Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At this point there's waayy too many actors and people who want Bitcoin to succeed This has no relation to whether something goes to zero (or practically zero). Political influence? Sure. But I don't think anyone expects D.C. to bail out Bitcoin. > A company has a "single point of failure" Companies trade after bankruptcy. There are stubs, practical and theoretical, for companies improperly wound up going back deca…
> But I don't think anyone expects D.C. to bail out Bitcoin. What does it mean for Bitcoin to be bailed out? How can Bitcoin "fail"? > But a penny price is as good as zero. Why would it go to zero?
Around when Bitcoin was trading at $19,000, my Uber driver told me about the second line he'd taken on his home to buy some. That's not a systemic problem in America. But it might be in some other countries, e.g. South Korea.
Suppose Bitcoin crashed 90% and stayed down for a few months. It is conceivable that Seoul might pay out, to avoid social tension. Directly, e.g. you get a jeon for every won you lost, or indirectly, e.g. temporarily increasing welfare benefits [1].
Note that I said "conceivable." It is unlikely, hence why I think arguing that because lots of people are involved it cannot become worthless is silly.
> Why would it go to zero?
Why would it go to $50,000? Because people decide it's worthless (or worth more).
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/03/long-term-u...