OP? Bitcoin isn't a pyramid scheme, bad definition! There are many reason (practically) but you don't need to recruit no one and the ability and resilence of network isn't linked only to new users come into it. If I don't recruit or sell or whatever to other users I would net get any penalty for that. Even if I would do this I would not get any real benefit!
You are right: Bitcoin isn't exactly a typical Pyramid scheme either since individuals don't need to add nodes to the scheme in order to profit--it's a collective scheme: everybody
collectively needs to recruit new members to the scheme in order for existing members to profit. But individually you aren't required to do anything at all.
Another name for this type of investment is, "The Greater Fool Theory". This is somewhat derisive sounding, but it's what investors call meme investments like Bitcoin. GFT investments are those that depend entirely on more people coming in to the system and buying the same thing you bought when there were fewer people so you can sell what you bought at a profit.
Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with Pyramid schemes or GFT's: they are both entertainment just like gambling is.
So you're saying in the countries that's its not legal, Bitcoin doesn't matter there? Help me understand this.
From the standpoint of Bitcoin's price and financial activity, Bitcoin is legal in enough places to make it completely mainstream. Legalizing Bitcoin in the few places that it's still illegal wouldn't make much difference to its overall adoption numbers.
"Thiel added that because Bitcoin fails to produce any yield, it depends on the fact that more people want to buy it than want to sell it."
I don’t understand why he would say this. Most people and institutions investing in Bitcoin see it as a long-term asset, so they’re comfortable holding it for years rather than selling. Am I missing something here?
Institutions don't have "long terms assets" they just have assets. Unlike us lazy individuals who have jobs and other things to do all day--and thus we passively invest and leave stuff in our portfolio for a long time because we forget about it--large institutional investors have large staffs (and now AI agents) that reevaluate every single aspect of their portfolio every single day.
The only reason any institution holds Bitcoin at any given time is that they think there's a good chance they will be able to sell it for more in the future. If they thought otherwise, they would sell the asset in milliseconds.
Stablecoin are not independent currency. Almost all major stablecoin ultimately depend on fiat currency and issuer. So your account can be frozen, blacklisted or your transfer can be blocked by issuer or regulator. Bitcoin does not require that trusted third party. Satoshi's main innovation was trustless digital money.
Almost everybody who holds Bitcoin today--especially on a volume basis--does so with some kind of custodial account like CoinBase or Binance or one of the ETFs. Those act just like a regular bank account.
Almost nobody stays awake at night and fears that their assets will be frozen by the government--and those who do probably wouldn't use Bitcoin anyhow, they would use Monero since it's truly anonymous.
Today, stablecoins are doing billions of dollars per day in volume (many times more than BTC) and nobody seems to care about this "problem"...
Why is Gold and other stocks are not considered a pyramid scheme, because they works based on buying and selling, the same way Bitcoin works also.
Gold often
is considered the same kind of pyramid scheme that Bitcoin is, since it's acts like a meme investment in the same way Bitcoin does. Gold, however, does have actual practical use so it's not a "pure meme" like Bitcoin is. But particularly when gold doubles in value like it has in the past few years, people consider that a "meme" phenomenon, not practical demand.
Stocks are completely different because there is a company that is making profits, has potential to make more profits, and so on. Hence investors focus on the machinery of the company behind the stock, and not the demand for the stock itself. (There are some "meme stocks" out there too, where investors seem to be ignoring the fundamentals, but most are based on actual
stuff).
But that doesn't mean that payment aren't being made in Bitcoin. We are also now using Lightning Network, Fedimint and the new L2 solution.
Bitcoin L2s haven't taken off because there's no point in using them: they have all of the issues that more centralized (and thus faster and more efficient) coins have, and none of the advantages. That's why stablecoins now do perhaps 100x the volume that all of the Bitcoin L2s do combined--and this will just just more extreme in the future.
And L2s are not Bitcoin, and it's dishonest to imply that "Bitcoin is A, B and C" and then imply that the L2
also has those features when it doesn't. Using an L2 is using a completely different product that has a completely different set of security issues, and does not impart the decentralization that Bitcoin itself does--it's no different that using something like CoinBase or Robinhood to buy Bitcoin.
So, is it a defect to have no yield?
Does pure gold or dry cash generate any yield or interest?
So are they failing to maintain their value?
Most people don't hold much or any of their portfolios in cash. Bitcoin does not compete with USD or other sovereign currencies, it competes with stocks, bonds, and things like sports betting.
Since Bitcoin does not give yield, it is Pristine Collateral and Hard Money.
LOL, don't you think it's a bit crazy calling it "hard money" when it's lost half of its value in the last year?
