Is Crypto About Financial Freedom,Crypto, or Just Another Investment Asset Now?

[RockBell]

To those that holds decentralized coins like Bitcoin, if you don't move your Bitcoin off your own wallet into third party wallet like exchange or other platforms, you still holds your power, freedom and permissionless to spent your Bitcoin, attention is shifting because of demand for high value for the market, ETFs are meant to control the market but only those that buy into it will have their freedom and control transfered but what they are focusing on is the increase value of their assets and no longer about privacy or decentralization.

The whole idea started from a decentralized platform and been the custodian of your own coin is better than trusting a third party and this were the exchanges were coming and they can not be trusted because they are centralized and to me it is both an investment and asset because we know the risk that comes with all this things and it can be easily be hacked but when it comes to using a wallet it is the best decision to make  because the security of your assets matters a lot, and that is why some people even go to the extent of even doing more when it comes to the security of there coin.

But even at the cost of people still see bitcoin as an asset or even an invest but they should knows that what ever direction it is all the same, because because I don't know why people are having different meanings different intention,  the most thing they should consider should be that you are investing.

[uchegod-21]

Crypto was originally built around the idea of financial freedom, self-custody, permission-less access, and independence from traditional systems.

But today, a large part of the conversation seems to revolve around price, ETFs, institutions, and returns.

Many users are entering the space not for freedom, but for investment opportunities.

So here’s what I’m thinking, crypto shifted from a movement to just another asset class, or is the original purpose still intact beneath the surface?

The core values of Bitcoin are still very intact; financial freedom, decentralization, self-custody, independence, etc., are still there. Just take it that Bitcoin has evolved to a level where people can also see it as an asset in which they can invest and make money. Nothing else has changed about the fundamentals of Bitcoin. People who truly value freedom are using Bitcoin in a way that offers them freedom and self-custody. Those who still value the traditional way of banking are still there, risking their bitcoins. There are different options available to anyone interested in Bitcoin; choose where you want to be and, most importantly, understand the risks involved in the choices you make.

[Stormisover]

Nothing wrong with being both, you got freedom if you plan to buy bitcoin and keep it in your own wallet. If you want investment exposure on the other hand without the need to understand the technology, feel free to buy the ETF.

Everybody can buy and keep bitcoin as they want whether through custodial service or not it is up to you. Isn't it the best kind of financial freedom there is?

Some may want to stick with one ideal but I'm fine with current bitcoin as it is.

For Bitcoin among all other coins it serves different purposes and potentials, but above all financial freedom and alternative payment system comes first and as a primary purpose of it's invention, alot of people are investing because they see it has potential to become an investment asset as it value can increase over time, for which purpose anyone is using bitcoin depends on what the person wants while the most important is that you are using bitcoin as it pleases you in your own judgement and there is nothing wrong with that, Bitcoin speaks about financial freedom, investment asset opportunity and many others.

[Darker45]

If you want to transfer money, like cross-border trading or anonymous payments, fast stablecoins are better in every imaginable way, which is why hardly anybody uses Bitcoin for that today.

How are stablecoins better than Bitcoin in every imaginable way? Or you're referring to a specific stablecoin? If you're referring to stablecoins in general especially the most popular ones, don't you think they're worse than Bitcoin in the sense that they're an antithesis to freedom?

It depends on what you mean by "freedom".

I'm referring to freedom in the context of money, which Bitcoin is. I can keep it, send it to whoever wherever whenever, fully assured that it won't be devalued by powerful personalities, stopped, seized, censored, frozen, and so on. You can't say the same with stablecoins.

Also, how are stablecoins anonymous? Aren't they centralized, too? Don't stablecoin companies have absolute control over the funds of all their users? I wonder how they're better than Bitcoin in this case.

It depends on the stablecoin. Many have the same problem Bitcoin has with its public ledger, but some (and I won't self-promote here) are completely private unless they are hit with a specific, validated government inquiry, similar to how other privacy products work like VPNs. Unless you are doing something illegal (and the cops are on to you), this is the level of anonymity and privacy that most want.

