MARA CEO: For payments, Bitcoin NO, stablecoins YES

[ultrloa]

I never liked Mara pool or any of their actions in the past.
It is so stupid to think AI bubble will continue in future without exploding, and promoting stablecoin payment while mining bitcoin is totally idiotic 

I really understand why you are annoyed on them. Because Mara really have a long history of having terrible decision. Many people same as you don't like or trust their pool.

Saying that Ai trend or bubble will continue forever is pretty much unrealistic. Because if we look back past hype cycles many of those eventually cools down. Also their promotion about having stable coin payment while they are doing Bitcoin mining is really contradictory, It seems they don't understand the ETHOS while they are continuously mining.

With all of those actions they made it just show that they are trying to chase trend, than trying to bring some good value on their company.

[OsaiEmma]

~snip

I meme investment is simply an investment that is not driven by any fundamentals, but rather purely by the demand for its name. There are lots of investments that are like this, at least to some extent. TSLA and SpaceX (and anything Elon Musk is associated with) are at least partially driven by their meme. Gold often works this way.

Bitcoin is a "pure" meme investment since it has no fundamentals at all: its price is driven purely by people's perception that more people will buy it.

Insofar as Bitcoin has utility as a means of value transfer, that value is in no way reflected in the price: Bitcoin would work just fine if the price of BTC was $1.

First of all, Tesla and SpaceX are not meme investment; they're real companies that produces yields [source] [source]. I honestly don't know where you get your sources from backing up your claim.

Secondly you say gold is a meme investment too? OMG! That is so absurd. You say gold has no yield? Wait! Is it that I have zero understanding about this world or what? You use gold to make jewelry, medical purposes, in decorations and household wares, electronics, labs, etc. I guess you say this because gold is not a "company" on its own, hope you can make the same claim with oil & gas, silver, metals, diamond, wood & timber etc. Please, don't go on in saying "Gold is a meme investment because it has no yield". Gold is not a meme investment in any way.

Now let's talk about Bitcoin, before giving it the label of a "Meme investment", what is a meme investment/stock?

A meme stock is a stock that gains popularity among retail investors through social media. The popularity of meme stocks is generally based on internet memes shared among traders, on platforms such as Reddit's r/wallstreetbets. Investors in such stocks are often young and inexperienced investors. As a result of their popularity, meme stocks often trade at prices that are above their estimated value – as based on fundamental analysis– and are known for being extremely speculative and volatile.

What are meme coins?

A meme coin (also spelled memecoin) is a cryptocurrency that originated from an internet meme or has some other humorous characteristic.

The term is sometimes used interchangeably with the term shitcoin, which typically refers to a cryptocurrency with little to no value, authenticity, or utility. It may be used in the broadest sense as a critique of the cryptocurrency market in its entirety — those based on particular memes such as Dogecoin, celebrities like Coinye, and pump-and-dump schemes such as BitConnect — or it may be used to make cryptocurrency more accessible.

Now 2 take away:
• Meme investments are based on hype and social media influence, not just based on the number of investors to push the price. A lot of stocks and trading pairs are structured this way in forex anyways; this is simply the law of demand and supply.

• Meme stocks/coins have no real utility, they are purely community based coins.

Now we all know that Bitcoin doesn't satisfy these two criterias to be given the meme coin/stock/investment label. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[legiteum]

~snip

I meme investment is simply an investment that is not driven by any fundamentals, but rather purely by the demand for its name. There are lots of investments that are like this, at least to some extent. TSLA and SpaceX (and anything Elon Musk is associated with) are at least partially driven by their meme. Gold often works this way.

Bitcoin is a "pure" meme investment since it has no fundamentals at all: its price is driven purely by people's perception that more people will buy it.

Insofar as Bitcoin has utility as a means of value transfer, that value is in no way reflected in the price: Bitcoin would work just fine if the price of BTC was $1.

