A request from @opportunity_expert_583 under a contribution from @WinStreak77 for a detailed explanation of my view on $BTC (-0,84 %) which I am of course happy to comply with. Of course, this is only my humble and unprofessional opinion. You are welcome to judge for yourself.
1. extreme volatility
Smaller assets usually fluctuate a little more. You will hardly ever $MSFT (-1,05 %) (unprovoked) correction of 50% within months. However, this is not uncommon with small stocks.
I don't think this is a problem. Like everywhere else, you have players who are driven by "FOMO" and invest in the market without reflection or experience. But I don't want to blame an asset for the investors' lack of experience and possibly even education. In addition, as has now been sufficiently researched and proven, not only most private investors but also professional investors never catch the right time to buy and sell. Consequently, one would have to conclude from this assumption that every purchase is a bad purchase, regardless of the investment.
Incidentally, volatility is only a minor problem for investment horizons of over 5 years (as of today), even for headless investors.
Re 2. speculation instead of fundamentals
The equation of BTC and crypto assets is significantly disqualifying due to the inability to participate in the discourse. Please inform yourself urgently. Then argue further.
Re 3. regulatory uncertainty
Risk and return are inevitably indirectly proportional. This is not a vice of Bitcoin. Other assets (real estate, gold, ...) can and have already been subject to economically unattractive market phases as a result of regulation. These events are always unpredictable, otherwise they would be priced in.
4. lack of intrinsic value
Even gold does not have its market cap due to its intrinsic value. Only a small percentage (I'd have to google) corresponds to actual economic/technical utility. The majority is held as a speculative/investment asset (see USA, China, Russia, ...). Now you can't compare BTC to the intrinsic value of a stock. Of course not, so it is not the same asset class. Or should we, for example, declare Apple worthless because you can't live in app stores, or real estate because it doesn't produce goods, or works of art because you can only eat a few of them?
5. technical and security risks
In my opinion, we need to differentiate here. Yes, wallets, or rather private keys (thank you for demonstrating the ignorance of the above-mentioned author with this choice of words) can be lost. But again, as in point 1, this is due to the inability of the actors and not to the worthlessness of an asset. Gold jewelry can also be stolen. But that doesn't make my wedding ring worthless. An expensive vase can also be broken. However, I wouldn't exactly declare a Ming vase to be junk.
Yes, there are technical risks, but the BTC network has been stable and trouble-free for years. Disruptions and hacks are also possible with large corporations, nations, ... cannot be ruled out. Just as your cash is not insured beyond the deposit security at the bank.
To the given conclusion:
Real estate is also subject to value instability. Just take a look at the dependency on interest rates and the current modernization trends. And for the masses, owning an apartment building remains a distant prospect.
Now to my conclusion:
However, perhaps my view is also based on the fact that I have been in the BTC market for around 6 years and have of course also made my attempts at walking with alt-coins or buying and selling BTC and have learned from them.
I don't see BTC as a panacea, but rather as another way to diversify my capital. After all, whether we like it or not, we are all sitting at the same table and playing the game of capitalism. The only question is who plays and wins, and who turns away stubbornly and complains that everyone else is profiting through active acceptance. Our economy works by expanding the money supply. And all amateur Dirk Müller-Crahs prophets will inevitably be right at some point when the market corrects. However, there will still be a global economy afterwards, and there was one now, which is driven by the expansion of the money supply. So why shouldn't an asset like BTC constantly grow in value as it depreciates? Or perhaps I should rather say that its value will remain stable in the long term. Let's all take a look at the charts of the global economy and look for the end of the world in 2008. Of course, there will visibly be corrections at some point. And these too will disappear in the noise of exponential growth caused by monetary expansion.