If they have the same problems with Bitcoin, then how are they better than Bitcoin? Also, unless is a dangerous word. You can't make people feel at ease by such assurance from the powers that be. This is a familiar story. We aren't born yesterday. Everybody knows innocent victims are piling up no end, rights continuously violated, and so on. Such is precisely the reason why Bitcoin is freedom.

Finally, stablecoins are, well, stable. Bitcoin and other floating cryptos aren't for transfers, they are for investing / speculating. You buy Bitcoin because you want to sell it for more later. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you are trying to run a business and get paid, that's not what you want because you can't do any planning on that.

I agree with you that running a business on Bitcoin isn't the best option. But it doesn't necessarily mean Bitcoin is only for investing/speculating and not for transfers. We're back to step one. If you want to transfer value across borders without any fear of getting censored or intercepted, Bitcoin is the way to go, not stablecoins.

Yeah, that's also true that stablecoins are, well, stable. However, (1) provided the currency to which its value is pegged is stable, which isn't a guarantee with any fiat, and (2) it won't depeg, which, again, isn't a guarantee.

[legiteum]

If you want to transfer money, like cross-border trading or anonymous payments, fast stablecoins are better in every imaginable way, which is why hardly anybody uses Bitcoin for that today.

How are stablecoins better than Bitcoin in every imaginable way? Or you're referring to a specific stablecoin? If you're referring to stablecoins in general especially the most popular ones, don't you think they're worse than Bitcoin in the sense that they're an antithesis to freedom?

It depends on what you mean by "freedom".

I'm referring to freedom in the context of money, which Bitcoin is. I can keep it, send it to whoever wherever whenever, fully assured that it won't be devalued by powerful personalities, stopped, seized, censored, frozen, and so on. You can't say the same with stablecoins.

Why not? You can send a stablecoin to whomever you want, whenever, wherever.

And are you seriously going to talk about how Bitcoin is somehow impervious to devaluation when... it just lost half of its value over the last six months? Sure, USD loses a bit of its value each year, but it's predictable and absolutely nothing like Bitcoin, which can lose the same value the USD loses in a year in a single day.

And if you want to be "free" from any risk of your investment losing any value, ever, then you are asking to be free from... reality. All investments have risk, and Bitcoin is no different.

And seriously, free from "powerful personalities"? You mean like Michael Saylor or Donald Trump, either of whom could decimate your investment in Bitcoin if they woke up with a different thought one day?

If you want to transfer value across borders without any fear of getting censored or intercepted, Bitcoin is the way to go, not stablecoins.

Today, right now, this minute, stablecoins transfer at least 100x the daily volume across borders than Bitcoin. Nobody is "censored" (whatever that means), and transactions are not "intercepted". It works just fine. In fact it works a thousand times better than Bitcoin, which is why most in high finance do it that way.

Yeah, that's also true that stablecoins are, well, stable. However, (1) provided the currency to which its value is pegged is stable, which isn't a guarantee with any fiat, and (2) it won't depeg, which, again, isn't a guarantee.

Yes, the USD could fall in value in the future, but as we've seen in the markets, if the US markets go down, then Bitcoin goes down ten times more. It's the ultimate risk-on asset for speculation which means it's the first thing investors dump when they get nervous about the country.

Regardless, there's no magical investment that stays stable forever no matter what. Perhaps the closest thing is real estate, or certain kinds of commodities or something. No matter what though, you have to be diligent in order to secure your savings.

It's absolutely the case that you need to trust the company behind the stablecoin, especially if it's a lot of money for you (i.e. not like Haypenny when you're only trusting us for like 20 bucks ).

