The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

> Just because some cryptos goes to zero doesn’t mean all crypto has zero value.

That's true. Crypto has zero value because it has no utility. It's like a Pokemon card: it only has value if people have assigned value to it. You can't make anything with it, and it doesn't give you any legal right to a future cash flow (like a stock or a promissory note does).

Let me predict your response: "The same is true of fiat!"

Yes, true. Fiat currency can also drop to $0 in value, of course. But no one is pretending otherwise, and fiat currency is heavily manipulated by central banks to avoid large peaks and valleys (which works in some countries and not in others).

The problem with crypto is not that it's imaginary money. It's that its supporters pretend otherwise.

Many crypto enthusiasts at some point argue that a) stocks and fiat currencies are shared social fictions, so b) what's the big difference between them and crypto? There was a meme that went around a few years ago which said something to the effect of "Your parents don't understand crypto because they think money is real."

There is some truth to this argument. Stock prices can diverge wildly from fundamentals, and I can understand how people can look at various stocks and throw their hands up in the air.

At the same time, I think this argument misses the point somewhat. Which is that it is the shared part of "shared fiction" that matters. What convinces millions upon millions upon millions of people that dollars should be used is the fact that everyone else is also convinced; not that the exact price of, say, a chair, is somewhat arbitrary.

> I mean any asset is vulnerable to being worth $0 at any moment.

Absolutely, totally wrong. Let's look at some of the most common assets.

- Houses:

> your previously valuable house could actually be worthless due to a structural defect

Wrong. If you buy a new house, you likely have a builder's warranty. If you buy an existing house, you get an inspection. Unless the house is very inexpensive and the inspector is totally incompetent, you're not going to find something that costs more to fix than the house itself cost you.

But even if you did and the house could no longer be occupied, you'd still be able to sell the land and salvage building materials from the house.

Your house can't suddenly be worth $0 because of the collapse of a speculative market. You can be underwater, but if the house can be lived in or the land can be used, it has value.

- Cars: Can be sold for parts or scrap.

- Stocks: Legally entitle you to profits of a company, which is only worth $0 if the company has been involved in major fraud or you bought the stock of a company that was insolvent already. Definitely possible, but easy to avoid. Microsoft is not suddenly going to blow up, for example.

- Govt bonds: Possible to become valueless, but usually backed up by something in a developed country (like bankruptcy laws). If a credit-worthy country like the US has bonds that suddenly become worthless, society is probably otherwise collapsing and you have other problems.

- Gold/silver/diamonds: Can't become valueless because they have industrial uses.

- Index funds: Would, again, require a societal collapse to lose all their value.

I love crypto conversations on HN between the pro and the anti crypto crowd. It's rare to see two groups of people deliberately misunderstanding each other so fiercely.

I'm no expert and I find both positive and disconcerting points in cryptocurrencies so I am not sided on this issue. What is perplexing me is the fact that more or less every discussion on the topic is centered on the dollar price (or another government currency) of the cryptocurrency in question. I'm curious to be presented a counterargument but if it was a real currency and not a speculative asset (not to criticize) why would it be the center of discussion? For example main focus over the Euro (except in specific cases such as Forex exchange for example) is not about conversion to another currency because it is a widespread and accepted way to settle your debts while cryptocurrencies are not there yet(?). In my current vision the way it will be cryptocurrencies over cryptoassets will be the day the conversion will be a secondary issue as it will suffice in itself because it's an organic (really) widespread way to extinguish debt for good & services consumption.