If a person can't be convinced of Bitcoin as a "Safe Haven", even with a zoomed out perspective, then they could probably be convinced of it as a "bet" against the current financial system, AND as I have posted yesterday, a bet that the Federal Reserve/Central Banks around the globe will print more money.
The question for YOU now is, what's the probability that the Federal Reserve and other Central Banks won't print more money? The answer is - ZERO probability.
What do you think is a safe haven and what are the criteria to be considered a safe haven?
For me, a safe haven should be an asset that is stable and most importantly, not subject to dumping during times of economic uncertainty and recession. Its goal is to protect our assets from both short-term and long-term losses or even increases during times of crisis.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin has decentralization, limited supply, long-term growth...these factors are suitable to become a safe haven. But is it stable and growing or is it constantly being dumped during economic turmoil? Not to mention, an asset that only increases in price based on positive news and will be dumped when there is negative news or even unverified fake news. How can it be called a safe haven?
It would be incorrect to say that bitcoin will never be a safe haven because that may change over time. But right now, it doesn't meet the criteria and is not a safe haven.
Are then debating that your "safe haven" that's something 'stable" is the U.S. Dollar? The currency that they can print, and have been devaluing since they removed its Gold backing?
F.A. Hayek said - Government monopoly over money mainly leads to instability because of incompetence, and mismanagement. The solution is to let "private currencies", like business-entity issued stablecoins, to compete, to encourage stability and innovation.
F.A. Hayek must be looking down at us from heaven with a big smile on his face.
At the heart of the recent scuffle is anxiety regarding a popular kind of a cryptocurrency known as a stablecoin, which emulates the stability of major currencies like dollars and euros, unlike more volatile cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. The majority of these stablecoins are denominated in dollars, and in some countries are already used as an easily accessible alternative to the greenback when local currencies are unreliable. Governments fear they could replace traditional money, undermining national sovereignty and leaving citizens vulnerable to the fortunes of a business with a penchant for disastrous meltdown.
In theory, MiCA reduces the risk of foreign-currency-backed stablecoins disrupting the European economy by limiting who can issue them and how much can be issued, while still allowing EU citizens to use them.
But planned reforms in the U.S., including a White House executive order and the drafting of two laws dubbed STABLE and GENIUS extend the reach of the American stablecoin industry, with one analysis by British bank Standard and Chartered predicting the supply of dollar-backed tokens could hit $2 trillion by 2028, up from $240 billion today. This has prompted panicked warnings from ECB President Christine Lagarde and its digital payments czar Piero Cipollone.
https://www.politico.eu/article/european-commission-livid-ecb-warn-crypto-apocalypse-donald-trump/Everyone should pay closer attention to those sorts of political news, because we are in a pivotal moment in history when we're about to see the Denationalisation Of Money just as F.A. Hayek theorized.
👀
