Immunity to theft
The Store of Value Thesis
Qiao Wang

I think this needs to be broader . It’s about immunity to loss. You don’t care why you lost the value — rats get in the grain, your bank declares bankruptcy, your gold sinks to the bottom of the ocean — the value is lost.

Cryptocurrencies are safer than pre-existing assets in someways, but untested and complicated to hold on others:

  1. They arguably have a larger attack surface (banks have a pretty good record guarding against external theft, cryptocurrency can be attacked by anyone allowed on the network).
  2. There is no recourse if you lose your private keys. Very few existing stores have a similar issue, or lack a fall back means of authentication (e.g. courts). Also, it’s not clear how easy it is to pass keys on to the next generation if you pass away. Existing institutions have solved for other assets, not for cryptocurrencies.
  3. Long term preservation. Most other assets have a few hundred years or history, if not a few thousand. For people who joined cryptocurrency in the last year, they lost a lot of money — that is a hard introduction to ignore. Cryptocurrencies today are more speculative assets than stores of value.
Like what you read? Give Joel Lewis a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.