[Rustam Meraj]

First aim of self control still exists but it now competes with huge number of users seeking only ease as is shown by fact that 70 percent of pro buyers now choose regulated ETFs instead of keeping their own wallets.
I agree with fact that movement has been split into two paths one by big companies and other by those who want to be free but I must tell that the technical health of first network is better than ever and number of reachable nodes is record high which keeps base layer independent.
I think growth of crypto wallet market which is guessed to be $5.43 billion is sign that self safety need has not yet died, it is simply backup setup to those who wish not to be tied to old banking system.

[Darker45]

Why not? You can send a stablecoin to whomever you want, whenever, wherever.

If they allow it, yes.

And are you seriously going to talk about how Bitcoin is somehow impervious to devaluation when... it just lost half of its value over the last six months?

Organic and natural rise and fall are part of the free market. The devaluation is neither continuous nor intrinsic to the design, though. Neither is it caused by abuse or incompetence of one man in control of everything. 

And if you want to be "free" from any risk of your investment losing any value, ever, then you are asking to be free from... reality. All investments have risk, and Bitcoin is no different.

Where did I claim that Bitcoin is risk-free?

And seriously, free from "powerful personalities"? You mean like Michael Saylor or Donald Trump, either of whom could decimate your investment in Bitcoin if they woke up with a different thought one day?

Temporarily perhaps. Michael Saylor doesn't have control over Bitcoin. Donald Trump has over USD.

Today, right now, this minute, stablecoins transfer at least 100x the daily volume across borders than Bitcoin. Nobody is "censored" (whatever that means), and transactions are not "intercepted". It works just fine. In fact it works a thousand times better than Bitcoin, which is why most in high finance do it that way.

How did you know? That's not a statement of fact. What's factual is that billions in stablecoins have been frozen by the issuers themselves, thousands of addresses blacklisted.

Yes, the USD could fall in value in the future, but as we've seen in the markets, if the US markets go down, then Bitcoin goes down ten times more. It's the ultimate risk-on asset for speculation which means it's the first thing investors dump when they get nervous about the country.

1. On the contrary, the correlation is largely inverse. USD goes up, Bitcoin goes down, and vice versa. But, of course, it isn't a consistent behavior.
2. There are 194 countries that aren't Murica. Bitcoin could be a refuge when they're crumbling down.

[TedMosby]

Yeah, maybe people interpret financial freedom differently. Financial freedom offered by crypto, especially Bitcoin, is not the general definition that most people know.

Financial freedom for most people is about passive income, or anything that can make you live without worrying much about living expenses. In short, in this definition, financial freedom means that without a salary, you are still fine living your life.

But in Bitcoin, financial freedom means you are free from banks, governments, or centralized entities that can control your money. In short, in this definition, financial freedom means the control of your money is fully yours.

So, IMO, with that different meaning and perspective, the original use case also shifts. The goal of people also shifts, from freedom oriented to money oriented.

[FortuneFollower]

For Bitcoin among all other coins it serves different purposes and potentials, but above all financial freedom and alternative payment system comes first and as a primary purpose of it's invention, alot of people are investing because they see it has potential to become an investment asset as it value can increase over time, for which purpose anyone is using bitcoin depends on what the person wants while the most important is that you are using bitcoin as it pleases you in your own judgement and there is nothing wrong with that, Bitcoin speaks about financial freedom, investment asset opportunity and many others.

Bitcoin is freedom. It gives the opportunity to be free of the burden from the intermediaries and choose what to do and how to do things yourself

[Easteregg69]

It's about proving it's not semi legal.

[YOSHIE]

Is Crypto About Financial Freedom,Crypto, or Just Another Investment Asset Now?

Both are included, now it depends on how people understand and carry crypto itself, the fact that we see crypto can become one of the financial free assets, this is strengthened because Bitcoin does not require a third party, Likewise with investment assets, where we see many users choosing this path to increase short-term and long-term profits.

This means that Bitcoin can be said to fall into the two categories you mentioned, trading and mining are also included, in short it depends on how the user treats it, all of this has one goal of making finance possible.

