Let's Not Call Bitcoin Money
Cryptocurrencies are now called cryptoassets. I also use this definition. I think it's more inclusive. Because not all 1000s of 'coins' or 'tokens' have a money function. Many cryptoassets work like stocks rather than money.
However, as far as I can see, the intention of those who started the trend of saying 'cryptocurrency' instead of 'cryptocurrency' is not to be inclusive like me. Blockchain-hating actors of the central system are trying to popularize this statement to reduce interest and even trust in projects created on the blockchain.
They say, “Cryptos are not money, and Bitcoin is not at all.” The most important pillars are the state and monetary bond. According to these friends, if there is no state, there is no money. Bitcoin is not money either, as it is not approved by the states and is not used in payments.
However, history does not say so. The first city-states were established in Sumer around 3000 BC. However, money-like assets such as seashells were used thousands of years ago in tribal societies that did not know what the state was. For example, the indigenous tribes of Central and Southern California began using certain special snail shells as ornaments and money from 7000 BC. The shells of a snail named Monetaria Moneta, which were also unearthed in the Maldives, were used as money in countless tribes that did not have a state and a civilization as we know it, in Asia, Africa and the Pacific Islands for thousands of years. In the western Pacific, on Yap Island and its surrounding islands, tribal societies formed coins called Rai from large stones, although they did not have a state.
In fact, it is not necessary to go back thousands of years to see that money is not necessarily linked to the state. We have a solid example before our eyes: Gold.
Gold does not need government approval to be valuable. Gold is valuable to almost all people all over the world and is also used as money when appropriate. Those who say that we should not call Bitcoin money, of course, do not want to accept gold as money. I advise them to talk to Ukrainians fleeing the Russian offensive, or to asylum seekers trying to salvage the savings they have built over the years of the Syrian Civil War. While trying to cross the border, they can find hundreds of stories of paying with Gold when they needed it most, with their own and their families' lives in danger. Come on, prove to these oppressed people that gold is not money. If there was no gold money, all of the central banks responsible for money production would not have gold in their vaults.
Gold and Bitcoin are coins with similar properties. They are decentralized. Bitcoin or Gold does not have a CEO, headquarters, etc. If gold or Bitcoin prices drop, there is no authority to turn to. However, the dollar has both a CEO and a headquarters: the Fed is the headquarters of the dollar, and the Fed President is its CEO. If the dollar falls too low or rises too much, people knock on the Fed chairman's door. They ask him to do something. Gold and Bitcoin are limited in number in the world, they do not need government approval to prove their worth. Whereas, the dollar is unlimited and needs government approval to be of value.
At this stage, economists, academics, and especially some bureaucrats, who advocate centralized structures, panic. They think that if Bitcoin is accepted as money, it will destroy the national currency of the state and even the state itself. There can be no such thing as an empty fear. Is gold destroying national currencies? On the contrary, central banks put plenty of gold in their reserves in order to make their national currencies stronger.
The same is true for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a currency that works on the world's most secure computer network thanks to blockchain technology and is accepted by hundreds of millions of economic actors globally. Can't be shut down, hacked and records can't be changed. In addition, Bitcoin is constantly gaining great value in the long run due to the future potential of Blockchain technology and limited production.
Telling all this, these incompetent theorists, who are ignorant of the history of money and generally have never done any real business in the market in their lives, are in a state of delirium: "The state will not relinquish the right to seigniorage and the privilege of printing unlimited money," they shout.
Again, history refutes itself. Skilled state people and central bankers, who have not cut themselves off from life and reality, handed over these so-called 'rights' when the time came. Rather than trying to manage everything themselves, smart managers have enabled the market to solve economic problems, especially by using decentralized limited money.
So Bitcoin and blockchain can be used perfectly not to destroy the state or national currency, as feared, but to make it much stronger.
Those who say that we should not call Bitcoin money all over the world do not care about people, states or national currencies. Their only concern is to maintain their dominant role in the central system. For this, they do not hesitate to apply cruelty if necessary.
Those who say let's not call Bitcoin money, let's not call it cost of living, let's call it a routine price increase, let's not call it a raise, let's call it an update, etc. are in the same mind as those who say...