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