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

[Hanadawa]

Why BTC can't be both is my question for the OP.

Well, the logic is simple in this case. If Bitcoin is the store of value, it needs to have a stable demand or in other words, the bitcoin shouldn't be too volatile as it is behaving in current times. People consider a store of value for those coins which do not lose value and is constantly in more of an uptrend.
Check the Gold price action, and you will see its gradually increasing in price and also the dumps aren't too big as with Bitcoin. That's the reason people consider Gold as a store of value and bitcoin still needs more time to prove the same. Although Gold supply isn't limited, but bitcoin supply is limited and that is an advantage of bitcoin over Gold.

I agree that Bitcoin still can't be as good a store of value as gold. Bitcoin's price is highly volatile, so it's still considered a high-risk asset. Unlike gold, which is considered a safe haven and a very low-risk asset. However, I believe in Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation. Although Bitcoin can experience price drops more severe than inflation, so far I've seen it almost always outperform inflation. High-risk assets like Bitcoin also offer higher rewards than gold. This is why Bitcoin is considered one of the best high-risk investments today.

[pawanjain]

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.

Bitcoin is a very good asset as a store of value because it holds its value in the long run.
A good store of value is something that gives good returns in the long run especially when setting off with inflation.
Bitcoin does that very well.

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

It is easy to hold no matter what the price is. It all depends on our risk taking capability.
If we are good at managing risks, we will be able to hold bitcoin at whatever price it is.

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

I think bitcoin has already proven that it stood out during bad economic times.
The latest example is during the covid. Obviously it did impact bitcoin initially but it pumped hard later on.
Bitcoin is the best asset to hold during covid as it had surged massively.
So in short, I believe bitcoin is a perfect asset to hold as a store of value.

[Luzin]

I agree that Bitcoin still can't be as good a store of value as gold. Bitcoin's price is highly volatile, so it's still considered a high-risk asset. Unlike gold, which is considered a safe haven and a very low-risk asset.

They do not like instability that leads to losses. And this is why many governments still very rarely make Bitcoin an official national reserve. If this instability were profitable, I think official governments might start to take notice. But this is the condition that must happen with Bitcoin. The law of rise and fall must occur because trading wants that moment. Bitcoin without instability is very bad and harmful. Perhaps more and more people will start to leave Bitcoin if its value is stable.

[d5000]

Bitcoin isn't a stable store of value yet, but it is a hard store of value.

I like this definition.
‎

‎Scarcity: It's the only asset where demand cannot trigger more supply, unlike Gold mining or fiat printing

You're correct about "hard", on-chain bitcoins. There's however a little catch on this.

85-90% of all Bitcoin users, at least, do not own Bitcoin on-chain but on a centralized platform or exchange. These exchanges, in theory, can "print" fiat Bitcoin IOUs. The incentive for this is higher when the price of Bitcoin is high, so for this kind of "Bitcoin-derived asset" there is a certain supply flexibility.

Unfortunately, these Bitcoin IOUs can move the price if there are too many of them.

We cannot onboard all 100 million Bitcoin users to the Bitcoin blockchain. But if people used decentralized 2nd layers (Lightning, sidechains, and also Ark) there would be less incentives for this kind of "Bitcoin IOU printing". A

Conclusion: Propagating "not your keys, not your coins" makes Bitcoin harder.
‎

‎The volatility will only die down when the market cap is large enough that single whales can't move the needle. Until then, it’s a store of value for those who can stomach a 50% drop without blinking.

I disagree here, even if there may be some correlation. It's more important to boost liquidity than market cap. The best way to do so would to propagate and incentive the usage as a currency.

[GiftedMAN]

They do not like instability that leads to losses. And this is why many governments still very rarely make Bitcoin an official national reserve. If this instability were profitable, I think official governments might start to take notice. But this is the condition that must happen with Bitcoin. The law of rise and fall must occur because trading wants that moment. Bitcoin without instability is very bad and harmful. Perhaps more and more people will start to leave Bitcoin if its value is stable.

Watch Bitcoin recover and reach a new height then see people who said it's not a good store of value praise it and wish they had invested when it was cheaper. Bitcoin is a long-term asset a volatility is not a criteria to say it doesn't suit being a good store value. If anyone doesn't have patience to buy and hold it longer then they shouldn't do it at all cause they'll be disappointed. Bitcoin investment is for people who are futuristic not short-term investors.

[purple_sparkles]

I think one of the reasons why governments do not accept bitcoin is that they still don’t understand how its volatility could be managed within the budget of an entire country. It would also require rewriting existing legislation, which demands complex analysis.In addition, if bitcoin were included in the state budget, it would mean greater public oversight. And since some politicians may use bitcoin to hide or launder corrupt money, increased government involvement could expose them to unwanted scrutiny and investigations.

[Dogedegen]

Bitcoin isn't a stable store of value yet, but it is a hard store of value.
‎

That is a good clarification and it is very true.

‎Scarcity: It's the only asset where demand cannot trigger more supply, unlike Gold mining or fiat printing

Yes I think I have read some posts about this, with metals like gold and silver they just try to mine more when prices are better. Well it works with most things, they look for new locations to extract more. With Bitcoin this is not possible.

‎Liquidity: I can move $10M of value across the world in 10 minutes. Try doing that with physical Gold during a crisis.
‎

With banks it can also be terrible. Some people say that it is not so because they never had any bad experience, but that does not reflect the experience of everyone. In international transactions I even had issues once when transferring money between my accounts and the amounts were not even significant or unusual. The current system sucks.

‎The volatility will only die down when the market cap is large enough that single whales can't move the needle. Until then, it’s a store of value for those who can stomach a 50% drop without blinking.

But what number would you put that at? $10 trillion? $20 trillion or even more than that?

85-90% of all Bitcoin users, at least, do not own Bitcoin on-chain but on a centralized platform or exchange. These exchanges, in theory, can "print" fiat Bitcoin IOUs. The incentive for this is higher when the price of Bitcoin is high, so for this kind of "Bitcoin-derived asset" there is a certain supply flexibility.

Unfortunately, these Bitcoin IOUs can move the price if there are too many of them.

The main issue with paper Bitcoin for me is that we can't even estimate how many there are at any point in time, we can just randomly guess but there is no good way to measure this. Some amounts of paper Bitcoin are not a problem for me if we are talking about let's say something extreme, 1-2% but if we are talking about 10, 20, 50 percent then we have a big issue.

Conclusion: Propagating "not your keys, not your coins" makes Bitcoin harder.
‎

We definitely must always do this, but there must also be solutions that provide extreme security by default. Hardware wallets are a good start, but things are not so simple when you start having a lot of wealth in Bitcoin but do not have technological knowledge or experience. It is not like you can just buy a Trezor, store $50 million on it and forget about it not having to worry about anything ever. Even the question about where to store it, how to backup it and store the backup and stuff like that brings worries on its own.

I disagree here, even if there may be some correlation. It's more important to boost liquidity than market cap. The best way to do so would to propagate and incentive the usage as a currency.

You are right, but I think in an asset or naturally evolving market that does not have extreme manipulation these things come hand in hand? Usually liquidity improves as the market cap grows, so we could say that it is a little bit implied?