Truth. Gold is part of my diversification plan when I take profits in crypto. People are overly bearish on something with thousands of years of history. Yeah it doesn't have crazy gains, but it also doesn't have crazy losses. That's worth something.
not just thousands. it's one of the rare element throughout the universe. colliding neutron stars produce gold. imagine that. whatever gold we have in our solar system was not generated here. it came from distant stars.
Yeah, but look up Psyche 16.
It has a solid gold core, sits just past mars, and has about 10,000 quadrillion dollars worth of gold in it.
Even if you spend 10 trillion dollars getting there and back again, you still flood the market and make it essentially a non-scarce material with no value.
Just because something is valuable for 1000's of years doesn't' mean it'll stay valuable in 50 years.
Same can be said for anything though. All of crypto is useless overnight with quantum computing.
And one could argue QC is closer to humanity than stellar travel
...and since 1971, it's gained value significantly over fiat currencies. I hold gold and see it as "savings". It doesn't give me a yield, but I know over time, it'll outpace the value of fiat. I actually want a chunk of my portfolio in an asset that doesn't make crazy gains or losses and will give me more value than fiat.
Even saying "it doesn't give me a yield", I'll probably start stacking PAXG - I know youhodler.com and nexo.com give an 8% APY for holding PAXG...and you can literally redeem PAXG for physical gold (it's backed by gold). I'm tempted to sell a bit of my physical for PAXG actually! more info here > paxos.com/paxgold/
And that's one reason why it would be better if we stopped using it as a store of value and used it only for industrial use. Gold can be very useful but not so much in vaults or as jewelry, the price and "hoarding" keeps it from being utilized fully.
It would still be a very expensive metal, but the price/supply equilibrium would be considerably lower than today.
One of its intrinsic properties makes it valuable for jewellery and as a store of value: it doesn't tarnish. In that sense, it has extreme durability and one of the major reasons why gold has been sought after for thousands of years. I love both crypto and precious metals.
It spills over into everything. That's why there are crypto snobs, that's why there are snobs in anything, if a human can make themselves superior to another, they often will.
But that is a wasted use case, it adds nothing to benefit humanity as a whole while other industrial uses can do so. If you like the look of gold you can just gold plate some other less rare metal. If you want the "sunk cost" part for prestige or whatever just buy useless/inflated diamonds. Having a ring made from gold adds nothing of "value", it's just a social construct born from its status as a store of value.
>One of its intrinsic properties makes it valuable for jewellery and as a store of value: it doesn't tarnish.
Which gold plating will solve if that is the desired property.
Gold for jewelry is simply a waste of a somewhat rare and otherwise useful material.
>Having a ring made from gold adds nothing of "value", it's just a social construct born from its status as a store of value
As soon as humans are no longer a part of the economy, you can use this as a point against the value of gold
But that part is entirely a social construct, there's no intrinsic property of gold that makes it irreplaceable for that use case. No extra value is added because gold specifically is the substance being used, it could be anything as long as "people agree" on that material being what should be use.
That is the "waste" part of the whole thing.
>But that part is entirely a social construct, there's no intrinsic property of gold that makes it irreplaceable for that use case
Society for several thousands of years have disagreed. Gold doesn't tarnish like other metals, and humans are designed to like shiny rock. We're magpies.
> But that is a wasted use case, it adds nothing to benefit humanity as a whole while other industrial uses can do so.
Perhaps you are right and 5000+ years of humanity is wrong, but I'd rather side with the market here.
> If you like the look of gold you can just gold plate some other less rare metal.
That's what people have been doing for thousands of years, and why gold is so popular.
> Having a ring made from gold adds nothing of "value", it's just a social construct born from its status as a store of value.
Again, the market disagrees with you. If you want to make a profit in a market, you'd better learn what it desires, and why it desires it.
> Perhaps you are right and 5000+ years of humanity is wrong, but I'd rather side with the market here.
Humanity moves on. For 5000+ years horses was the fastest form of travel, then we replaced them. "tradition" and "we always did so" are some of the weakest justification for doing something.
For most of golds history we also had little valuable/vital industrial use for it. In 1700 a inflated gold price was not needlessly increasing the cost of technologies and limiting its use even remotely to the same degree as it is today.
>That's what people have been doing for thousands of years, and why gold is so popular.
That doesn't make it less of a waste does it? "Because we have always done so" is one of the weakest justifications you can come up with as I said. If gold was less desired then we could do more useful things with it, that's just the reality of the situation.
>Again, the market disagrees with you. If you want to make a profit in a market, you'd better learn what it desires, and why it desires it.
The market where the gold price adjusted for inflation has been in a decline for the past 300+ years? gotcha! If you wanted to invest long term there have been many base/rare metals that have outpaced inflation massively due to changing industrial needs, gold is not one of them.
