Quote from: Bravut on Today at 02:26:05 PM

Quote from: Dump3er on Today at 01:53:53 PM

Quote from: Cryptoprincess101 on June 12, 2024, 04:36:54 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 11, 2024, 06:55:55 PM

-

Basically, converting digital tokens to digital assets can sometimes be considered in the sense that there are assets that are more valuable than others so you can decide to sell less valuable assets to buy Bitcoin when those assets starts depreciating in value but let it not be assets that are still generating good money for you.

You know some people just have archaic understanding about Bitcoin investment and most of them are all these short term investors, they basically sell valuable assets to purchase Bitcoin with the believe that they gonna make good profits in the short run forgetting to know that Bitcoin is a high volatile asset that at some point the value depreciates and also appreciates so any investor that have a short term target can run into losses when they sell their other valuable assets to buy Bitcoin with short term targets if the value depreciates and that is why it is advisable for us to have long term targets when investing in Bitcoin and should not sell valuable assets to buy Bitcoin but we can use the returns from them.

Even though we all wish to acquire Bitcoin but we should not completely ignore other real life assets when we are investing in Bitcoin because sometimes those real life assets helps to propagate our investments in Bitcoin and that is reason why diversification is important in this regard.

"Real life assets" is another cntroversial term you are using because tell me about someone owning 100 BTC that this person isn't well equipped for "real life" as you call it. When your distinction is between real life and digital in the sense that you can't consume the digital asset in a form of food or use it as shelter, then what is it called when someone owns a piece of art for $100 million? Is it digital? Is it real life?

It's misleading when you make this distinction as bitcoin is probably one of the best real life assets someone could have accumulated over the last decade and even more, unless that person is living in a tent and sold their house. But even then that person can now buy 20 houses, so living in a tent paid off. This is not a recommendation to sell your house and buy BTC tomorrow and then live in a tent and wait, but making the distinction between real life and bitcoin as a digital asset makes no sense. Neither semantically nor logically.

Let's put it this way: what do you think which asset over the course of the last 15 years has changed more real lives than bitcoin? If something chages real lives, is it a real life asset?

If you understand what "Real Life asset" means you would not be confused Mate. Real life asset are asset that exist in real world scenario and are tangible. Is Bitcoin tangible?
You are making a point out of nothing, Bitcoin changing lives as you said does not make it to be categorize as Real life asset. Art work, commodities, Real Estate are examples of Real life asset, I don't understand were you are coming from with your word "Controversial".

It never a misleading point, but a simple word for clarification as such distinction would keep members in a place of acquittance and would not be confused like you.

You brought up an important word, which is tangible, and yet you continue to confuse terminlogy or even make up your own analogies and explanations that in turn show you lack logic and semantic. Bitcoin is very real, yet intangible. But intangibility doesn't make anything unreal. Goodwill that is being paid in M&A is very real, but it is intangible. Get your terminology right, then get back to me again.