There has been a great deal of discussion lately regarding whether or not Bitcoin is a currency of an asset, or just a store of value. Indeed, what we are talking about here is not necessarily one of the most popular issues in all of economics. Indeed, the fact that Bitcoin has become the subject of such discussion can easily be explained by the fact that Bitcoin has become the least understood and most controversial issue in the entire world of cryptocurrencies.
This is true for a number of reasons, and one of the primary reasons for this has been the fact that the Bitcoin-Financial Media is still coming to grips with the ramifications of Bitcoin, including its potential to alter how the whole world perceives money. The fact that there have been many powerful arguments about whether or not Bitcoin is money a currency, or something else is only one of the many examples of the fact that there are still some real philosophical differences about what Bitcoin is and what it means. The most important thing to keep in mind is that it is still too early to come to any definitive conclusions about Bitcoin, whether it is a currency a store of value, or something else.
In order to understand what Bitcoin is, one needs to understand what money is and how a particular economic system is built on money. While these questions are not directly related to what Bitcoin is, they are intimately connected to the whole question of how Bitcoin might affect the future of how society thinks about money. For example, it has been widely discussed that there has been some recent moves away from the U.S. dollar, and toward other major currencies such as the Euro and the Japanese yen.
These political movements are being led by countries such as China and India, who are both experiencing significant economic growth. While it is difficult to predict exactly what will happen in the long run, there are some major implications for how governments and international institutions to think about how they want to change how the world will make money. After all, if a large number of people are moving away from using the U.S. dollar, it would certainly be in the best interests of these countries to try to establish their own versions of a global currency.
On the other hand, there are also some major political pressures on how governments and institutions treat money. For example, China is facing serious social and economic problems that are forcing them to consider abandoning the Yuan in favor of a different kind of monetary system. If Bitcoin was used by one of these developing countries to replace the U.S. dollar, would we see a massive loss of global trade?
No, we would not, because it is important to recognize that a currency is only as good as the political forces behind it. In fact, the political forces behind Bitcoin would play the key role in determining whether or not it is successful as a currency. For example, would Bitcoin’s biggest proponent, governments and central banks, actually allow it to gain a significant amount of popularity?
Of course they would, because it is likely that they would want to avoid a repeat of the very large amounts of capital that was suddenly fleeing their global monetary policy in 2020. Indeed, this is why governments should take some of the risk out of the equation and let Bitcoin compete against the rest of the currencies in the world, rather than pushing it into the shadows as a non-currency.
Indeed, one of the things that makes Bitcoin interesting is that its supporters are mostly anarcho-libertarians who feel that governments should only deal with crimes, not with money itself. Therefore, if Bitcoin is taken seriously as a currency, it is likely that it would simply encourage governments to become even more rigid when it comes to enforcing their policies against the general public. Indeed, it is probably safe to say that Bitcoin will eventually need to work hard to convince governments that they need to allow it to become a “normal” form of money.