First of all, Tesla and SpaceX are not meme investment; they're real companies that produces yields

You did not read my entire post. I said their stock price is partially driven by their memes rather than their fundamentals. That is in contrast, for instance, to "pure" memes like Bitcoin.

Secondly you say gold is a meme investment too?

Nope, I didn't. Again, please read my post (or read it again?).

[...]
Now we all know that Bitcoin doesn't satisfy these two criterias to be given the meme coin/stock/investment label. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Memecoins are a different thing--and a term, again, I did not use. You're having a conversation with somebody else here .

Bitcoin has no fundamentals: its price is driven entirely by its popularity as an investment. That's what people call a "meme investment".

Other investments have fundamentals, such as their utility or their ability to generate profits. Some investments are a combination of the two.

[alani123]

The OP misunderstands the nature of the statement.

MARA CEO clearly says people would rather hold BTC because it's non inflationary. People are very unlikely to even invest their BTC as there's no reliable way to achieve yield on it at least with guarantees. Much unlike USD and EUR which are inflationary.

In any case I'd say people need to consider that these statements are nothing new.
The places of the world that need reliable payments already adopted stablecoins. Immutability isn't necessarily needed when trying to buy a coffee or groceries. Although it would be nice to have access to it seamlessly current solutions available might be fast but don't solve other problems. BTC is too speculative and it's unlikely the price will stabilise against USD in the future. So it's not favoured for payments.

[MadSl1m]

Forty plus posts of theory, so here is the empirical side. I keep a database of consumer crypto cards, currently 140 that you can actually sign up for: 100 accept a stablecoin top up, 55 accept BTC, and 56 take stablecoins while not supporting Bitcoin at all. Only 11 do the reverse.

And the 55 that do take BTC convert it at the moment you spend, because Visa and Mastercard settle in fiat. So on the payment layer Bitcoin is the funding asset, not the unit that moves. That says nothing about store of value, which is where most of this thread actually disagrees, but on payments specifically the vote already happened. 

[Zlantann]

Bitcoin has no fundamentals: its price is driven entirely by its popularity as an investment. That's what people call a "meme investment".

People calling a lizard a chameleon doesn't make it right. There will always be a misconception about an asset. The perception that Bitcoin is a meme investment is outdated.  

The OP misunderstands the nature of the statement.

MARA CEO clearly says people would rather hold BTC because it's non inflationary. People are very unlikely to even invest their BTC as there's no reliable way to achieve yield on it at least with guarantees. Much unlike USD and EUR which are inflationary.

In any case I'd say people need to consider that these statements are nothing new.
The places of the world that need reliable payments already adopted stablecoins. Immutability isn't necessarily needed when trying to buy a coffee or groceries. Although it would be nice to have access to it seamlessly current solutions available might be fast but don't solve other problems. BTC is too speculative and it's unlikely the price will stabilise against USD in the future. So it's not favoured for payments.

Exactly.  

Fred Thiel even said his views about Bitcoin have not changed and he still holds the coin as an asset. It's not new that people prefer to use stablecoins for everyday transactions because of their less volatile nature and growing popularity.

In my country stablecoins are more popular than Bitcoin because people see them as a reliable digital form of the U.S. dollar. People are so used to a dollarized system that it is difficult to seek or use alternatives.

[OsaiEmma]

~snip

I meme investment is simply an investment that is not driven by any fundamentals, but rather purely by the demand for its name. There are lots of investments that are like this, at least to some extent. TSLA and SpaceX (and anything Elon Musk is associated with) are at least partially driven by their meme. Gold often works this way.

Bitcoin is a "pure" meme investment since it has no fundamentals at all: its price is driven purely by people's perception that more people will buy it.

Insofar as Bitcoin has utility as a means of value transfer, that value is in no way reflected in the price: Bitcoin would work just fine if the price of BTC was $1.

First of all, Tesla and SpaceX are not meme investment; they're real companies that produces yields

You did not read my entire post. I said their stock price is partially driven by their memes rather than their fundamentals. That is in contrast, for instance, to "pure" memes like Bitcoin.

