5 ms·

What exactly would be smart about holding this?

rglover 3y ago
They'd have access to an asset that's highly valued, finite, and has the properties to serve as a future international reserve currency. It's a hell of a geopolitical "poker chip" to have fall in your lap.
- popcalc 3y ago
  It’s a deflationary currency. No one is incentivized to spend it.
  - amjnsx 3y ago
    If the value of the reserve money is $2b one year and it deflates to $3b the next, does that mean you can print more fiat every year? Sounds like an attractive proposition to me
    - rglover 3y ago
      If you got the money with zero energy expenditure, you don't care what the current fiat market value is. It's like finding a free lunch sack of cash on a park bench. You could argue that there's an opportunity cost to letting the money stay parked, but because governments ultimately dictate the value of their own currency, that point is moot.
  - Matticus_Rex 3y ago
    Deflation doesn't mean there's no incentive to spend. It means there's a slight relative reduction in the incentive to spend. You can argue that it's still bad, but it's a very different thing.
- infecto 3y ago
  Yes, one day in the future we will find a use for bitcoin finally. It has been 15 years and we still don't have a really great use case for it but it will happen.
  - rglover 3y ago
    There are plenty of use cases for Bitcoin, this is just FUD.
    - dellamorta 3y ago
      Yes, the Gouvernement could use this „money“ directly to pay it‘s bills. Oh wait, it can‘t…
    - infecto 3y ago
      Sure there are plenty of use cases but no real significant traction for the everyday consumer. Price fluctuation is wild, would hate to have this has a "currency" that I hold to pay the bills. Even ignoring the volitility, the transaction costs historically have been high enough that it is not attractive from the consumer lens. Not FUD.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  It's not a unique opportunity in any way, if the German government somehow decided that it would be awesome to hold $2B or $20B of BTC, they can simply buy it at any time.
  - rglover 3y ago
    Right now. As the supply dwindles, the ability to supply that demand will decrease dramatically. If you got it for free in a seizure, there's zero downside to just hold it and forget it until later (when, ironically, the government sends your own fiat currency into a hyper-inflation event).
- rwmj 3y ago
  The government can simply print real money any time they want (or lean on the European Central Bank in the case of Germany). Why would they want to hold a useless tchotchke instead?
  - rglover 3y ago
    Because that "useless tchotchke" is going to be a life preserver for their government when the boat they've been shotgunning holes into the side of (their own currency) for 60 years finally sinks.
  - darthrupert 3y ago
    Printing money doesn't increase the amount of money in real terms.
    - dellamorta 3y ago
      Yes, it does. Because then there is more money.
      - darthrupert 3y ago
        Economics 101 might be a good idea before engaging in economics discussions.

They'd have access to an asset that's highly valued, finite, and has the properties to serve as a future international reserve currency. It's a hell of a geopolitical "poker chip" to have fall in your lap.

popcalc 3y ago
It’s a deflationary currency. No one is incentivized to spend it.
- amjnsx 3y ago
  If the value of the reserve money is $2b one year and it deflates to $3b the next, does that mean you can print more fiat every year? Sounds like an attractive proposition to me
  - rglover 3y ago
    If you got the money with zero energy expenditure, you don't care what the current fiat market value is. It's like finding a free lunch sack of cash on a park bench. You could argue that there's an opportunity cost to letting the money stay parked, but because governments ultimately dictate the value of their own currency, that point is moot.
- Matticus_Rex 3y ago
  Deflation doesn't mean there's no incentive to spend. It means there's a slight relative reduction in the incentive to spend. You can argue that it's still bad, but it's a very different thing.
infecto 3y ago
Yes, one day in the future we will find a use for bitcoin finally. It has been 15 years and we still don't have a really great use case for it but it will happen.
- rglover 3y ago
  There are plenty of use cases for Bitcoin, this is just FUD.
  - dellamorta 3y ago
    Yes, the Gouvernement could use this „money“ directly to pay it‘s bills. Oh wait, it can‘t…
  - infecto 3y ago
    Sure there are plenty of use cases but no real significant traction for the everyday consumer. Price fluctuation is wild, would hate to have this has a "currency" that I hold to pay the bills. Even ignoring the volitility, the transaction costs historically have been high enough that it is not attractive from the consumer lens. Not FUD.
PeterisP 3y ago
It's not a unique opportunity in any way, if the German government somehow decided that it would be awesome to hold $2B or $20B of BTC, they can simply buy it at any time.
- rglover 3y ago
  Right now. As the supply dwindles, the ability to supply that demand will decrease dramatically. If you got it for free in a seizure, there's zero downside to just hold it and forget it until later (when, ironically, the government sends your own fiat currency into a hyper-inflation event).
rwmj 3y ago
The government can simply print real money any time they want (or lean on the European Central Bank in the case of Germany). Why would they want to hold a useless tchotchke instead?
- rglover 3y ago
  Because that "useless tchotchke" is going to be a life preserver for their government when the boat they've been shotgunning holes into the side of (their own currency) for 60 years finally sinks.
- darthrupert 3y ago
  Printing money doesn't increase the amount of money in real terms.
  - dellamorta 3y ago
    Yes, it does. Because then there is more money.
    - darthrupert 3y ago
      Economics 101 might be a good idea before engaging in economics discussions.