El Salvador abandons Bitcoin as legal tender

Speculative asset class fails as non-speculative legal tender class.

If king for the day with a sovereign wealth fund I wouldn't forbid investment choices like this on risk grounds, I mean you need risk assets as well as boring ones, right? But I have problems with the moral quality: it's like state investing in the casino business. Monaco? works fine. Anywhere else? It's got problems.

Like a lot of people, I probably fall into severe errors which would be bread and butter for "bad economics" reddit groups but truly, I can't see how this wasn't forseen and expected. It was about WHEN, not IF.

> Speculative asset class fails as non-speculative legal tender class.

This. Bitcoin proponents often claim that eventually everyone will use Bitcoin for payments ("Finally no more governments or central banks!") and that's why it will increase in value, so everyone should invest in BTC.

But this argument is fundamentally flawed: A currency, in order for it to work (in order for people to be able to trust it), needs to be stable in value. Which contradicts it being an investment vehicle and drastically varying in value over time.

What currency is stable in value? Certainly not the U.S. dollar.

A better way to put it is that a deflationary currency is, counterintuitively, not a particularly good currency.

The reality is, Bitcoin and similar, are not being used to actually purchase things. Not at any notable percentage. You're "best bet" is to horde it, and that doesn't make a good currency.

I come to these threads expecting criticism about bitcoin being funny internet money run by a small group of shady characters.

But most of the comments are about how stable currency and stores of wealth are actually bad! It kind of sounds like we think bitcoin is working.

If USD is inflating and Gold is staying still, is gold “deflating”?

What do you call someone who bought a pizza with BTC last year? Paper hands? Shouldn’t they have hodled and not had pizza? How can this be a currency.

The utility of the money is in how you spend it. Your same question could be asked about the S&P.

Why would anyone sell? Well at some point in your life you want to use the money to accomplish your life goals

You should not sell your shares in the S&P 500 to buy pizza unless your financial situation changes drastically for the worse or I guess maybe you are near death. As I said in the other thread, the problem is that btc is too desirable in the market to be a functioning currency and using it for pizza or impulsive daily purchases is a nonstarter in reality.

But you’re wrong. People sell S&P and BTC everyday even if they aren’t dying.

This is time value of money. If I wait 20 years instead of buying a house, I can have more money. But that’s 20 years of my life I didn’t live in the house I wanted.

I could invest more in S&P and not go on vacation, but then I won’t have as much time to go on vacations.

Goods and services now can be more valuable than money later, and that’s why people sell. And that’s why deflationary currency is fine.

I notice you mentioned big ticket purchases which I specifically did not mention. Your argument looks a bit different if you replace houses and vacation with lattes and sneakers. We live in a consumer economy where a marginal drag on purchasing activity due to currency deflation would probably be pretty disruptive to put it mildly.