Cornell Professor claims BTC has no value
You can go to 3 very good schools, and then work for another good school. But still make an asinine statement to the press in order to confirm bias. It’s asinine because it’s flawed & unoriginal.
I’m not a Bitcoin bro by any means. I prefer cryptos like Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot, and Algorand. But like many people in crypto I still hold BTC.
“Bitcoin’s use of the blockchain technology is not very efficient.” – Professor Prasad
Thank you, Sherlock Holmes for this fascinating discovery. We truly wouldn’t have realized without you. Bitcoin was founded 12 years ago, and was designed with a specific purpose in mind. To act as a store of value similar to gold & silver. This was the primary thing that attracted early adopters. An alternative to inflationary currencies like the Dollar or Yuan.
“I don’t think it’s going to have any fundamental value other than whatever investor’s faith leads it to have,” – Professor Prasad
It’s fundamental value is based in it’s scarcity, and greater stability. Whereas currencies like the Dollar that are backed by faith drop in value. 50 dollars in 1960 had the same purchasing power as 464 dollars in 2021. With all of Bitcoin’s flaws, it’d be better to question the fiat system.
All of Professor Prasad’s concerns have already been said by people within the cryptocurrency community. It’s also been addressed by the crypto community in a way. It’s a reserve currency in the way the dollar wishes it was.
As far as things like environmental concerns, efficiency, and so on. These are definitely legitimate concerns. The onus is mainly on the miners to find a more eco-friendly way to do it. But Bitcoin isn’t going anywhere.
Algorand is an excellent currency to look into. The team behind it has done a great job addressing BTC & ETH related concerns. Solana, and Polkadot are also very good choices.
Early Austrian school economists Carl Menger, and Eugen Ritter von Böhm-Bawerk had this wonderful theory. It’s called the subjective theory of value. Which means that something is given value, if someone perceives it to have value.
A lot of things fall into this category. Paper currency, designer clothing, beauty, and so on. But it’s still a valid basis for determining value. However scarcity is a superior standard for very obvious reasons.
If you have 1000 candy bars, and I take one of them. It’s not going to matter too much. But if you only have 1 candy bar. I bet you’re going to care a lot more, if I try to take it from you.
Also if you want to bring up the environment. All that cotton, paper, and linen can’t be good for the environment either. Given how much of it is produced each year. Because that money printer never stops.
Hayek & Mises also had some valid points on artificial money creation. Something our traditional finance bros love doing. Even though it hurts the dollar, and the economy for temporary gains. Keynes is the King of Western Economics because he’s an enabler.
You guys love to gamble.
Mercantilist thinkers would be better for the American economy. Georgists, and syndicalists too. Austrians, Chicagoans, Physiocrats, and so on. Almost anything is better than what we have.
It’s actually Vitalik Buterin, and the Ethereum community that should be concerned. There’s cryptos that do the exact same thing more efficiently. Bitcoin is too big to fail kind of like certain organizations. Except Bitcoin doesn’t need an annual bailout from the government.
Economists like Professor Prasad lack genuine insight on this subject. They only leaver their towers when it suits them. So they can offer outdated opinions to the gullible masses.
Actual experts within the community have said everything that he did. The crypto community is always moving, and innovating. By the time these Ivy League academics acquire current knowledge on crypto. It’ll be exceptionally outdated.
Baron thoughts 