, the harder it will be to move higher. It requires an always increasing demand that becomes harder to sustain.
~

I don't get it. What do you mean by "higher"? Higher than what, 1 cent per Bitcoin or 1 dollar? And if the price of Bitcoin is higher than $1/BTC, why exactly the demand is harder to sustain? You see, people were saying this when Bitcoin was approaching $1 per 1 BTC, and now we can see that it was all rubbish. Maybe your words would make some "sense" to some Andromeda’s inhabitants studying how economics works on Earth, but for the Earth’s inhabitants ... well, no, it makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that you are confusing some things here and the user is actually right. To sustain the Bitcoin price at a price of $100 000 is harder by a factor of 100 000 times than it is to sustain it at a price of $1, and with harder it means that more money required. This is true and you can ignore the market overall and just focus on the mining process to understand this. Before we had blocks of 50 BTC and even with a price of $100 it would be only $5000 potential sell pressure per block mined. Now we have blocks that are 3.125 BTC each but at this price it needs like $300 000 per block to be able to sustain this price and this mining. We are talking about huge amounts of money! 

Also if you consider some OGs or whales, how much money is needed to sustain a sell of 10 000 BTC at $10 000 when you compare that to a sale at $100 000? It is clear that 10 times the money is needed to manage to absorb this sale and keep the price consistent. This is a general rule with growing markets. When it comes to the total amount of money that is needed to move the market, going from $1 to $100 000 in price was much easier than it is to go from $100 000 to $1m. But don't confuse the quantity of money with the time it may take us to reach this, they may be correlated at times or sometimes even less time is needed but that is for other reasons. As Bitcoin is mature as it is now, there is a lot of money that is entering it and a lot more money that is considering to enter it. These are money quantities that would never have been considered at lower price points such as $100 because the total market capitalization was tiny and the asset class was too new.

[headingnorth]

You forget to add that Bitcoin is not for everyone 🤷‍♀️

What do you people that keep saying these things even understand by store of value? Before an asset is called a store of value, it means that the asset is scarce, durable, liquid, can be saved and can be exchanged later one without it losing its purchasing power. Does Bitcoin lack any of those characteristics?

But that is exactly the problem with something like bitcoin and crypto in general.
For an asset to be successful as a store of value it has to be universal and widely adopted.  

In other words, it SHOULD and MUST be for everyone.

That is why gold is so successful as a store of value. Because practically everyone in the world owns it.
Gold is present in the jewelry people wear everyday and other manufactured goods that everyone uses.

Literally billions of people in the world are constantly buying and holding gold, and 90% of them will never sell their gold
because most people aren't buying to speculate on it. This provides gold with a massive floor of support that bitcoin
can not hope to achieve because there is not much reason for people to buy bitcoin beyond speculating on the price.

In other words, 99% of bitcoin buyers are future sellers. But only 10 to 20% of gold buyers are future sellers.
The same logic applies to stocks. Blue chip stocks are much more stable than bitcoin because billions of people are shopping
at Walmart and Amazon everyday. People aren't buying stuff from Walmart and Amazon to speculate on the price.

They are using them in their everyday lives. And they are repeat customers returning every week to buy more stuff.

The other quality a reserve asset or store of value should possess IMO is to be simple enough for anyone to understand it. Virtually everyone in the world
knows what gold is from very young children to great grandmothers. Virtually every woman in the world owns some gold jewelry for example.
Everyone in the world knows what an Apple iPhone or a Macbook computer is. These are universally desired products that billions of people own or wish to own.

OTOH very few people in the world could even tell you what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is very technical and difficult for the average person to understand.
Most people still think of bitcoin as a scam or is used mostly by criminals. That is not the kind of perception you want the public to have for your asset
to succeed as a store of value and it remains a major PR problem for bitcoin, judging from the negative attitudes I still hear from my friends, family
and everyday acquaintances.

No asset can hope to succeed as a store of value with that kind of negative perception and wide lack of knowledge.

[impulse709]

The higher the price goes, the harder it will be to move higher. It requires an always increasing demand that becomes harder to sustain.
~

I don't get it. What do you mean by "higher"? Higher than what, 1 cent per Bitcoin or 1 dollar? And if the price of Bitcoin is higher than $1/BTC, why exactly the demand is harder to sustain? You see, people were saying this when Bitcoin was approaching $1 per 1 BTC, and now we can see that it was all rubbish. Maybe your words would make some "sense" to some Andromeda’s inhabitants studying how economics works on Earth, but for the Earth’s inhabitants ... well, no, it makes no sense whatsoever.

The argument confuses the unit price with economic reality. It is not possible to say higher without a comparison. Bitcoin does not need a constantly growing demand due to the price increase. The important one is market capitalization, liquidity, and marginal capital inflows. The same was stated at the level of $1, 10 and 100 and again history has proven that wrong. A greater price is an indicator of scarcity and adoption and not impossibility. Gold, real estate and equities could never serve as long term stores of value to investors around the globe unless the onset of prices automatically killed demand.

[Betwrong]

~

~ As Bitcoin is mature as it is now, there is a lot of money that is entering it and a lot more money that is considering to enter it. T~

This is what I totally agree with. And exactly that's why I think that Bitcoin works well as a store of value, especially in the long run.

It's obvious that  10 times the money is needed "to manage to absorb this sale and keep the price consistent",  when you compare the situation for $10 000 per 1 BTC and $100 000. So what? It’s like telling Coca-Cola, after they sold their first 1 million bottles, that selling 100 million would be 100 times harder.

[henry_of_skalitz]

~

~ As Bitcoin is mature as it is now, there is a lot of money that is entering it and a lot more money that is considering to enter it. T~

This is what I totally agree with. And exactly that's why I think that Bitcoin works well as a store of value, especially in the long run.

It's obvious that  10 times the money is needed "to manage to absorb this sale and keep the price consistent",  when you compare the situation for $10 000 per 1 BTC and $100 000. So what? It’s like telling Coca-Cola, after they sold their first 1 million bottles, that selling 100 million would be 100 times harder.

It's a bit different because CC has unlimited ability to print said bottles, whereas with BTC, we are capped, but overall, I agree with it too.

The volatility becomes less and less of a factor.