Thanks @Terminada !
Yes, it seems that the majority of people looks at it as an investment. But what is the product we are investing in? What is the promise of the product? That it will be a better money. Sorry to say, but any attempt to smear this fact is just a desperate measure to hide the fact that it is not better yet, because it’s so volatile that no one wants to use it for everyday transactions, and we don’t know what to do with volatility.
So instead of thinking about what can we do about volatility we say, “Ohh, it’s called a currency, yet it’s not a currency.” It’s so freaking disappointing.
What happens on the exchanges? Isn’t people selling and buying things with crypto? If so, how on earth can we state that it’s not money? EUR is not money in the US because you can not pay with it directly? We have to change EUR to USD if we want to pay with it. Just like ADA or any other crypto.
Is it good as money? No. Because it’s volatile. But it doesn’t mean it’s not money. It just not a particularly good one. We are not there yet.
If we can donate we will be able to lend as well.
Many thanks for this one! It’s so rare that I hear this argument backing fixed supply. The only thing I would like to add, that I think “murky and uncertain” is a rather forgiving description. The current “free style” money printing practice renders economical simulations and analysis impossible. We simply don’t know the variables. (We won’t know the exact variables in a fixed supply system neither because of lost tokens, but we will have much better chances.)
I think we need to face volatility honestly and treat it as a challenge instead of juggling with labels.
Oh, and stablecoins inherit all the problems of fiat, so no, they are not a fulfillment of the original promise.