Universities should offer a #Bitcoin class where students learn how to buy Bitcoin the first day, then just sit in class the rest of the semester practicing NOT selling their bitcoin.
@keithmeredith@saylor@jimcramer An immutable ledger is a big deal. Either you realize it or you don’t. It’s not going to chop sideways forever. It’s going to a gazillion dollars or it’s going to zero.
One year ago Financial Times columnist Katie Martin criticized Bitcoin, saying that while her teeth are scarce, they aren't worth billions.
The argument was so hilarious, so remarkably uninformed, and so meme-worthy that no-one took the time to explain why it is is also fundamentally flawed.
So on the one-year anniversary of this take - as a fun exercise I thought I'd unpick the logic so we could see how this FUD stands up to other FUD
TL;DR: equally badly.
The first flaw is a false equivalence between two completely different types of scarcity.
Her teeth are scarce to her.
There are roughly 7 billion mouths on the planet, each containing up to 32 teeth. Global supply: hundreds of billions. Hardly scarce.
The second flaw is that sharing of one attribute does not make two things interchangeable.
They're also not fungible. Her molar is not interchangeable with yours !
They are certainly not divisible, not portable as a unit of exchange, not durable in the monetary sense, and not verifiable by a third party. They can also be replaced by implants or dentures.
Bitcoin's scarcity is absolute, mathematically enforced, globally verifiable, and immutable.
21 million for every person on the planet, forever. No one can produce more. Anyone can verify the cap independently.
The argument smuggles in the assumption that scarcity alone is Bitcoin's value proposition, then disproves that straw man.
Scarcity is necessary but not sufficient.
What makes Bitcoin valuable is scarcity combined with fungibility, divisibility, portability, durability, verifiability, and censorship resistance.
Her teeth have one of those properties (and even then, only to one person on the planet, Katie herself).
Bitcoin has all of them.
It's the same category error as saying "my kitchen table is also a flat rectangle, but nobody calls it a tennis court."
True.
But a tennis court also has a net, regulation dimensions, a standardised bounce surface, and an agreed-upon set of rules.
Sharing one property doesn't make two things equivalent.
I used to worry that somewhere there might be a version of me buying way more #Bitcoin than me. But then I realized that somewhere there might also be a version of me who bought two pizzas for 10K Bitcoin.