In my opinion, the best way to value Bitcoin is to think of it as a publicly owned company. Right now, there are...
That's nice analogy in theory, except Bitcoin is not traded like a publicly-owned company.
When you invest in shares of Western Union, you are doing so in a proven, viable business that is
financially regulated, and accountable to shareholders.
Like MF Global?
When you "invest" in Bitcoins you are entering a world of unregulated if not somewhat nefarious
manipulators, out-of-control margin "gamblers', and over-exuberant traders who are speculating
Bitcoin out of existence with parabolic rallies, pump-n-dump crashes, and Bitcoinica starfish nonsense.
Probably the most important factor in the adoption of Bitcoins: a stable trading price. And when
is that going to happen?
To the point I alluded to in my smart-ass rhetorical question, another way to skin the cat (or for the cat to be skinned) would be if the 'traditional' markets start to fail. I don't rule that out, and in fact, I am anticipating it to some degree. To what degree I do not really know, but if people start to feel like they are being bent over and the regulatory and enforcement agencies are not looking out for them, the mathematical certainties of Bitcoin may start to look attractive in spite of the volatility which it exhibits.
I do believe that the goal of the MF Global take-down was, in part
, to establish in case law certain features which were introduced into legislation along with the bankruptcy reforms were put into place circa 2005...just in time for the housing bust funny enough. As I understand things (derived from reading non-mainstream ravings) part of this legislation involved a shuffling in how creditors line up to take haircuts when financial organizations fail.http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=198650