I think if people are hoarding more than 60% of all bitcoin users, then it is very influential on bitcoin economy.
If all their assets are hoarded just to wait for a high price
Topic: Does hoarding really hurt Bitcoin? (Read 105 times)
Some people believe that hoarding hurts the Bitcoin economy.
But are they really right?
As long as corresponding goods vendors and services will be here to stay and reinforce people's faith in Bitcoin, hoarded bitcoins simply do not take part in daily business and do not hurt anyone.
Quite the contrary, they will decrease the supply of bitcoins in active circulation, thus increase the demand for bitcoins, and thus raise their over-all value, right?
Update: This question also comes with a premise or insight that Bitcoin "power users" have savings and spendings wallets or similar setups, and that those two forms of wallets will not tend to "compete" with each other so much. The bitcoins in the spendings wallets will rather compete with the fiat money that respective users will use to buy for goods and services. The bitcoins in the savings wallets will rather compete with more traditional forms of assets and investments.
But are they really right?
As long as corresponding goods vendors and services will be here to stay and reinforce people's faith in Bitcoin, hoarded bitcoins simply do not take part in daily business and do not hurt anyone.
Quite the contrary, they will decrease the supply of bitcoins in active circulation, thus increase the demand for bitcoins, and thus raise their over-all value, right?
Update: This question also comes with a premise or insight that Bitcoin "power users" have savings and spendings wallets or similar setups, and that those two forms of wallets will not tend to "compete" with each other so much. The bitcoins in the spendings wallets will rather compete with the fiat money that respective users will use to buy for goods and services. The bitcoins in the savings wallets will rather compete with more traditional forms of assets and investments.
I think in some way it does as it can make the bitcoin market saturated and the demand so kuch higher and with supplies dwindling it might affect the price to a certain degree in which it can be deemed inhospitable. With the hoarding of bitcoin by a lot of people and the bitcoin network having a desperate inability to produce the number still being demanded it can cause traction and negativity to all the users of the cryptocurrency.
and this happens, but new crypto projects are not inferior to each other as Socratus is growing in geometric progress
It does not hurt bitcoin, rather it increases the value because if a lot of people are hoarding the coins then there is a lesser supply in circulation which means that more there will be more demand than supply in the market. This is what drives the prices of coins, if there is more supply in the market than there is demand for the coins then the prices will be low
Taking into consideration the fixed quantity of bitcoins that can be created, I believe hoarding does not hurt bitcoin. By decreasing the amount of bitcoin in circulation, the demand increases, which eventually increases its value. More people will then be encouraged to mine because their mining profit will increase.
I'm not sure but I feel it creates this crazy hodl supply and demand problem. The limited amounts that are coming out are being valued so high. Excited to see how it shakes out.
Some people believe that hoarding hurts the Bitcoin economy.
But are they really right?
As long as corresponding goods vendors and services will be here to stay and reinforce people's faith in Bitcoin, hoarded bitcoins simply do not take part in daily business and do not hurt anyone.
Quite the contrary, they will decrease the supply of bitcoins in active circulation, thus increase the demand for bitcoins, and thus raise their over-all value, right?
Update: This question also comes with a premise or insight that Bitcoin "power users" have savings and spendings wallets or similar setups, and that those two forms of wallets will not tend to "compete" with each other so much. The bitcoins in the spendings wallets will rather compete with the fiat money that respective users will use to buy for goods and services. The bitcoins in the savings wallets will rather compete with more traditional forms of assets and investments.
But are they really right?
As long as corresponding goods vendors and services will be here to stay and reinforce people's faith in Bitcoin, hoarded bitcoins simply do not take part in daily business and do not hurt anyone.
Quite the contrary, they will decrease the supply of bitcoins in active circulation, thus increase the demand for bitcoins, and thus raise their over-all value, right?
Update: This question also comes with a premise or insight that Bitcoin "power users" have savings and spendings wallets or similar setups, and that those two forms of wallets will not tend to "compete" with each other so much. The bitcoins in the spendings wallets will rather compete with the fiat money that respective users will use to buy for goods and services. The bitcoins in the savings wallets will rather compete with more traditional forms of assets and investments.