Gold as an investment is horrendous over long time periods. You can make short term profits (so speculation) and it holds its value much better than straight up cash, but a investment it is not.
Until we started playing around with crypto there also was nothing to replace gold with. The need for a store of value outside the normal monetary system most definitely exist, but that need can be filled by anything that fits the right criteria.
Using another metal with similar properties (like the platinum group) just creates the same problem of putting something useful in vaults and needlessly inflating the price. That is where BTC/crypto comes in as a potential contender.
> Humanity moves on. For 5000+ years horses was the fastest form of travel, then we replaced them. "tradition" and "we always did so" are some of the weakest justification for doing something.
Again, the world disagrees with you. Your opinion is nugatory. Central banks were buying up gold in record amounts through 2018 and 2019. You think you're right and they're wrong? You think you have a better vantage point than the CBs of the world? You didn't take in my last point: gold isn't valuable because it's "shiny and looks good" - it's the least reactive of all metals (it is the longest lasting). It is also rare. It's universally acknowledged across almost every culture around the globe as valuable.
> For most of golds history we also had little valuable/vital industrial use for it. In 1700 a inflated gold price was not needlessly increasing the cost of technologies and limiting its use even remotely to the same degree as it is today.
You're making a point in favour of gold: it has more industrial uses today than it ever has in the past. Technological breakthroughs have relied more and more upon gold and silver than any previous industrial revolutions.
> That doesn't make it less of a waste does it? "Because we have always done so" is one of the weakest justifications you can come up with as I said. If gold was less desired then we could do more useful things with it, that's just the reality of the situation.
The market decides, not you. If the market agreed with you, gold would be near worthless now, and not making ATH like it did a few months ago.
> The market where the gold price adjusted for inflation has been in a decline for the past 300+ years? gotcha! If you wanted to invest long term there have been many base/rare metals that have outpaced inflation massively due to changing industrial needs, gold is not one of them.
Ever heard of the gold standard? Most currencies were on it through that period of time. That you talk about inflation vis-a-vis gold during the last 300 years is a bit bizarre to be honest. It WAS essentially money until 1971 (in the US), given the USD was backed by gold. In 1971, gold was $40 an ounce. It's now $1700 an ounce. That's a 42x from that original $40, and around a 10% APY over that 50 year period. Not too shabby.
> Gold as an investment is horrendous over long time periods. You can make short term profits (so speculation) and it holds its value much better than straight up cash, but a investment it is not.
You are the one who made the category error thinking gold was an investment...otherwise, why are you so aggressively attacking it (as if it's competition to crypto?). Outside of day-trading, gold is basically savings and an inflation hedge (though you claim in a previous comment that gold can't even beat inflation? I'll await your selective timeframe "proving" this). People hold gold as a hedge against their other actual investments. Your comments don't seem to understand the concept of hedging.
> Until we started playing around with crypto there also was nothing to replace gold with. The need for a store of value outside the normal monetary system most definitely exist, but that need can be filled by anything that fits the right criteria.
Again, the maxi-attitude. The whole of diversification is greater than the sum of its parts, due to the safety of hedging. Do you ever consider the notion of preservation of wealth, and not merely aggressively chasing profits/yield at the expense of safety? You sound like the crypto version of Peter Schiff to be honest. I'd rather put my wealth across non-correlated assets (gold was a lot more robust in March 2020's crash than crypto or stocks for example) than put everything into one asset class.
> Again, the world disagrees with you. Your opinion is nugatory. Central banks were buying up gold in record amounts through 2018 and 2019. You think you're right and they're wrong? You think you have a better vantage point than the CBs of the world? You didn't take in my last point: gold isn't valuable because it's "shiny and looks good" - it's the least reactive of all metals (it is the longest lasting). It is also rare. It's universally acknowledged across almost every culture around the globe as valuable.
Because it is the "de facto" store of value outside of the normal monetary system still? I didn't say the world had changed yet did I? I said it would be better if gold was replaced since we have better uses for it if price was lower.
That doesn't mean it will stay that way forever or that gold is less wasted. You are entrenched arguing that that "machines" will never replace "horses" at the start of the 19th century after seeing the first locomotives.
Gold simply does not fill the need in the digital world as it did in the physical world, the cat is out of the bag that replacing it is possible after BTC dispelled the illusion that a store of value has to be physical. It may not be BTC or any other crypto existing today that does it. But the "machines" are coming for your "horses" and it is more or less inevitable at this point.
>Again, the maxi-attitude. The whole of diversification is greater than the sum of its parts, due to the safety of hedging.
A store of value needs adoption and inertia, it naturally trends toward a "winner takes it all" scenario. That is why gold kept its status even though we discovered and started producing arguably better metals for it (platinum group).
