As long as Bitcoin (BTC) continues to thrive in terms of adoption and relative valuation, a keen consideration of its relevance will continually spark debates amongst investors around the world. Is Bitcoin worthy to be classified as money? Is Bitcoin a good hedge against inflation? Can Bitcoin be used as a store of value? this and more questions form the center point of debates with differing answers across the board.
While many retail investors follow the bandwagon in their investment activities, only a few understand the underlying fundamentals behind the cryptocurrency’s economics. This factor is both good and bad, as the parity of knowledge can be used by the few knowledgeable investors to manipulate the prices of the asset and other altcoins as a whole.
When Bitcoin ticks a significant milestone in its price run, the bulls that favor Bitcoin takes the center stage to profess their trust in the coin’s potentials, while a bearish plunge gives the critics room to express their distrust for the coin. In all these, perspectives in the Bitcoin relevance debate matters and the latest insinuations will be explored below.
Bitcoin Relevance Debate: Skybridge Executives VS JPMorgan Strategists
The analysis of the context of opinion between Skybridge executives Anthony Scaramucci and Brett Messing and JPMorgan Chase strategists John Normand and Federico Manicardi was not adapted based on a face-off peculiar to a debate scenario but based on published reports from mainstream news outlets.
The Skybrige executives believe that Bitcoin has evolved to become a reliable long-term asset class. The duo argued that investments in Bitcoin today is not as risky as it used to be years ago as regulations and the involvement of financial institutions is helping to minimize the risks inherent in holding bitcoin.
“At the same time, increased regulations, improved infrastructure and access to financial institutions — like Fidelity — that hold investors’ money have made bitcoin investments as safe as owning bonds and commodities like gold, which are also used to balance portfolios,” they wrote in a CNN published OpEd.
The disposition of the JPMorgan strategists differs, arguing that the fact that Bitcoin (BTC) is now being embraced by retail investors has increased its correlation to traditional investment assets. The disadvantage of which they claim can subject the asset to a corresponding crash if there is a global market meltdown. They believe that though Bitcoin is serving its holders well at this time, it may not be reliable in the long-term as investors may eventually diversify their portfolios.
The two submissions both have their logic but the overall show off of Bitcoin will best be seen in the nick of time.
Whose Side of the Argument Should Investors Tilt?
While Scaramucci and Messing are the bulls profiled here, Bitcoin has many more other proponents including Anthony Pompliano, Michael Saylor, and others. Similarly, Gold bull Peter Schiff shares the same sentiment as Normand and Federico that Bitcoin may not have a long-term prospect.
While this debate on the relevance of Bitcoin progresses, the average investor may be wondering whose side of the argument to support. The truth is that neutrality such as that of SoftBank Boss Masayoshi Son who sold off his stake in Bitcoin may be the best side of the argument. However, the expectation that Scaramucci may be right in the long run may make deciding not to follow the bandwagon at this time a very wrong choice.