Secondly you say gold is a meme investment too?

Nope, I didn't. Again, please read my post (or read it again?).

Okey...explain what you mean here.

I meme investment is simply an investment that is not driven by any fundamentals, but rather purely by the demand for its name. There are lots of investments that are like this, at least to some extent. TSLA and SpaceX (and anything Elon Musk is associated with) are at least partially driven by their meme. Gold often works this way.

You were clearly defining what a meme investment is (which you're wrong in by the way), and you mentioned Tesla and SpaceX as being  partially a meme investment; so tell me how I am wrong if I said "Tesla and SpaceX are not meme investment" you also said Gold often works that way, remember?.

You're clearly calling Tesla, SpaceX, and Gold partially meme investments by saying they're partially driven by there memes, or am I missing something? And I'm saying they are not in any way form or shape a meme investment.

Meme investment is not even a real word, we have meme stocks and meme coins, investing in them can be seen as a meme investment, so saying Tesla, SpaceX and Gold are "partially" a meme investment, or partially driven by there memes(which I interpret as the same thing, or am I wrong again?) is like saying investing in them is like partially investing in a meme stock.

I know you previously pointed out gold has utility, I forgot you said that and focused on the post I was replying to, so that's an oversight in my part, but don't associate these stock with memes, go check the meaning of whatsoever you're describing.

You said meme investments are not driven by fundamentals, but in reality they are, especially from social medias and communities.

[...]
Now we all know that Bitcoin doesn't satisfy these two criterias to be given the meme coin/stock/investment label. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Memecoins are a different thing--and a term, again, I did not use. You're having a conversation with somebody else here .

Bitcoin has no fundamentals: its price is driven entirely by its popularity as an investment. That's what people call a "meme investment".

Other investments have fundamentals, such as their utility or their ability to generate profits. Some investments are a combination of the two.

I didn't say you used memecoin and besides, I expanded to both investments and stocks for clarity. You said Bitcoin has no fundamentals, what on earth does that even mean? No asset on earth that doesn't have fundamentals, again "meme investment" is not what you're describing here please.....

The truth is, as I mentioned earlier in the post you quoted, every financial asset in every market(forex, equity, commodities, and crypto) is being influenced by buyers and sellers, these buyers and sellers are influenced by either news, sentiment or technical analysis. Every single trading instrument with the exception of none has this characteristics.

They all can be grouped into meme stocks/coins and stocks/coins with real utility, none are in-between. There is no such thing as a "partial meme investment", if an assets increases in price based on fundamental means it's a meme or partial meme investment, then every asset ever in existence is a "partial meme investment". If they don't have any real utility but are strongly influenced by hypes, speculations, and fundamental, then they're memes; if there is any utility, they can no longer be classified as a meme despite the hype or fundamentals.

Bitcoin has real utility, ranging from its cross-border transactions usage, to it being the bedrock of almost all the cryptocurrency's ecosystem and so much more, it shouldn't be labeled as a "meme investment" (lemme use your exact wording though not exactly correct).

[legiteum]

You're clearly calling Tesla, SpaceX, and Gold partially meme investments by saying they're partially driven by there memes, or am I missing something? And I'm saying they are not in any way form or shape a meme investment.

Yes, now we're aligned in what is being said. Good.

Yes, TSLA and gold are two instruments that have a defined set of fundamentals that drive their market price and that price is also often driven partially by their meme.

In both cases, if these instruments because extremely "uncool" among investors, the price would fall, but they would still be very valuable--they would have a price floor based on their fundamentals no matter how much people hated them.

Bitcoin and other cryptos are "pure" meme investments in that they are driven entirely on their popularity because they have no fundamentals.

The truth is, as I mentioned earlier in the post you quoted, every financial asset in every market(forex, equity, commodities, and crypto) is being influenced by buyers and sellers, these buyers and sellers are influenced by either news, sentiment or technical analysis. Every single trading instrument with the exception of none has this characteristics.