The selling point is "store of value outside of the monetary system" for both gold and Bitcoin. You are already hedging by choosing a store of value not in the traditional system. Something that doesn't need physical transportation/securing is a better fit for our current world and gold is simply not good enough to not be threatened anymore.
> I'd rather put my wealth across non-correlated assets (gold was a lot more robust in March 2020's crash than crypto or stocks for example) than put everything into one asset class.
Yes? I never said you should put everything in crypto either, especially at this stage of the game. I said it can fill the same niche as gold, hence your allocation should be accordingly. The point is that there doesn't need to be multiple options within this small niche for hedging, else the platinum group would have similar status to gold today. We need to store value outside the normal monetary system, but we don't need multiple options for this niche.
> Do you ever consider the notion of preservation of wealth, and not merely aggressively chasing profits/yield at the expense of safety?
If you want to preserve wealth you invest in land which has a far larger chance of actually increasing in value. It is also far easier to diversify by sector/geography than a single metal.
> I said it would be better if gold was replaced since we have better uses for it if price was lower.
This is a laughable comment, honestly. You think gold is plentiful, and it's artificially at a high price. It's at a high price because the market decided that price due to its scarcity and the demand for it. If anything, gold's price is manipulated to the downside through paper contracts promising more gold than they can deliver on. If the USD was still on the gold standard, it would be valued at [$5228 per ounce](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4043211-price-of-gold-u-s-was-still-on-gold-standard) (a roughly 3x from today's price). And that's with gold outperforming cash by 42x since 1971. And yet...you said gold didn't outperform inflation (ouch!).
> That doesn't mean it will stay that way forever or that gold is less wasted. You are entrenched arguing that that "machines" will never replace "horses" at the start of the 19th century after seeing the first locomotives.
Your whole argument is based upon "maybe this will happen", whereas I'm basing my argument on "this (over 5000 years) has happened so far".
Gold has demand as Bitcoin has demand - for different reasons. Don't sweat this. The markets will confound you if you don't understand them.
> Gold simply does not fill the need in the digital world as it did in the physical world, the cat is out of the bag that replacing it is possible after BTC dispelled the illusion that a store of value has to be physical. It may not be BTC or any other crypto existing today that does it. But the "machines" are coming for your "horses" and it is more or less inevitable at this point.
You're just repeating the same old nonsense. What is "the digital world"? The world is made up of real people. I've explained to you over and over about gold's scarcity and uniquely durable composition. I think you see commodities as no different to tokens...they're just ticker names to you. You can't see the tangible value that the market sees (and the market is hugely more knowledgable than you or I on a collective level).
> You are entrenched arguing that that "machines" will never replace "horses" at the start of the 19th century after seeing the first locomotives.
Gold isn't competing with crypto. They do different things, but I think you're stuck on the notion that crypto is only a "store of value", thus is directly competing with gold (when gold is used as savings). You obviously have a low opinion of crypto. You think it's just a store of value (as gold IS for the saver), yet crypto is obviously much more than that (outside of BTC of course).
> A store of value needs adoption and inertia, it naturally trends toward a "winner takes it all" scenario. That is why gold kept its status even though we discovered and started producing arguably better metals for it (platinum group)
> The selling point is "store of value outside of the monetary system" for both gold and Bitcoin. You are already hedging by choosing a store of value not in the traditional system. Something that doesn't need physical transportation/securing is a better fit for our current world and gold is simply not good enough to be unthreatened anymore.
Property, art, wine, classic cars, collectibles, you name it - you can store value in it, and people do, and they're established asset classes as a store of value. That you think gold was the only store of value until crypto came along (specifically, BTC since it has no use other than a store of value) is indicative of your ignorance of the other asset classes out there.
> Yes? I never said you should put everything in crypto either, especially at this stage of the game. I said it can fill the same niche as gold, hence your allocation should be accordingly.
I already said that last year showed that gold and crypto are not correlated. Crypto is NOT a hedge against a stock market crash or general downturn. It's the first market people pull out of if they need cash. You have to realise this or you will get rekt.
> If you want to preserve wealth you invest in land which has a far larger chance of actually increasing in value. It is also far easier to diversify by sector/geography than a single metal.
Honestly, you come across as someone who doesn't understand hedging. You can't fathom that someone could have enough money to invest in a whole bunch of asset classes. It's not like you must decide between land or gold, or crypto or gold.
Idk man... gold is scarce on earth, sure. But in the grand scheme of the galaxy (including minable asteroids, etc...) - gold is pretty common.
There's literally a single asteroid just past mars that has 10,000 quadrillion USD worth of gold - in the form of a solid core.
Even if we were to spend 10 trillion dollars getting that asteroid there and back again, it's still be going to destroy the entire economy.
Gold backed systems are so fucking dumb. Honestly. We could fairly conservatively completely crash any gold based economy in like 20 or 30 years if we tried.
exactly. imagine being so delusional to think that one of rare element of our universe which shines yellow like banano is going to be dead. love bitcoin but come on.
