Topic: Bitcoin: "Maybe Is a Partial Store of Value" - page 3. (Read 673 times)

Bitcoin treated as store value of assets same with how investors treated gold or those precious gems. Investors find this place as a good venue to invest money.

There's still discussions about the real value since it's still not being embrace by most government around the world, but once being labelled for sure it will bring more price movements, rise will happen along the way.

A thing is either a store of value or it isn't, there's not really any halfway state. I think he means that he's partially convinced that bitcoin is a store of value, i.e. he has reservations about it, i.e. he is backtracking partially on previous statements.

Bitcoin is a store of value, it's just that there are several issues at the moment that prevent being as good a store of value as gold or even USD. Not least of which is the price volatility.

Why do you ask me about this? Ask NR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8izCNm6S63M (at 21:00 he addressed this question).

I'm not saying that I agree with NR about this "partial store of value" thing. Like I said, IMO, Bitcoin will always be "worthless" in the eye of traditional economics guru (or skeptics). It's like preaching the bible to skeptics/atheists. We need to show them the proof, e.g., healthy/efficient market, low volatility, more participants, etc., or simply leave them behind.

Mr. Roubini doesn't make any wrong assumption or statement regarding Bitcoin or cryptocurrency because every currency has a store of value, otherwise, you can't save or hold for the future, but it remains a doubt why he stated the as a partial store of value, I don't have any interest in this issue I know Bitcoin is fully currency and a payment system I don't care what people say, but it also true that in the society, people have a misconception regarding the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, so people always pay to heed the statement what recognized people states so everybody should learn about first and then remark anything.

As per above definition from Wikipedia, I believe Bitcoin satisfies those requirements thus making it an absolute store of value and not "partial" as what he stated.

I guess we will see this assertion more clearly defined once Bitcoin reached its max supply which by that time, its worth would have surpassed Gold and other precious metals value!

What else he can do, despite the volatility of bitcoin it should be clear now that bitcoin is not going to disappear and when we add that in the countries in which the fiat currency has crashed bitcoin has been used by a small minority to save their wealth, then it is obvious that bitcoin is a store of value.

I have no problems admitting that the volatility of bitcoin does not make it a very effective store of value compared to gold but it can still perform that function in the case of an emergency.

I don't know what he meant by partial store of value.
If an asset is a store of value that means it will be worth more in future if saved today. BTC has inbuilt deflation as it has limited supply. So, it will be worth more in future as compared to today and hence can be used as a successful alternative investment. Roubini has always been a critic of Bitcoin. Now when he could see that BTC is actually worth something, he is taking these babysteps by appreciating it partially.

Bitcoin is not s store of value,its just medium of exchange.

The value of bitcoin keeps increasing so it maybe partially considered as storage of value too.

It's up to them and people who think the same, from the beginning of the blockchain technology there is freedom of transactions. bitcoin has a high value now so he says "(maybe) is partial store of value" even though he wants to buy digital currency too. I want to deny the return to the stone age, if Fiat is valued by the country's economy and cryptocurrency is valued by supply and demand which are both the same concept (stablecoin dan tokenization asset).

He used the word "partial" and for me this meant he recognized Bitcoin as a store of value but can't say it straight because he is known as "notorious critic of cryptocurrencies"  Well anyways there are lot of people like this in this industry and I'm wondering where will they hide when 90% of world's population is using Bitcoin.

So, if we take a period of time when Bitcoin increased in value by 100%, can we say with this logic that Bitcoin is a double store of value? That it "stores" even more value than you put in it?
Either this wasn't what Roubini meant, or he'd just not arguing in good faith and simply picks the observations that suit his narrative. There's really no point in listening to opinions of people who don't provide some strong arguments to back their claims. I don't care if they are genius economists or billionaires, if they just describe their personal feelings, it's all useless.

Not likely, nor is it likely he'll have the ego strength to reverse his public stance even if he does eventually change his mind about bitcoin.  And he may not.  He's an economist, so I will assume he isn't stupid and believes what he's talking about is true.

I think if bitcoin was a little bit more stable it would be considered a store of value, because I think low volatility is one of the requirements for that distinction.  Gold and silver are stores of value because they supposedly track inflation (tho I don't know if that's true) and hold their value over time relative to the dollar.  That cannot be said about bitcoin, which is one of the most volatile things in existence.  This guy might be correct about it being a 'partial' store of value, whatever that means.

