pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 30 Sep \ parent \ on: What about Bitcoin are you too embarrassed to admit you still don't understand? bitcoin
I like this but I'm not sure it's true. Oil had negative value like a beanie baby collector might pay someone to take their collection away.
This is a fair point. I guess I was sorting shooting from the hip with that one. I think one can say that if oil had more collectible value it would not have gone into negative prices.
reply
Oil has negative carry, meaning it costs money to store it and transport it... so does gold when it's vaulted but its really not comparable given density and optionality
Land has taxes/defense, maintenance if its to be productive...
Lack of negative carry is one of Bitcoin's most unique properties.
reply
I'd argue that Bitcoin has a slight negative carry, due to a need to maintain security, but definitely much less per value unit than any of what you mentioned.
reply
So I was musing about this, and I think my instinct was correct but I didn't state it clearly.
Others below stated it better than me, but just to refine my own thinking I'll restate it.
The negative carry, or cost of control, cost-of-HODL, is a critical factor in the value of a collectible, obviously. Oil has a low value-density compared to its cost-of-HODL, because it's value is dominated by utility, like a banana. Its very hard (not impossible) for a recognised collectible, a store of value, to go into negative prices because for it to be a recognised collectible it would need to have a low cost-to-HODL.
reply