"3F SEC Filings show US Banks are buying Bitcoin," and despite the assertion that Bitcoin isn't money, it likely never will be, nor does it need to hold the position of being without a second best, as Michael Saylor often boasts. Saylor's adherence to Bitcoin maximalism is toxic, and following such individuals is ill-advised.
Several years ago, John McAfee commented on Bitcoin, stating that it was slow, clunky, lacked privacy, and would no longer function as money. Whether McAfee was under the influence before making this statement is beyond my knowledge, but the man was correct.
Bitcoin was originally conceived as a currency, a peer-to-peer decentralized financial system intended to disrupt the existing financial order. Yet, 15 years later, Bitcoin has failed to disrupt much of anything. While enthusiasts celebrate the appreciation of their coins, the distribution of the 21 million that will ever exist is gradually falling into the hands of bankers (BlackRock and similar entities included in my definition of the banking cartel).
Why was Ross Ulbricht apprehended? It was due to Bitcoin. Bitcoin leaves traces, but money should be easy to use, with transfer speeds surpassing the average, and offering privacy. Bitcoin falls short in these regards.
While we may profit from cryptocurrency adoption as an investment vehicle, ultimately, a deeply undervalued project like Hive could outperform Bitcoin as a form of money. My Hive account is somehow linked to my identity, a conscious choice I made. However, for those who haven't made this choice, they can transact, spend, and use the blockchain entirely anonymously.
Is Hive money? Yes, it is, and it's superior to Bitcoin. You can earn, leverage, spend it (albeit in limited areas like Cuba for now), and it offers privacy—features Bitcoin lacks. You can't earn Bitcoin to the same extent as Hive, leverage it as effectively, or use it privately.
There are numerous videos demonstrating Hive users using HBD to purchase goods in various parts of the world. While BTC can accomplish this through the Lightning Network, it's not equivalent. Saylor's assertion that "there is no second best" applies to his view on Bitcoin but not to the entire potential of a decentralized blockchain.
Hive serves as a "store of data," something Bitcoin can never be to the extent that Hive can. Achieving full anonymity with Bitcoin involves numerous hurdles and may be unattainable. I doubt complete anonymity with Bitcoin is feasible since acquiring it leaves traces.
With Hive, one can start from scratch, earn their way up, and remain completely anonymous. At present, neither Bitcoin nor Hive truly qualify as money, but in terms of fulfilling the complete functionalities of money, I believe Hive has the edge over Bitcoin. I may be mistaken, perhaps biased toward Hive, much like Saylor is toward Bitcoin, but I don't subscribe to his assertion that "there's no second best."
Second best for what?
Thanks for your attention,
Adrian