Yes, but it's the content of the news that is important. If there is news that Tesla is selling a lot more cars or that they are going to be hurt by regulations, that news affects their stock price. The news around Bitcoin and other pure meme instruments is entirely around their price and investor sentiment as an end in itself. Bitcoin has no fundamentals, so there cannot possibly be any news around that.

Bitcoin has real utility, ranging from its cross-border transactions usage, to it being the bedrock of almost all the cryptocurrency's ecosystem and so much more, it shouldn't be labeled as a "meme investment" (lemme use your exact wording though not exactly correct).

Bitcoin would do all of those things if the price as $1 per coin, too. Indeed, it would accomplish those things better if the price was actually fixed.

And Bitcoin is now only a tiny fraction of money being moved around since that has been taken over by stablecoins. If that had any bearing on Bitcoin's price, the price would be 1/100th what it was 5 years ago since it's lost most of its marketshare for utility purposes in that time.

Bitcoin has maintained its value (well, half of it anyhow ) because people still think it's a cool investment. If it had anything to do with utility it would be at nearly zero.

[Btcdeybodi]

Here you have the one of the biggest proponents of Bitcoin on the planet--a guy who literally makes more money if Bitcoin is more widely adopted--saying that Bitcoin has no future as a means of value transfer.

This is not the first time, neither will it the last time that bitcoin critics will say that bitcoin has no future, they have been saying it over a decade but yet they keep being disappointed whenever the price of bitcoin hits a new ATH.

He goes on to say what most people already know but are afraid to admit: that Bitcoin is a pure meme investment and a pyramid scheme that depends entirely on other people paying more than you did for the same asset so you can sell it at a profit:

It is laughable to call bitcoin a meme investment. If it was a meme investment why didn't it disappear after all these years? why didn't the value depreciate and why are more people wanting to adopt it?
Remember that bitcoin is a payment method even though people are not actively making use of it as everyday money but you should understand that the principal reason for creating bitcoin was never to use it as an investment scheme but as an alternative means of payment after the failure of traditional banking system.

"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."

So when people tend to buy something and store it instead of selling it, what did you think that such a thing has?
Something that is valuable will always be scarce because those who own it will protect it than selling it out.
Bitcoin is valuable, therefore people will always want to buy it and hold.

[legiteum]

Here you have the one of the biggest proponents of Bitcoin on the planet--a guy who literally makes more money if Bitcoin is more widely adopted--saying that Bitcoin has no future as a means of value transfer.

This is not the first time, neither will it the last time that bitcoin critics will say that bitcoin has no future, they have been saying it over a decade but yet they keep being disappointed whenever the price of bitcoin hits a new ATH.

LOL. You made his point for him and you didn't even notice! 

(All you care about is number-go-up, not using Bitcoin as a means of value transfer).

It is laughable to call bitcoin a meme investment. If it was a meme investment why didn't it disappear after all these years? why didn't the value depreciate and why are more people wanting to adopt it?

Lots of memes stay around for many years. Bitcoin's meme might get even more popular. Calling Bitcoin a meme investment is not a knock on Bitcoin.

Remember that bitcoin is a payment method even though people are not actively making use of it as everyday money [...]

Absolutely. Just like Coca Cola is a great way to extinguish fires even though most people don't use it that way...

Bitcoin is valuable, therefore people will always want to buy it and hold.

Bitcoin is valuable because you think it's valuable, yes.

[OsaiEmma]

~snip

Bitcoin has real utility, ranging from its cross-border transactions usage, to it being the bedrock of almost all the cryptocurrency's ecosystem and so much more, it shouldn't be labeled as a "meme investment" (lemme use your exact wording though not exactly correct).

Bitcoin would do all of those things if the price as $1 per coin, too. Indeed, it would accomplish those things better if the price was actually fixed.

