https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/bitcoin-is-no-longer-a-currency/274859/An article from The Atlantic magazine - from 2013, way back in 2013 - declaring that bitcoin is not a currency, but "the ultimate tech stock"!
The four years since the article was written has proven that bitcoin is akin to an Amazon or Facebook (stock, not company), and much less "Pets.com". That's a good thing.
I have to agree with them. Every week that passes without a new company in any local metropolitan area deciding to accept bitcoin as currency is a two weeks further away from bitcoin actually being adopted, mainstream, as a currency.
Bitcoin is an investment. A stock or an asset class/commodity can be debated, although it doesn't much matter. Bitcoin is a store of value not a medium of exchange.
What do you think?
Agree with this completely. Bitcoin doesn't satisfy the definition of a currency, and the part that is most lacking is a stable store of value. It's too volatile, which makes it fantastic for gamblers and speculators to trade in and out of it, but terrible for conducting commerce or using to store wealth, which are necessary for a currency to provide. I can get on board with calling it an investment, but it's clearly a speculative and high risk investment.
Based on its characteristics, it cannot be more than thatThese are not Bitcoin inherent characteristics or features, by any means
Bitcoin is volatile precisely because it is not used in commerce, though this is sort of a vicious circle here. That is, Bitcoin is not used as a real currency because it is too volatile but it is too volatile because it is not used as a currency. Nonetheless, I still have to add that I don't agree that the most important feature of a currency (which Bitcoin allegedly lacks) is being a stable store of value. But let's assume that you are right (i.e. being a stable store of value is an important if not outright most important characteristic of a currency). In this very case, Bitcoin has everything in it to become such a store of value since its issuance is rigidly fixed, predetermined as well as known in advance to virtually everyone who cares, and there cannot possibly be more than 21M coins in the end. As you can easily conclude, volatility is not inherent to Bitcoin and thus it is necessarily caused by external factors which can change over time
Like what I said Bitcoin cannot be considered as a stock it is not run by a company who has a CEO and Board of Directors. It is even funny to be naming it as the ultimate Tech Stock because it not even near the prices of Apple and Microsoft. What I am trying to say Bitcoin can be respected as a kind of currency but not a kind of stock.