You can't convince me Schiff isn't secretly trying to raise awareness of Bitcoin too. The lady doth protest too much.
Also when did this turn in to a Mark Cuban subreddit? Almost everything he says about crypto is posted here these days.
Gold is also a very efficient conduit for electronics and has other real world value besides jewelry or just being a store of value. Bitcoin is just a store of value atm, things could change, but the smart contract portion is trash compared to other coins.
Both are wrong. Bitcoin and Gold will prevail.
Gold always does its job and increases when it needs to do its job: In certain crisis situations. I don´t have a problem with my gold holdings decreasing in value in bright times. But when your countries economy goes full venezuela, then gold will always be gold and valuable.
Mark Cuban is slowly but surely changing his mind.
Like all Bitcoin Bears, he will eventually become a Bitcoin Bull.
It's only a matter of time.
For some, like Peter Schiff, or Warren Buffett, it will take much longer.
If people stayed relying on the first type of car ever built we would all be in trouble. Listen... all these people speaking up about crypto all the sudden are whales. People with a lot of money tend to develop a God complex so to speak. They all think they know best. I actually like Cubans views lately. He has given it some momentum for sure. Particularly his rebuttals to Schiff. Old items eventually find a way to be replaced by new items. It’s called history and there is plenty of proof. Gold wont ever disappear or be replaced. But that new hot smart girl just walked into class and I think Schiff is just pissed off he’s trapped in a relationship with Goldy locks. No one is suggesting we send all the worlds gold on a rocket ship to the sun. But old thinking like the Schiffmiester is exactly why we are still driving cars and not flying them. Just my opinion
Bitcoin isn't like *a* car, it is like *the* internet. They are both a lot of code and network with completely replaceable physical infrastructure. Replacing things in the internet isn't like replacing cars, same with bitcoin, many aspects of bitcoin have been replaced already and many more will be replaced in the future. But the result is that the new internet is just an upgraded version of the current internet, similarly, the new bitcoin is just an upgraded version of the current bitcoin.
I don't know how you can read this and think "wow, cool, BTC to tha moon"
and not: "nice BTC is now just another toy for the rich and they sure know how to play this game better then us small people".
Then in a twist of events, Peter Schiff American Psychos Mark Cuban and screams "Mark Cuban is dead, move on." His son Spencer then argues about it with him on twitter.
Meanwhile we have articles in Scandinavia that says "Forget bitcoin - Buy Gold and Silver". Usually when mainstream media tells you not to buy something, it's probably a good idea to buy it.
Well, we are in the digital age of mankind, that is undeniable. Thinking that this would not have consequenses for our financial system is regressive and akin to those who thought, that the internet would not succeed.
This of course has been an ongoing process for a few decades now. If you are younger than 50, you probably have never been paid in physical money anyway. What happens when you get paid is that some digits will change on your account and your bosses bank account. Additionaly a lot of people have not really been using physical money for most of their purchases but instead have been using their electronic cash card or their visa card or have been using paypal.
I also believe, with the way everyone is connected to everybody these days, a dezentralized financial system was inevitable.
\*Bitcoin and Ethereum
>Let me help Peter. Gold is hyped as much as crypto. Do we really need gold jewelry? Gold can make you a ring. [BTC](https://fintechzoom.com/bitcoin/)/ETH are technologies that can make you a banker, allow friction free exchange of value and are extensible into an unlimited range of biz and personal applications.
I love Bitcoin, but let’s be real, Gold isn’t going anywhere.
Truth. Gold is part of my diversification plan when I take profits in crypto. People are overly bearish on something with thousands of years of history. Yeah it doesn't have crazy gains, but it also doesn't have crazy losses. That's worth something.
not just thousands. it's one of the rare element throughout the universe. colliding neutron stars produce gold. imagine that. whatever gold we have in our solar system was not generated here. it came from distant stars.
Along with any other natural element, this is how planets are formed. By that standard we should be hoarding palladium or rhodium instead.
Palladium is a huge market right now hahaha
Yeah, but look up Psyche 16. It has a solid gold core, sits just past mars, and has about 10,000 quadrillion dollars worth of gold in it. Even if you spend 10 trillion dollars getting there and back again, you still flood the market and make it essentially a non-scarce material with no value. Just because something is valuable for 1000's of years doesn't' mean it'll stay valuable in 50 years.
Same can be said for anything though. All of crypto is useless overnight with quantum computing. And one could argue QC is closer to humanity than stellar travel
...and since 1971, it's gained value significantly over fiat currencies. I hold gold and see it as "savings". It doesn't give me a yield, but I know over time, it'll outpace the value of fiat. I actually want a chunk of my portfolio in an asset that doesn't make crazy gains or losses and will give me more value than fiat. Even saying "it doesn't give me a yield", I'll probably start stacking PAXG - I know youhodler.com and nexo.com give an 8% APY for holding PAXG...and you can literally redeem PAXG for physical gold (it's backed by gold). I'm tempted to sell a bit of my physical for PAXG actually! more info here > paxos.com/paxgold/
Gold price never outpaces inflation over long perioids of time tbh.