And Bitcoin is now only a tiny fraction of money being moved around since that has been taken over by stablecoins. If that had any bearing on Bitcoin's price, the price would be 1/100th what it was 5 years ago since it's lost most of its marketshare for utility purposes in that time.

Bitcoin has maintained its value (well, half of it anyhow ) because people still think it's a cool investment. If it had anything to do with utility it would be at nearly zero.

I want you to clearly explain what a "meme investment" is please, and what you mean by "often driven partially by their meme". I honestly don't understand those two points from the way you're using them. Unless they're meme stocks or coins, each fundamentals around stocks, currency pairs and digital commodities with real utility have verifiable news/fundamentals which creates speculations (hype or FUD), not out of thin air or community hype or FUD like memes. So explain those two terms so I can see things from your perspective.

Now unto the part I've quoted; you said even at $1, Bitcoin will still do what it was designed for. Why do you think the price exploded? Do you think Bitcoin exploded in price because Satoshi and the Bitcoin community hyped Bitcoin and said, "buy Bitcoin because it's going to the moon"? Investors, contributors, and individual saw its utility and keyed into it.

Besides, if Bitcoin remained at $1, it will certainly fail. There won't be incentives for miners, the system will certainly break in such scenario.

If it had anything to do with utility it would be at nearly zero.

How can you say this? Even Paypal's stock is not zero and it is not as grounded as Bitcoin: they both are used for cross border transactions(that's the only thing PayPal is used for) but Bitcoin has more added utility seeing it is solving the problem of inflation, financial control and freedom, centralization, and at the same time rewarding active contributors/miners, and you say Bitcoin won't have value with utilities alone? Have you even read a little history about Bitcoin, go through old posts here in the forum, or read a little about Satoshi and his proposal and tell me if you're a wise investor you won't invest in Bitcoin back then (or maybe not).

One major event that always influences the price of Bitcoin is its miners reward halving, that's a major news that influence how much people value it because it indicates its level of scarcity. This is not mere speculation or hype, it is a verifiable news. These verifiable news gives birth to speculations, every single asset in the world except for memecoins and assets works this way.

If you insist on calling Bitcoin a "meme investment" you should also call Microsoft, NVIDIA, Gold, oil and gas etc a meme investment too.

[RGBTC]

I haven't delved much into MARA's new venture, but this comment seems to be an implicit signal that they won't be allowing Bitcoin much of a foothold in their AI server business. Considering the legal implications of their business, it makes sense that they'll only be involved in regulated coins like stablecoins, as AI has a dark side and is highly susceptible to cybercriminal activity.

[legiteum]

~snip

Bitcoin has real utility, ranging from its cross-border transactions usage, to it being the bedrock of almost all the cryptocurrency's ecosystem and so much more, it shouldn't be labeled as a "meme investment" (lemme use your exact wording though not exactly correct).

Bitcoin would do all of those things if the price as $1 per coin, too. Indeed, it would accomplish those things better if the price was actually fixed.

And Bitcoin is now only a tiny fraction of money being moved around since that has been taken over by stablecoins. If that had any bearing on Bitcoin's price, the price would be 1/100th what it was 5 years ago since it's lost most of its marketshare for utility purposes in that time.

Bitcoin has maintained its value (well, half of it anyhow ) because people still think it's a cool investment. If it had anything to do with utility it would be at nearly zero.

I want you to clearly explain what a "meme investment" is please, [...]

A meme investment is one that has no fundamentals, but is rather driven purely by its popularity.

and what you mean by "often driven partially by their meme".

There are some investments, like gold and TSLA, that have fundamentals which drives their price, but are also sometimes partially driven by their investment popularity.

Take gold for instance. Besides all of the other industrial uses (virtually everybody has at least a tiny amount of gold near them these days), gold is also desired to as jewelry or as a decoration. This drives the price to a certain amount as those different demands go higher or lower. Sometimes, for instance, gold will be more fashionable to be worn, and sometimes less so.

