-
The intrinsic value is tied to how useful it is as a currency and its longevity or stability as a project.
I think it’s the opposite: intrinsic value is how desireable it is other than as a currency. Gold or any other commodity are desireable, whether they’re in coin shape or not; bits of thin plastic or plasticised paper are much less desireable, unless they are issued as legal tender and sanctified as fiat money.
-
You seem to be using "intrinsic value" in an odd way (although the whole concept is slightly oxymoronic since value exists due to the valuer, not the object itself). A big gold coin has more intrinsic value than a small gold coin because gold itself is considered valuable regardless of its shape. The same is not true of bank notes or base-metal coins.
Currency nowadays doesn't have intrinsic value, it has agreed value. The same is true of bitcoin but that doesn't make them the same.
You are reading a single comment by @frankenbike and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Leshaches
ffm
@frankenbike
Or to be more specific, I do see a difference, but not in terms of whether or not a currency has intrinsic value.
If it can be exchanged for goods and services it has intrinsic value. If it can't be exchanged for goods and services, but can be exchanged for currency which can be exchanged for goods and services, it still obviously has intrinsic value. The intrinsic value is tied to how useful it is as a currency and its longevity or stability as a project.
It is hard to argue that Bitcoin has zero utility given it can be exchanged for goods and services (even if indirectly), and it is hard to argue that it has no longevity given that it is still going after ~15 years and is backed by a bunch of rich and wealthy people, so I can't accept the argument that it has no value. It is probably bad value but that's not the same.