But as Bitcoiners, we should utilize debt as little as possible and focus on saving for the future. Fiat is based on unsound principles and is doomed for failure, so isn't there no need for the opposite hedge?
We only hold cash for uncertainty.
Discussion
In theory I think you are right. But, in practice, this approach can put a person into a lot of problems. For example, you rent a place for many years to avoid taking a mortgage because 1) you think the financial house of cards may collapse at any time and 2) you want to take the moral high ground by minimising your involvement in fiatnam. Ten years later, house prices have gone up, you’ve spent a fortune in rent and you are financially far behind people who did the “normal” thing and loaded up on debt to buy their home (“Route 1”). Yes, it’s possible that hodling Bitcoin for 10 years will outperform Route 1 (from both a nominal returns and ethical POV) but this is all based on an assumption that Bitcoin will continue its remarkable growth. It’s this last point I think we need to consider with less hubris. For many Bitcoiners continued NgU is a near certainty (View 1); outsiders may not see it this way (View 2).
Have we discounted the possibility that View 2 (and associated capital flows) will dominate View 1? If so, is it ethical to expect and encourage people to have more than 1-3% of their wealth in Bitcoin?
In theory I think you are right. But, in practice, this approach can put a person into a lot of problems. For example, you rent a place for many years to avoid taking a mortgage because 1) you think the financial house of cards may collapse at any time and 2) you want to take the moral high ground by minimising your involvement in fiatnam. Ten years later, house prices have gone up, you’ve spent a fortune in rent and you are financially far behind people who did the “normal” thing and loaded up on debt to buy their home (“Route 1”). Yes, it’s possible that hodling Bitcoin for 10 years will outperform Route 1 (from both a nominal returns and ethical POV) but this is all based on an assumption that Bitcoin will continue its remarkable growth. It’s this last point I think we need to consider with less hubris. For many Bitcoiners continued NgU is a near certainty (View 1); outsiders may not see it this way (View 2).
Have we discounted the possibility that View 2 (and associated capital flows) will dominate View 1? If so, is it ethical to expect and encourage people to have more than 1-3% of their wealth in Bitcoin?