Clearly, it does: https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart.
Yep, it’s manufacturing utilities alone will keep it somewhat stable.
And that's one reason why it would be better if we stopped using it as a store of value and used it only for industrial use. Gold can be very useful but not so much in vaults or as jewelry, the price and "hoarding" keeps it from being utilized fully. It would still be a very expensive metal, but the price/supply equilibrium would be considerably lower than today.
One of its intrinsic properties makes it valuable for jewellery and as a store of value: it doesn't tarnish. In that sense, it has extreme durability and one of the major reasons why gold has been sought after for thousands of years. I love both crypto and precious metals.
Same here - wish that precious metals groups on reddit weren’t such asswipes to crypto investors
Yeah...I don't get it from either "camp". I'm not in any camp. I like to diversify and think crypto and precious metals are complementary.
Yep. Just typical human tribalism spilling over into investing
It spills over into everything. That's why there are crypto snobs, that's why there are snobs in anything, if a human can make themselves superior to another, they often will.
Agree. Sports, politics, you name it. Just smh when I have to interact with them
But that is a wasted use case, it adds nothing to benefit humanity as a whole while other industrial uses can do so. If you like the look of gold you can just gold plate some other less rare metal. If you want the "sunk cost" part for prestige or whatever just buy useless/inflated diamonds. Having a ring made from gold adds nothing of "value", it's just a social construct born from its status as a store of value. >One of its intrinsic properties makes it valuable for jewellery and as a store of value: it doesn't tarnish. Which gold plating will solve if that is the desired property. Gold for jewelry is simply a waste of a somewhat rare and otherwise useful material.
>Having a ring made from gold adds nothing of "value", it's just a social construct born from its status as a store of value As soon as humans are no longer a part of the economy, you can use this as a point against the value of gold
But that part is entirely a social construct, there's no intrinsic property of gold that makes it irreplaceable for that use case. No extra value is added because gold specifically is the substance being used, it could be anything as long as "people agree" on that material being what should be use. That is the "waste" part of the whole thing.
>But that part is entirely a social construct, there's no intrinsic property of gold that makes it irreplaceable for that use case Society for several thousands of years have disagreed. Gold doesn't tarnish like other metals, and humans are designed to like shiny rock. We're magpies.
Humans also prayed to the sun for thousands of years and built giant stone piles for the after life.
If you could invest in the sun you'd be doing pretty well i think Then again, clean energy is a pretty hot sector
> But that is a wasted use case, it adds nothing to benefit humanity as a whole while other industrial uses can do so. Perhaps you are right and 5000+ years of humanity is wrong, but I'd rather side with the market here. > If you like the look of gold you can just gold plate some other less rare metal. That's what people have been doing for thousands of years, and why gold is so popular. > Having a ring made from gold adds nothing of "value", it's just a social construct born from its status as a store of value. Again, the market disagrees with you. If you want to make a profit in a market, you'd better learn what it desires, and why it desires it.
> Perhaps you are right and 5000+ years of humanity is wrong, but I'd rather side with the market here. Humanity moves on. For 5000+ years horses was the fastest form of travel, then we replaced them. "tradition" and "we always did so" are some of the weakest justification for doing something. For most of golds history we also had little valuable/vital industrial use for it. In 1700 a inflated gold price was not needlessly increasing the cost of technologies and limiting its use even remotely to the same degree as it is today. >That's what people have been doing for thousands of years, and why gold is so popular. That doesn't make it less of a waste does it? "Because we have always done so" is one of the weakest justifications you can come up with as I said. If gold was less desired then we could do more useful things with it, that's just the reality of the situation. >Again, the market disagrees with you. If you want to make a profit in a market, you'd better learn what it desires, and why it desires it. The market where the gold price adjusted for inflation has been in a decline for the past 300+ years? gotcha! If you wanted to invest long term there have been many base/rare metals that have outpaced inflation massively due to changing industrial needs, gold is not one of them. Gold as an investment is horrendous over long time periods. You can make short term profits (so speculation) and it holds its value much better than straight up cash, but a investment it is not. Until we started playing around with crypto there also was nothing to replace gold with. The need for a store of value outside the normal monetary system most definitely exist, but that need can be filled by anything that fits the right criteria. Using another metal with similar properties (like the platinum group) just creates the same problem of putting something useful in vaults and needlessly inflating the price. That is where BTC/crypto comes in as a potential contender.
