I've been annoyed by the application of the term 'cryptocurrency' to Bitcoin.
There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:
Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value. There have been thousands of currencies in existance, all have become worthless because there is no intrinsic value to support the price, instead currencies rely on its users to give it value. As a consequence many currencies may have fallen with their empires succumbing to regulatory bans, some have died simply because its users did not deem it worthwhile to use and I have no doubt a significant portion are hyperinfalted by their central authorities out of existance.
Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.
Bitcoin falls into the category of money, its intrinsic value is supported by its scarcity, verifiability, fungibility, portability, durability and divisbility. While it might not be 'tangible' and useful for physical use cases like jewerly, it also has benefits Gold does not offer, for example, instant settlement of any amount of 'money' over long distances. Further, no central authority can print bitcoins into existance. Bitcoin has also become a legitimate store-of-value which can be attributed to its supply cap and emission schedule, its been profitable for 94% of its existance and has not lost its purchasing power which would be consistent with the traditional definition of 'money'.
All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.
Thoughts?
For a currency to have a steady worth, it must be a viable facilitator of exchanges. For a money to be that, it must be omnipresent. The universality of a cash, and the expansion of significant worth that accompanies it, is alluded to as the system impact. The more broadly a money is utilized, the greater adaptability that cash needs to encourage exchanges, which balances out its worth, in light of the fact that basically, the more individuals acknowledge it as a substantial type of installment, the more individuals will utilize it as a type of installment. What's more, as a cash's universality rises, so too does its worth. There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:
Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value. There have been thousands of currencies in existance, all have become worthless because there is no intrinsic value to support the price, instead currencies rely on its users to give it value. As a consequence many currencies may have fallen with their empires succumbing to regulatory bans, some have died simply because its users did not deem it worthwhile to use and I have no doubt a significant portion are hyperinfalted by their central authorities out of existance.
Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.
Bitcoin falls into the category of money, its intrinsic value is supported by its scarcity, verifiability, fungibility, portability, durability and divisbility. While it might not be 'tangible' and useful for physical use cases like jewerly, it also has benefits Gold does not offer, for example, instant settlement of any amount of 'money' over long distances. Further, no central authority can print bitcoins into existance. Bitcoin has also become a legitimate store-of-value which can be attributed to its supply cap and emission schedule, its been profitable for 94% of its existance and has not lost its purchasing power which would be consistent with the traditional definition of 'money'.
All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.
Thoughts?