However, sometimes, in the history of gold, there have been times when investors have decided that gold was popular purely as an investment and that popularly has driven up the price. Hence the price is bolstered by the meme aspect, as well as the fundamentals.

Now unto the part I've quoted; you said even at $1, Bitcoin will still do what it was designed for. Why do you think the price exploded? Do you think Bitcoin exploded in price because Satoshi and the Bitcoin community hyped Bitcoin and said, "buy Bitcoin because it's going to the moon"? Investors, contributors, and individual saw its utility and keyed into it.

It's unclear that "Satoshi" hyped it, but certainly many Bitcoin whales did, and still do.

Today, Bitcoin is rarely used as a means of value transfer since there are much better products to do that.

If it had anything to do with utility it would be at nearly zero.

How can you say this? Even Paypal's stock is not zero and it is not as grounded as Bitcoin:

PayPal works far better as a means of payment, which is why millions of sites take PayPal. Because of this, PayPal, as a company providing software and services, is very valuable. People invest in PayPal, Inc. because they think they will get more customers, or have higher profits in the future, and so on.

they both are used for cross border transactions(that's the only thing PayPal is used for)

PayPal has over 36 million merchants and 439 million user accounts.

but Bitcoin has more added utility seeing it is solving the problem of inflation,

Bitcoin lost half of its value over the last 12 months.

[...] and tell me if you're a wise investor you won't invest in Bitcoin back then (or maybe not).

I might invest in Bitcoin since its meme may become more popular and the price will go up, which will mean I would profit when I sell it.

I personally don't study memes, and I don't do that kind of investing, but some investors do, which is fine.

If you insist on calling Bitcoin a "meme investment" you should also call Microsoft, NVIDIA, Gold, oil and gas etc a meme investment too.

Microsoft creates and manages the software that powers millions of companies and individuals. Nvidea makes chips that power AI answers that in turn deliver value to individuals and companies, making them more productive. Gold... we talked about above. Oil and gas power the electricity that allows you to type your post into this little box .

These are all things that investors call "fundamentals". Bitcoin doesn't have those . That's what the OP meant.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The guy is literally pivoting to AI data centers and talking up Bitcoin as a sovereign store of value. You somehow hallucinated "pyramid scheme."

A meme investment is one that has no fundamentals, but is rather driven purely by its popularity.

Then Bitcoin is not a meme investment, because it does have fundamentals. It allows people to transact in a permissionless fashion. Why do you think it has no fundamentals?

[legiteum]

A meme investment is one that has no fundamentals, but is rather driven purely by its popularity.

Then Bitcoin is not a meme investment, because it does have fundamentals. It allows people to transact in a permissionless fashion. Why do you think it has no fundamentals?

It does not have marketable value based on its utility. In other words, Bitcoin's ability to transact has nothing to do with its market price. Bitcoin could trade at $1 and still transact just fine.

Moreover, Bitcoin has drastically lost marketshare in the last few years when it comes to transacting, and yet the value has not reflected that loss of market share (i.e. it's only fallen by 50% and yet it's marketshare for transaction volume has fallen by 95% or more). Not only that, if it's ability to transact was what drove its price, then that would necessarily be forward-looking in any marketplace, and the trend for Bitcoin is clearly downward in that regard, not upward. In other words, if there was a "Bitcoin Inc." who provided transactions as a service, then that company's stock would be in the crapper .

If Bitcoin's daily transaction count doubled, or it fell by 99%, that would have no effect on the price of BTC. Almost nobody knows how many transactions per day Bitcoin does because investors don't care. That's not the case for businesses like PayPal or Visa, whose stock price is directly affected by those numbers, for instance.

Bitcoin's price is clearly driven by its meme, not its utility. That's why nobody calls Bitcoin a "utility coin", and that phrase is used to contrast certain  digital currencies from memes like Bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

It does not have marketable value based on its utility.