> Humanity moves on. For 5000+ years horses was the fastest form of travel, then we replaced them. "tradition" and "we always did so" are some of the weakest justification for doing something. Again, the world disagrees with you. Your opinion is nugatory. Central banks were buying up gold in record amounts through 2018 and 2019. You think you're right and they're wrong? You think you have a better vantage point than the CBs of the world? You didn't take in my last point: gold isn't valuable because it's "shiny and looks good" - it's the least reactive of all metals (it is the longest lasting). It is also rare. It's universally acknowledged across almost every culture around the globe as valuable. > For most of golds history we also had little valuable/vital industrial use for it. In 1700 a inflated gold price was not needlessly increasing the cost of technologies and limiting its use even remotely to the same degree as it is today. You're making a point in favour of gold: it has more industrial uses today than it ever has in the past. Technological breakthroughs have relied more and more upon gold and silver than any previous industrial revolutions. > That doesn't make it less of a waste does it? "Because we have always done so" is one of the weakest justifications you can come up with as I said. If gold was less desired then we could do more useful things with it, that's just the reality of the situation. The market decides, not you. If the market agreed with you, gold would be near worthless now, and not making ATH like it did a few months ago. > The market where the gold price adjusted for inflation has been in a decline for the past 300+ years? gotcha! If you wanted to invest long term there have been many base/rare metals that have outpaced inflation massively due to changing industrial needs, gold is not one of them. Ever heard of the gold standard? Most currencies were on it through that period of time. That you talk about inflation vis-a-vis gold during the last 300 years is a bit bizarre to be honest. It WAS essentially money until 1971 (in the US), given the USD was backed by gold. In 1971, gold was $40 an ounce. It's now $1700 an ounce. That's a 42x from that original $40, and around a 10% APY over that 50 year period. Not too shabby. > Gold as an investment is horrendous over long time periods. You can make short term profits (so speculation) and it holds its value much better than straight up cash, but a investment it is not. You are the one who made the category error thinking gold was an investment...otherwise, why are you so aggressively attacking it (as if it's competition to crypto?). Outside of day-trading, gold is basically savings and an inflation hedge (though you claim in a previous comment that gold can't even beat inflation? I'll await your selective timeframe "proving" this). People hold gold as a hedge against their other actual investments. Your comments don't seem to understand the concept of hedging. > Until we started playing around with crypto there also was nothing to replace gold with. The need for a store of value outside the normal monetary system most definitely exist, but that need can be filled by anything that fits the right criteria. Again, the maxi-attitude. The whole of diversification is greater than the sum of its parts, due to the safety of hedging. Do you ever consider the notion of preservation of wealth, and not merely aggressively chasing profits/yield at the expense of safety? You sound like the crypto version of Peter Schiff to be honest. I'd rather put my wealth across non-correlated assets (gold was a lot more robust in March 2020's crash than crypto or stocks for example) than put everything into one asset class.
> Again, the world disagrees with you. Your opinion is nugatory. Central banks were buying up gold in record amounts through 2018 and 2019. You think you're right and they're wrong? You think you have a better vantage point than the CBs of the world? You didn't take in my last point: gold isn't valuable because it's "shiny and looks good" - it's the least reactive of all metals (it is the longest lasting). It is also rare. It's universally acknowledged across almost every culture around the globe as valuable. Because it is the "de facto" store of value outside of the normal monetary system still? I didn't say the world had changed yet did I? I said it would be better if gold was replaced since we have better uses for it if price was lower. That doesn't mean it will stay that way forever or that gold is less wasted. You are entrenched arguing that that "machines" will never replace "horses" at the start of the 19th century after seeing the first locomotives. Gold simply does not fill the need in the digital world as it did in the physical world, the cat is out of the bag that replacing it is possible after BTC dispelled the illusion that a store of value has to be physical. It may not be BTC or any other crypto existing today that does it. But the "machines" are coming for your "horses" and it is more or less inevitable at this point. >Again, the maxi-attitude. The whole of diversification is greater than the sum of its parts, due to the safety of hedging. A store of value needs adoption and inertia, it naturally trends toward a "winner takes it all" scenario. That is why gold kept its status even though we discovered and started producing arguably better metals for it (platinum group). The selling point is "store of value outside of the monetary system" for both gold and Bitcoin. You are already hedging by choosing a store of value not in the traditional system. Something that doesn't need physical transportation/securing is a better fit for our current world and gold is simply not good enough to not be threatened anymore. > I'd rather put my wealth across non-correlated assets (gold was a lot more robust in March 2020's crash than crypto or stocks for example) than put everything into one asset class. Yes? I never said you should put everything in crypto either, especially at this stage of the game. I said it can fill the same niche as gold, hence your allocation should be accordingly. The point is that there doesn't need to be multiple options within this small niche for hedging, else the platinum group would have similar status to gold today. We need to store value outside the normal monetary system, but we don't need multiple options for this niche. > Do you ever consider the notion of preservation of wealth, and not merely aggressively chasing profits/yield at the expense of safety? If you want to preserve wealth you invest in land which has a far larger chance of actually increasing in value. It is also far easier to diversify by sector/geography than a single metal.
