Bitcoin is not backed by anything, it has no intrinsic value

What the FUD is this?

The idea that a scarce digital asset can’t have value because it only exists in the digital world. For it to have value, proponents say it must be:

  • Backed by a precious metal (gold)
  • Backed by government (USD)
  • Backed by violence (USD)

or, in the view of Peter Schiff, you should at least be able to make jewellery out of it.

Squashing this FUD
Experts reply…
  • Bitcoiners have made several compelling arguments against this on the grounds that 1) intrinsic value is subjective and 2) Bitcoin does have intrinsic value as a good for censorship resistant payments.

    Intrinsic value is an old idea. Despite its ancient origins, intrinsic value is not directly linked to monetary functions. A good money needs to be many things — portable and easy to trade, scarce and durable to store value, fungible and divisible as a unit of account — but an alternative commodity use is not one of them. So why do many critics claim money needs intrinsic commodity value?

    Here I will argue that Bitcoin skeptics are right. Bitcoin has no “intrinsic value” as a commodity, but that’s a great thing for Bitcoin (and the rest of the world).

    Read On
  • A: Bitcoin has no intrinsic value

    B: What’s gold’s intrinsic value?

    A: It has industrial uses

    B: Most of the value is non-industrial

    A: Well it has qualities that derive from its physical nature

    B: Bitcoin has qualities that derive from its digital nature

    A: …

    B: …

Have another better source? Please help us squash the FUD by submitting it.

Squash this FUD

Start an argument