Bitcoin will never be a currency in the traditional sense, as it fails the stable store of value test, which then impairs it's ability to serve the other functions money (unit of account, medium of exchange). However, Bitcoin and other cryptos are more like investments that also happen to be massively efficient global wealth transfer systems (relative to existing methods). CNBC's crypto coverage continues to be shallow, click-baity, disappointing garbage.
...when compared to a handful of fiat currencies, maybe. It's not fair to gatekeep with top performers, in my opinion.
There are many national currencies that lack stability. That doesn't make them "not currencies". It just makes them volatile currencies.
In fact, that's precisely why Bitcoin has become so popular in those countries—particularly Latin America; Bitcoin may not be stable, but it's a more reliable store of value (for now) than the bolivar or Argentinian peso.
that's precisely why Bitcoin has become so popular in those countries
I wonder though, if this relative stability is more to do with the stake invested in it from more stable currencies like Dollar, Euro and Yen.
In my head I can't get away from the idea, that beneath all the value vested in bitcoin is the actual olde worlde currencies that ultimately people need to change it back to in order to buy things.
When currencies experience hyperinflation, people stop using them. Even the people required to use them by law (wherever there is hyperinflation, there are always capital controls). They can still nominally be called currencies, but they are not much of anything.
I don't think anyone ever complained about their savings appreciating in value. I had used bitcoin for years to buy things online and send money to friends/family, until the fees went nuts. Now we use other coins like ZCash and Ethereum.
Compared to what? Don't forget that there are likely 10x or more resources spent on securing fiat accounts and transactions then there ever has been for Bitcoin.
