Commit

My view on Bitcoin, stated plainly: it's neither money nor a fraud. It's a new kind of asset — digital gold with a settlement network. The enforcement argument is real, and it sets the limit. Everyday money runs on an enforcement chain: the state backs it, the law says it settles debts, taxes are payable only in it, courts rule in it, banks clear in it. Bitcoin cut that chain away, so it can't become everyday money or a unit of account. On that point, I agree. But "no enforcement chain" doesn't mean "no value." Gold had value before modern states existed, and art has no enforcement chain either. Value can also come from scarcity, shared belief, and a specific utility — and Bitcoin's utility is real: value that moves without permission and is hard to seize or freeze. That's also why it won't disappear. Sixteen years in, with ETFs, institutional custody, and nation-states discussing reserves, the Lindy effect is on its side. The price can crash; the thing itself is unlikely to go to zero. The two common charges don't hold up for me. Illicit use: cash does the same job, and a public blockchain makes Bitcoin worse for crime than cash — illicit volume is a fraction of a percent of all transactions. Banning it: the benefit is overstated and the cost ignored, because people under capital controls, currency collapse, or political repression are exactly the ones who need a permissionless channel. So: skeptical on price — speculation today dwarfs utility — but not on existence. Bitcoin isn't money. It isn't a fraud. It's a high-volatility, opt-out asset. And that's enough for it to stick around.