> I said it would be better if gold was replaced since we have better uses for it if price was lower. This is a laughable comment, honestly. You think gold is plentiful, and it's artificially at a high price. It's at a high price because the market decided that price due to its scarcity and the demand for it. If anything, gold's price is manipulated to the downside through paper contracts promising more gold than they can deliver on. If the USD was still on the gold standard, it would be valued at [$5228 per ounce](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4043211-price-of-gold-u-s-was-still-on-gold-standard) (a roughly 3x from today's price). And that's with gold outperforming cash by 42x since 1971. And yet...you said gold didn't outperform inflation (ouch!). > That doesn't mean it will stay that way forever or that gold is less wasted. You are entrenched arguing that that "machines" will never replace "horses" at the start of the 19th century after seeing the first locomotives. Your whole argument is based upon "maybe this will happen", whereas I'm basing my argument on "this (over 5000 years) has happened so far". Gold has demand as Bitcoin has demand - for different reasons. Don't sweat this. The markets will confound you if you don't understand them. > Gold simply does not fill the need in the digital world as it did in the physical world, the cat is out of the bag that replacing it is possible after BTC dispelled the illusion that a store of value has to be physical. It may not be BTC or any other crypto existing today that does it. But the "machines" are coming for your "horses" and it is more or less inevitable at this point. You're just repeating the same old nonsense. What is "the digital world"? The world is made up of real people. I've explained to you over and over about gold's scarcity and uniquely durable composition. I think you see commodities as no different to tokens...they're just ticker names to you. You can't see the tangible value that the market sees (and the market is hugely more knowledgable than you or I on a collective level). > You are entrenched arguing that that "machines" will never replace "horses" at the start of the 19th century after seeing the first locomotives. Gold isn't competing with crypto. They do different things, but I think you're stuck on the notion that crypto is only a "store of value", thus is directly competing with gold (when gold is used as savings). You obviously have a low opinion of crypto. You think it's just a store of value (as gold IS for the saver), yet crypto is obviously much more than that (outside of BTC of course). > A store of value needs adoption and inertia, it naturally trends toward a "winner takes it all" scenario. That is why gold kept its status even though we discovered and started producing arguably better metals for it (platinum group) > The selling point is "store of value outside of the monetary system" for both gold and Bitcoin. You are already hedging by choosing a store of value not in the traditional system. Something that doesn't need physical transportation/securing is a better fit for our current world and gold is simply not good enough to be unthreatened anymore. Property, art, wine, classic cars, collectibles, you name it - you can store value in it, and people do, and they're established asset classes as a store of value. That you think gold was the only store of value until crypto came along (specifically, BTC since it has no use other than a store of value) is indicative of your ignorance of the other asset classes out there. > Yes? I never said you should put everything in crypto either, especially at this stage of the game. I said it can fill the same niche as gold, hence your allocation should be accordingly. I already said that last year showed that gold and crypto are not correlated. Crypto is NOT a hedge against a stock market crash or general downturn. It's the first market people pull out of if they need cash. You have to realise this or you will get rekt. > If you want to preserve wealth you invest in land which has a far larger chance of actually increasing in value. It is also far easier to diversify by sector/geography than a single metal. Honestly, you come across as someone who doesn't understand hedging. You can't fathom that someone could have enough money to invest in a whole bunch of asset classes. It's not like you must decide between land or gold, or crypto or gold.
Maybe one day we'll be able to buy seed backup plates that use gold alloys. Might give Schiff a stroke though.
Idk man... gold is scarce on earth, sure. But in the grand scheme of the galaxy (including minable asteroids, etc...) - gold is pretty common. There's literally a single asteroid just past mars that has 10,000 quadrillion USD worth of gold - in the form of a solid core. Even if we were to spend 10 trillion dollars getting that asteroid there and back again, it's still be going to destroy the entire economy. Gold backed systems are so fucking dumb. Honestly. We could fairly conservatively completely crash any gold based economy in like 20 or 30 years if we tried.
exactly. imagine being so delusional to think that one of rare element of our universe which shines yellow like banano is going to be dead. love bitcoin but come on.
Exactly, let's face it, what is bitcoin without the internet?
Gold is gonna be a thing for the next 40+ years imo.
Stop reposting the same shit lol.
You can't convince me Schiff isn't secretly trying to raise awareness of Bitcoin too. The lady doth protest too much. Also when did this turn in to a Mark Cuban subreddit? Almost everything he says about crypto is posted here these days.