[Ishicryptic]

Whatever you choose to do with your Bitcoin doesn't change what it originally is and that cannot change which is decentralization and limited supply, the rest is your choice either to hold in a none custodial wallet or an exchange or whatever platform you choose. Bitcoin is a privacy coin originally for p2p transactions without any third party interferences but it has evolved into a store of value which is a good thing. You have the option to preserve your privacy and freedom while holding Bitcoin or you can give your KYC to a centralized system either for safekeeping or to make profit.

[PrivacyG]

So here’s what I’m thinking, crypto shifted from a movement to just another asset class, or is the original purpose still intact beneath the surface?

How many people purchase super cars to drive past 150 MPH and how many purchase them to feel the luxury of a super car or to show off?

Bitcoin has always been about Financial Freedom.  It is only that others found it can also work as an Investment Asset.  It would have been fantastic if almost everyone who used Bitcoin wanted Financial Freedom because this meant they would not comply with Know Your Customer, they would avoid Centralized Exchanges or use no Know Your Customer platforms et cetera.

The sad reality is that people barely care about it and only want Money.  The good side of the story is that whether they are holding Bitcoin for Financial Freedom or for monetary gains, they always have the option to care about their Freedom because Bitcoin naturally offers it.

[moneystery]

It comes back to each person's decision because not everyone is aware of self-custody. Many people are interested in Bitcoin only because of its potential increase in value, and therefore they have no problem putting their money in an ETF or a centralized exchange because they only aim to invest without caring much about storing it in a non-custodial wallet.
But this does not mean that the trend has changed, it is more about each person's decision and knowledge because if they trust their money to a centralized platform, they already understand the risk.

[Felicity_Tide]

Op, your take seem to be focused on crypto in general, even though it sounds like you're talking about Bitcoin in particular.
First, there are no general motto or strict beliefs guiding crypto, but most people often attribute Bitcoin's main purpose for the entire cryptocurrency in general even though a lot of them doesn't fall within same category, especially when we're talking about centralization/decentralization.

And also, these digital forms of money doesn't deviate, the end users are the ones deviating. Take for example the idea of a financial freedom, which boils down to something entirely different from the traditional system. People are supposed practice self custody that gives them 100% control, without the fear of any possible restrictions or too many questioning, but some end users still chooses to rely on third parties because they don't want to take responsibilities. The government/centralized parties, will always find ways to get involve in everything and not just crypto, but we all have a choice and decisions to make especially in this case, and that's the bright side of it.

[Hazink]

So here’s what I’m thinking, crypto shifted from a movement to just another asset class, or is the original purpose still intact beneath the surface?

If you are saying crypto in general, then you might be pointing at the wrong thing. Most of the cryptocurrencies out there was built for profit-making in the first place, not generally for it to help investors, but the developers' target is not far from it, so if being treated as an asset alone, nothing has shifted.

If we are to talk about bitcoin, it's just their full decentralised the purpose it was created for is still right there. Everyone is allowed to own bitcoin, what you choose to do with it is on you. The network doesn't decide that for you, those who treat it only as an asset do not prevent others from using it for other purposes.

[icebar]

Crypto was originally built around the idea of financial freedom, self-custody, permission-less access, and independence from traditional systems.

But today, a large part of the conversation seems to revolve around price, ETFs, institutions, and returns.

Many users are entering the space not for freedom, but for investment opportunities.

So here’s what I’m thinking, crypto shifted from a movement to just another asset class, or is the original purpose still intact beneath the surface?

Previously, people did not have any financial freedom. There was no such idea that people could transact freely, but since the emergence of Bitcoin, the situation has changed drastically among people. Bitcoin is providing people with financial freedom in many ways, including the convenience of keeping their money with them, the convenience of using it at any time, and the convenience of transferring Bitcoin without anyone's permission.