How can you be sure about this claim? I can confidently say that its market value has reached that high because of its technology. Being hard to create is the technology, and the market rewards the asset that is the hardest to create.

Bitcoin could trade at $1 and still transact just fine.

This applies to every bearer asset. Gold could trade at $1 tomorrow, and it'd still be used in electronics just fine.

In other words, if there was a "Bitcoin Inc." who provided transactions as a service, then that company's stock would be in the crapper

There is no "market share" for transaction volume. Visa and Mastercard do not go up in value because they have more transactions. 

If Bitcoin's daily transaction count doubled, or it fell by 99%, that would have no effect on the price of BTC.

I'm glad you acknowledge this metric is completely meaningless for its market value.

Almost nobody knows how many transactions per day Bitcoin does because investors don't care. That's not the case for businesses like PayPal or Visa, whose stock price is directly affected by those numbers, for instance.

Correct, the market value of Bitcoin does not come from the number of transactions. It comes from being permissionless, decentralized, resistant to arbitrary inflation and borderless. Bitcoin is not a company like Visa, nor does Visa gain market value because it has more transactions than another company, but this is another discussion.

Bitcoin's price is clearly driven by its meme, not its utility.

That's incorrect. Its utility is its technology, and its technology is being hard to create. People speculate that it will go up more in fiat terms, because it is exactly harder to make than fiat, and thus protects Bitcoin holders from fiat generated inflation.

[legiteum]

There is no "market share" for transaction volume. Visa and Mastercard do not go up in value because they have more transactions. 

Huh? There absolutely is, and they absolutely do. What do you actually think PayPal and Visa do for a living?

Here's Visa's 10Q earnings release. Note that their primary metric is payment volume:

https://s1.q4cdn.com/050606653/files/doc_financials/2026/q3/Q3-2026-Earnings-Release_vF.pdf

If Bitcoin's daily transaction count doubled, or it fell by 99%, that would have no effect on the price of BTC.

I'm glad you acknowledge this metric is completely meaningless for its market value.

Great, then we agree. If that's the case, then transactions (Bitcoin's only actual utility) are not what makes Bitcoin valuable--it's meme does.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Great, then we agree. If that's the case, then transactions (Bitcoin's only actual utility) are not what makes Bitcoin valuable--it's meme does.

Permissionless transactions aren't its only utility, and its market value isn't measured just by how many of them are executed. Utility also comes from its predictable inflation schedule, the 21 million hard cap, borderless accessibility, confiscation resistance, and multi-sig shared custody of a bearer asset. These are facts you know well, yet remain in denial of despite the market's clear recognition.

[legiteum]

Utility also comes from its predictable inflation schedule, [...]

ROFL. What "predictable inflation schedule" would that be?  The one where Bitcoin lost half of its value in the last 12 months?

Are you able to predict the price of Bitcoin in a year? In a month? In the next five minutes?

If you are, you shouldn't be wasting your time shooting the breeze here, you should be only Polymarket playing with perps and making yourself infinitely rich  .

the 21 million hard cap, borderless accessibility, confiscation resistance, and multi-sig shared custody of a bearer asset. These are facts you know well, yet remain in denial of despite the market's clear recognition.

These are all features of a Bitcoin transaction. If these things were more important to people, they would be doing more of it. But it isn't, and indeed, people only sell their Bitcoin when they judge that they price is as high as they will get for it, or they are forced to liquidate because they have bills to pay.

I don't deny that Bitcoin is very well-known and is very popular, which is why it trades at the value it trades at. But that's the Bitcoin meme, not the Bitcoin product.

People who invest in Bitcoin do so by clicking a different button on their investment app. They do that because they've heard the word, "Bitcoin" and associate it with increased prices in the future. Bitcoin has mooned before, and maybe it will moon again, so people buy it. But there is no pending fundamental external driver to that mooning--the price of Bitcoin is the only thing Bitcoin "does".