Quote from: Ziskinberg on February 07, 2025, 08:47:50 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on February 07, 2025, 05:06:59 AM

Legal classification disagrees with you. The classification by the SEC is that it is a digital commodity and has been such for almost a decade now (very quietly so but still, that's how they've classified it), and I don't disagree with it. Its transfer-ability and digital properties sure makes it seem like currency, its properties of limited supply/scarcity actually makes it more so like a commodity.

That’s just the classification the US uses to determine how to tax it. But no matter how they categorize Bitcoin, I still see it as an asset because an asset has value. When we hold Bitcoin as an investment, it should be considered part of our assets. If someone asks about our net worth, of course, we’d include Bitcoin in the calculation, since the basic formula is assets - liabilities = net worth.

It depends on what you believe in. If you believe that Bitcoin's price is primarily driven by supply and demand, then you're considering it a commodity. If you believe that other factors are primary over supply and demand, then you believe it's an asset. The reason for that, is simply the definition of a commodity (primarily valued by supply and demand factors) and assets (that also take into account other factors). Source: morpher.

Quote from: pooya87 on February 07, 2025, 05:24:45 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on February 07, 2025, 05:06:59 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on January 28, 2025, 05:10:24 AM

Bitcoin is not an asset, Bitcoin is money and the definition of money is a currency (ie. a medium of exchange) that can be used as store of value. This means because Bitcoin is acting as a store of value and also because it is in its early stages of adoption, its value keeps growing against fiat making it a suitable investment.

Calling Bitcoin an asset is like ignoring everything else that it offers which are far more useful.

Legal classification disagrees with you. The classification by the SEC is that it is a digital commodity and has been such for almost a decade now (very quietly so but still, that's how they've classified it), and I don't disagree with it. Its transfer-ability and digital properties sure makes it seem like currency, its properties of limited supply/scarcity actually makes it more so like a commodity.

Well when we say Bitcoin is decentralized that also means a centralized entity doesn't get to categorize what Bitcoin is and we shouldn't care how they categorize it either. Not to mention various centralized entities categorize Bitcoin in different ways, some have outright banned it as something illegal, some categorized it as a commodity, some as security and we all know of El Salvador that has categorized it as legal tender!

It's not really about a centralized entity giving it a classification, it's more so about what it is best defined as period. Even if the SEC did not classify it as a commodity, I'd still say that it is a digital commodity - as it is primarily driven by supply and demand factors (which is the definition of a commodity). It's not a security as Bitcoin is not a company or is not a reflection of something's performance or an investment into some form or operation. A digital commodity can also be considered legal tender, just as El Salvador have. "Legal Tender" is not a classification such a commodity, security, currency and so on. It is a choice by a government/law to allow something (commodity, currency, whatever it may be) to be freely used to transact within its jurisdiction.