I don't think it does, hoarding is essentially saving, and saving doesn't hurt economy in the long run - people often say that everyone should constantly spend money for economy to grow, but this is not sustainable and eventually leads to a crisis, while with saving there's economic stability. The real and sustainable growth should be based on strong innovation rather than artificial stimulation, and this is exactly what happened with Bitcoin - it went from fraction of a dollar to five figures on a free and open market. If it will continue improving, it will keep growing, and so-called hoarding won't be a problem.
In real life currency and economic market hoarding and not soending money is a bad thing and can hurt the the lofw of the money in the economy. The idea of supply and demand for bitcoin in this process due to hoarding can actually hurt bitcoin but it is possbile that it doesnt because it is a cryptocurrency or digital money.
I don't think so. As long as good vendors and services are here, and if that reinforces people's faith in bitcoin, I think it's all good.
No, that's a silly statement that's been put forward by different groups over time. Altcoiners use it as a knock against BTC during times of high volume / fees. People who look down on price discussion and traders use it as a 'holier than thou' device while secretly praying for the moon.
The fact of the matter is, just like any tech, the use case will reveal itself in surprising ways. If during this era of price discovery, people consider hodling (digital gold) to be a more valuable use for BTC than as a currency, then who are we to force our POV on the market? But I suspect that as second-layer stuff gets more robust and easier to use, and the price finds some stability, we'll see the return of bitcoin as a medium of exchange.
The fact of the matter is, just like any tech, the use case will reveal itself in surprising ways. If during this era of price discovery, people consider hodling (digital gold) to be a more valuable use for BTC than as a currency, then who are we to force our POV on the market? But I suspect that as second-layer stuff gets more robust and easier to use, and the price finds some stability, we'll see the return of bitcoin as a medium of exchange.
It's not too silly. Hoarding could hurt Bitcoin depending on how you look at it. Is it a currency or store of value? If you look at it as a currency, as Satoshi intended it to be, then Bitcoin is a deflationary currency. A deflationary currency with a fixed supply does definitely encourage hoarding. I mean, why buy something today when you can buy more of it later if you hold and wait? So for bitcoin to be a currency, it would be bad as hoarding does take place and trade would slow significantly. The cash wouldn't be changing hands frequently. That is why hoarding would be bad for Bitcoin as a currency, but as a store of value, no problem. That is how I view Bitcoin, more so as a store of value. I see it as an alternative to gold, and something that you can transact with (a lot easier than gold) if you choose to do so.
In a way, doesn't Bitcoin (or any other crypto) have to be used in order to actually ever become mainstream-adopted?
I guess people could buy bitcoin > use it(send to someone, buy something etc) > buy new bitcoin, instead of using fiat.
But doesn't in a way make bitcoin redundant if we're talking about like, how easy it is for someone to use it?
If everyone buys Bitcoin only to hold, it's hard to see it becoming adopted, we need to somehow push for adoption, by 'voting' with using Bitcoin above fiat perhaps?
(like using Bitcoin on stores and such that accept it, which as adoption grows forces others to allow Bitcoin as payment).
I guess people could buy bitcoin > use it(send to someone, buy something etc) > buy new bitcoin, instead of using fiat.
But doesn't in a way make bitcoin redundant if we're talking about like, how easy it is for someone to use it?
If everyone buys Bitcoin only to hold, it's hard to see it becoming adopted, we need to somehow push for adoption, by 'voting' with using Bitcoin above fiat perhaps?
(like using Bitcoin on stores and such that accept it, which as adoption grows forces others to allow Bitcoin as payment).
Hoarding limits the amount of bitcoin's availability in the market. If demand from it rises bitcoin's price will surely rise too. The risks about it is if people would still be interested in buying bitcoin considering it's value and lack of use as a cryptocurrency.
In my opinion bitcoin is a form of investment or any savings that we have in the period that is not short or long term so that in the process going up and down it's normal to invest the most important end result of time we want to sell it. Indeed many people there may withhold bitcoin to be released to the market. This may also affect the value of bitcoin prices because bitcoin becomes difficult when some hold their bitcoin and the demand for bitcoin also rises so it's natural that bitcoin increases.
Hoarding happens on more levels than just people buying it for speculation purposes to gain fiat value afterwards. If we look at the altcoin market that has grown out to what it is today, it makes sure that likely ~2 million Bitcoins are staying out of the market for a very long time, and as the demand for altcoins grow, the people trading them need more Bitcoin in the process. On top of that we have regulations forming a barrier preventing exchanges from dealing with fiat. Result is that with how the market keeps growing, we in the future will have various exchanges from the level of Binance having Bitcoin as base currency. In other words, Bitcoin circulation in its own market is quickly drying up, which will make further increases even easier with less potential selling pressure. Regardless of the demand, it translates into more value. 