Despite having these conveniences, people are now not considering that aspect but are giving the highest priority to the convenience of investing in Bitcoin. Now, big institutions are coming forward in terms of investing in Bitcoin. Moreover, governments are also trying to reserve Bitcoin. I think the main thought is that anyone will have the opportunity to use Bitcoin freely as they wish. If someone wants to profit by holding it, he can do so, similarly, if someone wants to use the convenience of using it, it is also his own matter. Bitcoin can provide all kinds of support to a user.

[legiteum]

And are you seriously going to talk about how Bitcoin is somehow impervious to devaluation when... it just lost half of its value over the last six months?

Organic and natural rise and fall are part of the free market. The devaluation is neither continuous nor intrinsic to the design, though.

Devaluation isn't "continuous nor intrinsic to the design" of any asset. But they still go down and people still lose money on them.

Neither is it caused by abuse or incompetence of one man in control of everything.  

Again, I simply can't believe you can say that when Trump has done what he's done to the price of Bitcoin, and Michael Saylor owns enough Bitcoin (and most of the hype around it) that either of these characters could send the price into the toilet instantly if they felt like it.

Even the USD couldn't come down to one man but Bitcoin sure can.

Temporarily perhaps. Michael Saylor doesn't have control over Bitcoin. Donald Trump has over USD.

Yes, they don't control the Bitcoin network, all they control is... the price. In other words, the only thing about Bitcoin anybody cares about.

Today, right now, this minute, stablecoins transfer at least 100x the daily volume across borders than Bitcoin. Nobody is "censored" (whatever that means), and transactions are not "intercepted". It works just fine. In fact it works a thousand times better than Bitcoin, which is why most in high finance do it that way.

How did you know? That's not a statement of fact. What's factual is that billions in stablecoins have been frozen by the issuers themselves, thousands of addresses blacklisted.

Daily stablecoin volume today is about $300B.

Yesterday Bitcoin did about $1 billion.

So I was wrong: it's more like 300x not 100x.

https://www.plasma.to/learn/stablecoin-transaction-volume

https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/30d?c=e&t=b

However you make a good point: if you are a criminal, you should not use a stablecoin. But you shouldn't use Bitcoin either since it has a public ledger. You should use Monero instead.

For the other 99.99% of users, stablecoins work just fine.

Yes, the USD could fall in value in the future, but as we've seen in the markets, if the US markets go down, then Bitcoin goes down ten times more. It's the ultimate risk-on asset for speculation which means it's the first thing investors dump when they get nervous about the country.

1. On the contrary, the correlation is largely inverse. USD goes up, Bitcoin goes down, and vice versa. But, of course, it isn't a consistent behavior.

Um, did I miss the news where the USD went down in value by 50% in the last six months?

2. There are 194 countries that aren't Murica. Bitcoin could be a refuge when they're crumbling down.

Take away America's money from Bitcoin and the price falls by 95% at least. Probably a lot more since the US pulling out of it would scare the rest of the market and probably send it down 99.9%.

[Hypnosis00]

Crypto is still all about financial freedom. However, since only few of the countries are accepting bitcoin as a currency, that can be used like a daily currency, then people have shifted bitcoin as a tool for investment for now, especially seeing that its price has a lot of potentials to grow more in the next possible years and decade.

In the end, the idea of having bitcoin to gain financial freedom that is free of the bank and government shadows is still the main goal. Having it as a future retirement is just an additional.

[Jegileman]

Many users are entering the space not for freedom, but for investment opportunities.

So here’s what I’m thinking, crypto shifted from a movement to just another asset class, or is the original purpose still intact beneath the surface?

The original reason for the invention of bitcoin is still there, but sadly, people don’t even join crypto because of that but because of the incentive they can get to earn overtime after investing into the currency. For the main inventor of bitcoin, Satoshi invented it to be used as alternative to the fiat currency which is yet till now not widely used for that purpose but for the investment purpose itself. Crypto has shifted to what its intention was for, although this is how people react to it and not how it decides to move. It is not an undeniable fact that the incentivized part of crypto is what has bring about more people showing interest in it.