This article is dangerous and disingenuous. The author goes from explaining that the 30y treasury guarantees a lump sum in the far future, and compares this to bitcoin saying it has a similar financial function? Then he bolds the following statement:
Bitcoin is a new type of zero-coupon bond.
How could bitcoin be a bond? I challenge anyone to find someone that agrees with this statement. How can it be considered a fixed-income security? Even if it has no coupons, what is its principal? Who is the issuer? He's calling it a fixed-income instrument, while bitcoin does not guarantee a fixed income. How can anyone in their right mind say they're a CFA then write a column like this suggesting someone to think about investing an asset class in life insurance for a period five times longer than the asset class has existed?
A bitcoin may last forever (may -- nobody knows what crazy attacks or exploits may be possible against the blockchain over 60 years!) but how does that guarantee its value? Bitcoin and blockchain technology as financial instruments is very young and I really think it's unethical and dangerous for someone (again, a CFA!!) to say something like "When compared to emerging-market currencies in particular, bitcoin is the superior allocation when thinking over a 20 to 30-year time horizon."
There is a potential for bitcoin to be an asset class that would be useful for LDI or other long-term investments, but it should be obvious to a CFA that the risk is too high for such an important and long-term investment when actual fixed-income securities exist.