I get that anything is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. That’s besides the point. My point is, beyond speculation, what do crypto coins represent?

I also understand that the value of the US dollar is being questioned almost as much without the backing of gold.

But what I really want to know is what is at the foundation level of Bitcoin that people are buying into?

I have a basic understanding of the blockchain, etc. I sold 1BTC in 2017 for $1200 when I thought that was as high as it would go. At this point, at over $100kUSD and rising steadily, what is the $ limit and what is that limit based upon? I thought it was based on the value of mining to check transactions but this seems… not worth $100k to me.

I’ve been thinking, the only tangible value I personally see in Bitcoin, because it’s not really being used as legitimate currency, is for criminals. By now, there must be trillions of dollars in BTC acquired by criminals holding corporations hostage. When you’ve got people like Trump involved (either explicitly or by way of manipulation) with an executive order to establish a crypto czar, this suggests to me that he’s creating pathways for bad actors to more effectively gain more wealth. These are the people who are most excited in Bitcoin, beyond speculation.

I mean, there’s little to nothing on the up and up with crypto, right? It’s a scam. Right?

Please, factual answers only. I’m looking for someone to dispel my speculation with genuine economics of the matter.

  • tired_n_bored@lemmy.world
    1·
    9 hours ago

    Cryptocurrencies don’t rely on a central entity and is the Lemmy equivalent to Reddit compared to the fiat currency. I like it and I like the technology but

    • Good luck at having a proper stable economy using only crypto. Cryptobros hate central banks but their policies ensure that a loaf of bread doesn’t cost 3 times as much the next day. I’d rather have a central trusted authority than not having one
    • Bitcoin by itself sucks. It was the first crypto so it’s the most common but it’s slow, heavy and costly to operate and to transact on
    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      2·
      8 hours ago

      Cryptobros hate central banks but their policies ensure that a loaf of bread doesn’t cost 3 times as much the next day.

      The exact opposite. Only after abandoning the gold standard does a central bank have the power to make a loaf of bread cost 3 times as much the next day.

      Central banks are a relatively new invention and are not essential in the slightest.

      • tired_n_bored@lemmy.world
        3·
        7 hours ago

        They are able to regulate the interest rate. We don’t perceive a change of value of our fiat on a regular basis. What yesterday was $1, today is $1.0000001. Good luck maintaining the same purchasing power with Bitcoin (in terms of stability)

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 hours ago

          Because they can’t run out of money, central banks can be the largest buyer and seller over the short term.

          But there is no economic rule that demands those entities exist. For example, from 1863 to 1913 the US had almost no use for a central bank.

          Note that I’m very far from suggesting the world’s economy should run on bitcoin. Just that central banks are not as essential as they are made out to be. They are used as much to cause inflation as they are to control it.