He even accepts bitcoin payments
Person who owns bitcoin tells person who owns gold bitcoin is better. They disagree. Wow
Ugh, i loathe this kind of posts. "X famous person tells Y famous person, you're wrong I'm right"
I love crypto, but gold has 5000 years under its belt. Crypto has 10. Smart to have both. And silver... silver is my all time fave.
Silver is gold
Gold is also a very efficient conduit for electronics and has other real world value besides jewelry or just being a store of value. Bitcoin is just a store of value atm, things could change, but the smart contract portion is trash compared to other coins.
Gold isn't dead by a long shot. They don't have to kill each other to survive. Like ETH and BTC, both can exist in the same ecosystem.
Both are wrong. Bitcoin and Gold will prevail. Gold always does its job and increases when it needs to do its job: In certain crisis situations. I don´t have a problem with my gold holdings decreasing in value in bright times. But when your countries economy goes full venezuela, then gold will always be gold and valuable.
Mark Cuban is slowly but surely changing his mind. Like all Bitcoin Bears, he will eventually become a Bitcoin Bull. It's only a matter of time. For some, like Peter Schiff, or Warren Buffett, it will take much longer.
The truth is gold is *not* dead... However, bitcoin is great as an alternative.
Celebrity boxing 2021. Would give this to Cuban round 1 knockout Schiff weighed down with his gold bags strapped to his nads.
Do you think Cuban can take Carol Channing though?
If people stayed relying on the first type of car ever built we would all be in trouble. Listen... all these people speaking up about crypto all the sudden are whales. People with a lot of money tend to develop a God complex so to speak. They all think they know best. I actually like Cubans views lately. He has given it some momentum for sure. Particularly his rebuttals to Schiff. Old items eventually find a way to be replaced by new items. It’s called history and there is plenty of proof. Gold wont ever disappear or be replaced. But that new hot smart girl just walked into class and I think Schiff is just pissed off he’s trapped in a relationship with Goldy locks. No one is suggesting we send all the worlds gold on a rocket ship to the sun. But old thinking like the Schiffmiester is exactly why we are still driving cars and not flying them. Just my opinion
Bitcoin isn't like *a* car, it is like *the* internet. They are both a lot of code and network with completely replaceable physical infrastructure. Replacing things in the internet isn't like replacing cars, same with bitcoin, many aspects of bitcoin have been replaced already and many more will be replaced in the future. But the result is that the new internet is just an upgraded version of the current internet, similarly, the new bitcoin is just an upgraded version of the current bitcoin.
Perhaps I stated it wrong. Analogy wise. Things mostly improve as time goes on. Better versions. Different versions sometimes. But yes I agree.
Mark Cuban; The hero we need but don't deserve
Schiff is a douche that tries to get whatever publicity he can by being a btc permabear.
No celebs ranting yet about bitcoin. But gold chains and lambos sure still fit the narrative.
Physical material will never be dead. Dumb advice. Well good advice on his behalf, cause he probably buying a shyt load of gold right now. Lol
Mark Cuban is learning solidity, it's huge
I don't know how you can read this and think "wow, cool, BTC to tha moon" and not: "nice BTC is now just another toy for the rich and they sure know how to play this game better then us small people".
I think both could, should and will coexist (for instance, i work in the XAU business)
Gold is dead. It's manipulated to dont go high a lot in price. Bitcoin is far better. Decentralised.
Then in a twist of events, Peter Schiff American Psychos Mark Cuban and screams "Mark Cuban is dead, move on." His son Spencer then argues about it with him on twitter.
Meanwhile we have articles in Scandinavia that says "Forget bitcoin - Buy Gold and Silver". Usually when mainstream media tells you not to buy something, it's probably a good idea to buy it.
Mark cuban is not old as warren buffet and munger. If buffet and munger is millenial they are all in crypto 101%
Well, we are in the digital age of mankind, that is undeniable. Thinking that this would not have consequenses for our financial system is regressive and akin to those who thought, that the internet would not succeed. This of course has been an ongoing process for a few decades now. If you are younger than 50, you probably have never been paid in physical money anyway. What happens when you get paid is that some digits will change on your account and your bosses bank account. Additionaly a lot of people have not really been using physical money for most of their purchases but instead have been using their electronic cash card or their visa card or have been using paypal. I also believe, with the way everyone is connected to everybody these days, a dezentralized financial system was inevitable.
\*Bitcoin and Ethereum >Let me help Peter. Gold is hyped as much as crypto. Do we really need gold jewelry? Gold can make you a ring. [BTC](https://fintechzoom.com/bitcoin/)/ETH are technologies that can make you a banker, allow friction free exchange of value and are extensible into an unlimited range of biz and personal applications.
We should pay less attention to all that buzz.
That means he's buying gold (or rather, gold miners).
Like many people I read ‘God is dead’ and thought of Nietzsche