I don't understand your statement?
Discussion
Which part?
I assumed you meant gold didn’t survive backing debt because of IOUs and centralization. Is this not what you meant?
No, not even close.
What did you mean?
Gold was never used to back debt.
The gold standard, which existed until 1971 was used to back assets.
Bitcoin is just starting to be used to back debt, if you read the article in full it should explain everything clearly to you.
I don’t agree with the statement that gold was not used to back debt (either directly or indirectly). But that aside, bitcoin is not gold so trying to predict what will happen to bitcoin based on what will happen to gold is unproductive.
Bitcoin is not digital gold.
Thank you for your feedback.
If you are still interested, can I suggest you read this part of the thread:
Otherwise, I am happy to agree to disagree.
nostr:note1cukyl3ar6z8ylywzp97aynnqxp4nt5kagfddjje38c4qthfwtw7s052c8x
I read that part. I did not understand the need to state that gold did not back debt which did not promise to be backed by gold.
At the end of the day companies and countries held and still hold gold as a reserve asset. They can use gold any other treasury asset to male good on their promises (debt). They are unlikely to do so if they can print what they borrowed.
Make*
You’re still not correctly stating my position or any statement I’ve made.
Nor do I understand any statement you are attempting to make.
I think we have gone as far as we can in this discussion.
We appear to have a communication problem, I apologise for not being able to explain myself to you correctly.
I wish you a nice day.
No worries.
Saylor’s framework is most useful imo: Bitcoin aims to demonetize global assets (worth $450 trillion) used as stores of value. What happens with debt in this scenario is anyone’s guess.