You are doing nothing but playing semantics and red herring.
I've said utilizing or consuming. You utilize a car. You consume an apple.
And you utilize Bitcoin.
Bitcoin fits my definition of a financial instruments as Bitcon is a record and all financial instruments are digital or paper records that are worthless on their own.
Which is EXACTLY WHY Bitcoin DOESN"T fit your definition of a Financial Instrument (or at least one of the important reasons why).
Bitcoin is NOT "worthless on its own".
But, Bitcoins lacks the fundamental feature for which all financial instruments exist in the first place,
Because it does not fit your definition of "Financial Instrument".
and that is to provide payment to their holders. Bitcon pays nothing. Hence, it is a worthless financial instrument.
Or...
Stay with me here...
Bitcoin is NOT worthless on its own, and the fundamental feature for which it exists is NOT to provide payment to it's holder, therefore...
It is
NOT a Financial Instrument according to your definition.
Bitcoins don't pop up into existence,
They kinda do.
That means they have issuers.
No, they do not.
Declaring Bitcoin an actual intangible good doesn't make it valuable.
And declaring Gold an actual tangible good doesn't make it valuable either.
And yet, they both are valuable.
You don't utilize Bitcoin, but transferring it from one address to another. A car can be both, utilized and transferred. Bitcon can only be transferred. That's why one cannot use it for want satisfying. And that's why it is worthless. If the only thing that one can do with X is transferring it to someone else, then X is worthless by definition.
Yes, you are correct. Bitcoin doesn't fit my definition of financial instrument. Bitcoin is just a record and not all records are financial instruments.
Gold is not valuable due to declaration but due to utilization in dentistry, medicine, electronic, aerospace and jewelry. Bitcon can only be valuable due to declaration.