Some people believe that hoarding hurts the Bitcoin economy.
But are they really right?
As long as corresponding goods vendors and services will be here to stay and reinforce people's faith in Bitcoin, hoarded bitcoins simply do not take part in daily business and do not hurt anyone.
Quite the contrary, they will decrease the supply of bitcoins in active circulation, thus increase the demand for bitcoins, and thus raise their over-all value, right?
Update: This question also comes with a premise or insight that Bitcoin "power users" have savings and spendings wallets or similar setups, and that those two forms of wallets will not tend to "compete" with each other so much. The bitcoins in the spendings wallets will rather compete with the fiat money that respective users will use to buy for goods and services. The bitcoins in the savings wallets will rather compete with more traditional forms of assets and investments.
But are they really right?
As long as corresponding goods vendors and services will be here to stay and reinforce people's faith in Bitcoin, hoarded bitcoins simply do not take part in daily business and do not hurt anyone.
Quite the contrary, they will decrease the supply of bitcoins in active circulation, thus increase the demand for bitcoins, and thus raise their over-all value, right?
Update: This question also comes with a premise or insight that Bitcoin "power users" have savings and spendings wallets or similar setups, and that those two forms of wallets will not tend to "compete" with each other so much. The bitcoins in the spendings wallets will rather compete with the fiat money that respective users will use to buy for goods and services. The bitcoins in the savings wallets will rather compete with more traditional forms of assets and investments.
In some ways, yes bitcoin is meant to be an online currency which should act as a payment processor, but because of the limited supply, and it is traded online, people prefer to store it in the hope of maximizing it's price which is what actually is happening.
No, that's a silly statement that's been put forward by different groups over time. Altcoiners use it as a knock against BTC during times of high volume / fees. People who look down on price discussion and traders use it as a 'holier than thou' device while secretly praying for the moon.
The fact of the matter is, just like any tech, the use case will reveal itself in surprising ways. If during this era of price discovery, people consider hodling (digital gold) to be a more valuable use for BTC than as a currency, then who are we to force our POV on the market? But I suspect that as second-layer stuff gets more robust and easier to use, and the price finds some stability, we'll see the return of bitcoin as a medium of exchange.
The fact of the matter is, just like any tech, the use case will reveal itself in surprising ways. If during this era of price discovery, people consider hodling (digital gold) to be a more valuable use for BTC than as a currency, then who are we to force our POV on the market? But I suspect that as second-layer stuff gets more robust and easier to use, and the price finds some stability, we'll see the return of bitcoin as a medium of exchange.
YES, of course it does! Law of supply and demand. Hoarding BTC and just keeping it to your wallets makes the supply in the trading market low, thus, increasing its value and demand then affecting the over-all crypto currency platform.
Some people believe that hoarding hurts the Bitcoin economy.
But are they really right?
As long as corresponding goods vendors and services will be here to stay and reinforce people's faith in Bitcoin, hoarded bitcoins simply do not take part in daily business and do not hurt anyone.
Quite the contrary, they will decrease the supply of bitcoins in active circulation, thus increase the demand for bitcoins, and thus raise their over-all value, right?
Update: This question also comes with a premise or insight that Bitcoin "power users" have savings and spendings wallets or similar setups, and that those two forms of wallets will not tend to "compete" with each other so much. The bitcoins in the spendings wallets will rather compete with the fiat money that respective users will use to buy for goods and services. The bitcoins in the savings wallets will rather compete with more traditional forms of assets and investments.
But are they really right?
As long as corresponding goods vendors and services will be here to stay and reinforce people's faith in Bitcoin, hoarded bitcoins simply do not take part in daily business and do not hurt anyone.
Quite the contrary, they will decrease the supply of bitcoins in active circulation, thus increase the demand for bitcoins, and thus raise their over-all value, right?
Update: This question also comes with a premise or insight that Bitcoin "power users" have savings and spendings wallets or similar setups, and that those two forms of wallets will not tend to "compete" with each other so much. The bitcoins in the spendings wallets will rather compete with the fiat money that respective users will use to buy for goods and services. The bitcoins in the savings wallets will rather compete with more traditional forms of assets and investments.
Jump to: