> Unlike a stock, however, whose value is based on what price people are willing to pay for it
This isn’t quite right. Stocks have value because they represent ownership. The price is based on the perceived value, not the other way around.
But even if no one was willing to buy apple shares, say, they would still have immense value. Shareholders are entitled to the profits.
This is not true of bitcoin, which has no intrinsic value outside of what people are willing to pay for it.
Warren Buffett made this point in an argument against gold investing. If you were an investor in 1900 you would expect stock investments to be worth more in 2000, and for gold not to be, because stocks have productive value and gold doesn’t. And that’s more or less what happened.
This isn’t quite right. Stocks have value because they represent ownership. The price is based on the perceived value, not the other way around.
But even if no one was willing to buy apple shares, say, they would still have immense value. Shareholders are entitled to the profits.
This is not true of bitcoin, which has no intrinsic value outside of what people are willing to pay for it.
Warren Buffett made this point in an argument against gold investing. If you were an investor in 1900 you would expect stock investments to be worth more in 2000, and for gold not to be, because stocks have productive value and gold doesn’t. And that’s more or less what happened.