I think it's good to get different viewpoints, even if they don't agree with what you personally think.  Otherwise it would just be an echo chamber.

Something is either a store of value or it isn't, there's no 'partial' to it, that doesn't make sense.

Bitcoin is a store of value, it's just not universally recognised as such. And yes it has certain problems and difficulties associated with it, price fluctuations being the most obvious example, but that doesn't make it a partial store of value. That's like saying that you can't spend a bar of gold at the local shop, so it's only partially of value.

It doesn't make sense to use the word partial in this situation - unless of course you are trying to backtrack on some comments about crypto that you've made previously, but only want to partially backtrack...

Roubini and Tone Vays are both a bunch of idiots only representing their HUGE egos during events. They shouldn't be invited to any event.

It's pointless to debate the same people while you know beforehand they won't concede any points. The only reason they keep doing it is to get some much needed exposure because they have services to sell.

Here is a link to the recent debate between Brock Pierce, Roubini, Tone Vays, Bobby Lee and Craig Wright. This is why the crypto sphere is still the mess today that it was years ago, and nothing will change when you invite the same losers over and over.

I think what he means by "partial store of value" is about Bitcoin price that down 60% from ATH. In other words, Bitcoin only able to store 40% of its value >> not 100% >> partial.

NR, along with other "traditional" economists, only would change their minds if people can show them the proof, and not with debates. Well, that's why academics rarely get rich since they won't take the risk. It's just wasting time if people want to change a skeptic's mind.

Seems more like "baby steps" like Tone Vays said. This is the same guy who said Bitcoin is going to $0. That's a far cry from "partial store of value." He's admitting Bitcoin fulfills one of the basic functions of money.

To be fair, Bitcoin is only a decade old and is employing an experimental economic model. It's volatile and speculative for good reason. "Partial" store of value is pretty damn good if you think about it.

Well, people like him look at Bitcoin's short-term performance and they miss the bigger picture --> https://cryptoslate.com/analyst-logarithmic-chart-shows-bitcoin-is-on-track-50000-by-2021/

What partial "Store of Value" do you see in that graph? Yes, it's short-term volatility might fool you into believing that the price are constantly going down, but the long-term view shows a constant upward curve. 

$50 000 per bitcoin are on the horizon. 

Someone who was correct in predicting a certain period economic outcome may not be correct again. Dont get my idea wrong, but you should stop listening to what mass media has to say about something that you are confident about. Manipulators are everywhere. You need to weed out the one that you dont need and keep your eyes on the prize.

He may be doing this a paid promotion, like Dimon and so one. But really if you believe in the future of bitcoin to be worthy as a store of value, would you back out for any reason? This person might just be trying to dip the market so he can buy more. You never know.

This a little bit funny. While admitting that Bitcoin can be a store of value -- at least partially -- Mr Roubini remains adamant on his old position against Bitcoin, in other words nothing has changed despite his admission which can just be influenced by people he was with in that conference. Well, as they are saying, there will always be two sides to the coin and in any human innovations there will be people whose role is to warn of possible impeding doom if we continue the change we are into. I have a great respect for this man because he is actually making some sense in many areas and I think we should also give space for people like him as their inputs can still be useful. However, don't get me wrong, it does not mean we have to follow what he is saying.

So is it really partial or full?


[/quote]
Well, at least he is starting to consider bitcoin functioning as a store of value. It's actually healthy that there are oppositions regarding the world of bitcoin, crypto, blockchain or anything related to it. It brings about progress and stimulates every participant to think about it, to refute about something they don't agree, and by the end, be forced to agree that the winning party is right cause they couldn't argue anything anymore against him.

I'd rather think of its function as a full store of value. It just currently cannot be easily seen as one because the supply still hasn't reached its limits. Once bitcoin has reached its last drop of supply, we can at the very least consider it as full store of value since its value should stabilize by then.

well, perhaps from this tiny little step, people like a donald trump or the old warrior warren buffet do the same thing, or its just a dream ?
because people like Nouriel Roubini has a considerable influence in the economic field, work at federal reserve, even world bank.