@brasshopper@twtxt.net “yearly inflation rate” is NOT “number of new pieces of currency created”.

@abucci@anthony.buc.ci I think you’re probably right. What I think I meant, after some more Googling, is that commodities tend to be valued through the lens of the stock-to-flow model 1. And the stock-to-flow model seems to have pretty strong explanatory power for tracking how Bitcoin appreciates 2. I believe that Bitcoin is effectively a commodity and the nature of its stock-to-flow ratio will make it such that it will tend to appreciate over long periods of time. (More stock converging towards a fixed value with an ever shrinking flow [newly minted bitcoin].) This is in contrast to fiat money which has been consistently losing value, due to inflation. Thank you. This has shown me that I need to do some more research to understand the distinction better.

@brasshopper@twtxt.net I think (as I said in another Twt) it’s important to consider that BTC (not sure about other types of cryptocurrency tbh) are equivalent to a company that issues a limited number of shares (they all do) but never issues anymore than the first set.

However, as experience shows, the “share price” only has value because people are willing to buy/sell it. Same is true of BTC.

I have to believe that if BTC was not bought or sold (i.e: exchanged for fiat currency) it would have zero value.

It’s something you learn about wealth, currency and value. It’s called “unrealised value” or “unrealised wealth”. It is only “realized” once it changes hands.