Due to the increasing popularity of bitcoin, it is necessary to provide counter-arguments. Robert McCauley’s article says that a prehistoric dinosaur tried to understand that large luminous rock in the sky.
First, classifying bitcoin as security is futile because it is a new asset class. Given the macroeconomic climate and its resemblance to commodities, it would be easier to classify it as such. Far from “pumping and dumping,” (how can you “pump” an asset worth over $1 trillion?). This digital gold is moveable anywhere globally, weighs nothing, and requires no expensive storage.
It’s the “Hodl Wave” since most bitcoiners chose the polar opposite and Hodl for five years or more.
They may not need to sell because they can borrow against their investment to increase their worth.
Finally, no bitcoin critique would be complete without noting bitcoin’s environmental impact. McCauley’s zombie argument is weak and unconvincing at best.
Blockchains like Near, Cardano, and soon Ethereum are increasingly reliant on renewable energy sources.
So much for commodities like oil and gold, which continue to pollute despite the lack of viable substitutes.
Having an understanding that the world of digital assets can be frightening at times. It’s a revolution, and revolutions are, by their very nature, chaotic events, and this is no exception. They, on the other hand, do not simply vanish into thin air on their own. Accepting evolution is preferable to opposing it in most cases.