Nostr Web Client

nostr:npub1v5k43t905yz6lpr4crlgq2d99e7ahsehk27eex9mz7s3rhzvmesqum8rd9 please reconsider presenting #bitcoin as “digital real estate.” I know that you, and nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m, are trying to help CRE investors and normies understand the value prop of Bitcoin, and this may be a useful metaphor to build an understanding.

However, in N. America (and many other European and Asian countries), real estate investors must pay property taxes, annually. Sometimes the amount of taxes due is based on market value, other jurisdictions base it on purchase price, and even others base it on an opinion of someone at the County Assessor’s office.

One could easily see governments attempt to tax Digital Property on an annual basis and this would be similar to a wealth tax, which is currently untenable due to the illiquidity of most property investments whether investments in privately-held companies, art, collectibles, etc. Not so with Bitcoin.

We should stop equating bitcoin to digital property and, instead, call it what it is: a Digital Commodity or, simply, Digital Currency.

Thoughts?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

FreedomAppreciator 1y ago

Agree. Although, I do like Michael Saylor’s analogy comparing BTC to New York City real estate. So, I’d use the analogy when appropriate but mostly avoid “its digital real estate.” Furthermore, there was a website in the 90’s or early 2000’s called (I think) “secondlife” which was similar to a giant video game where people were buying (with real money) houses, hotels, etc. and, well, it no longer exists. Nobody wants to buy BTC only to have it cease to exist in 15-20 years. I mention this because I’d bet tech interested CRE investors of a certain age, say 50+, might remember “secondlife.”

FreedomAppreciator 1y ago

I guess Second Life was launched in 2003. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life