Bitcoin worth zero? Debate spans 1,872 days

Bitcoin worth zero: The debate that has lasted 1,872 days

There is a scene that repeats periodically in any conversation about cryptocurrencies. Someone declares that Bitcoin is worth zero, another replies that fiat money is too, and both leave convinced they have won the argument. The difference this time is that the exchange has been open for 1,872 days, has accumulated 111 responses, and has survived a Bitcoin that went from $46,500 to $44,900 before doubling its price. The person who started it was clear: "When you convert your junkcoins to fiat after suffering the biggest financial blow of your lives, they will give you this banknote," and below he drew a space to deposit his bile. The space remains. So does the bile.

What is debated when saying Bitcoin is worth zero

The initial thesis is not new: Bitcoin produces no cash flow, pays no coupons, has no industrial value or state backing. Those who defend it add that half the projects are scams and the other half are controlled by whales who also manage traditional money. In essence, they argue, it is digital fiat but easier to hack, and every so often an exchange runs off with users' funds. The conclusion is that the asset is worthless and that Monopoly money inspires more confidence.

The most repeated counterargument does not deny volatility but frames it. 21 million units, mining that gradually depletes, and 7 billion people in the world: if Bitcoin remains a reference as a store of value and medium of exchange, the arithmetic leads to seven-figure numbers per unit. The dollar, they say, is like the Argentine peso or the bolivar, only its depreciation is slower because it is the global reserve currency. And some recall that an asset's value is set not by its physical utility but by someone else's willingness to buy it: if someone offers one hundred euros for a unit, zero is disproven by the transaction itself.

Real use versus speculation: Monero, PAXG, and gold

Between the two extremes appears a third path often lost in the fray. Some claim to use cryptocurrencies daily for commerce and accessing services that would otherwise be harder, and that they would continue using them whether they are worth €100,000 or one euro. This real use coexists with a high percentage of pure speculation, but argues the asset is not worth zero because people derive utility from it.

The most repeated example is tokenized gold. PAXG is backed by real gold and can be exchanged for physical gold at authorized sites, which for some dismantles the idea that the whole sector is a scam. The response from the other side is that gold has intrinsic, historical, and industrial value, while Bitcoin lacks even that. And that even gold depends on market recognition of its price: whoever has tons of precious metal will only have tons of something else if the market decides it is worth a pittance.

The trap of entry timing

Here the debate becomes uncomfortable for both sides. It is argued that entering Bitcoin or Ethereum when they were worth twenty euros would not have guaranteed anything, because the typical journey is buying at twenty, seeing it rise to forty, selling at thirty, rebuying at fifty, and selling at ten. The blame would not lie with those warning of risk, but with poor management. The conclusion of this reasoning is that many who today laugh at crypto would have gone bankrupt anyway with the same volatility.

The other side is that of those who bought and sold. Some recount having sold half a Bitcoin for around €50,000, having bought it in 2020. Others maintain that the market needs the permanent sensation that Bitcoin always rises: if it falls to $10,000, those who entered at highs will have lost and will find it hard to put money back in. Controlled drops, this argument says, are part of the mechanism, because they sell the idea that entering at 50,000 is still a good idea if the destination is 100,000. That is FOMO, and it works as long as the drop is not eighty percent.

Who really controls the market

The most technical point of the exchange is decentralization. That the protocol is decentralized does not imply the market is: exchanges concentrate pricing power, and some compare the situation to gold, where Comex can set the value regardless of what you have in your basement. The distinction between the asset and who manages it runs through much of the responses.

From the other side, the reply is that fiat money is toner and con artists, and that in a few years we will see how things go. The counter-rebuttal is that fiat also depreciates, but that does not make Bitcoin a good investment at any moment: entry point matters. And right now, with everyone inside, there is no clear entry point. The buy signal, someone ironizes, is when nobody searches for it on Google.

Diversify, bet, or wait for collapse

The harshest criticism is not against the asset but against management. It is maintained that risking almost all money in cryptocurrencies is reckless even if it goes well, due to depreciation risk, inability to sell, or theft. And that one cannot diversify within the sector because all coins move in the same direction: if that direction is ruin, the result is certain. For those who defend this, a truly diversified portfolio is not Bitcoin, an altcoin, and a meme coin.

The most repeated challenge to doomers is simple: if you are so sure it is worth zero, mortgage your house and open leveraged shorts on Bitcoin. In a few months, you would rub shoulders with the big players. Nobody has shown the deed yet.

The clock runs for both sides

The thread has a fundamental problem neither party resolves: time. Some say Bitcoin will last until governments want it to, and that with the 2030 agenda around the corner, this form of financing has its days numbered. Others reply that fiat was designed to depreciate and that Bitcoin will always be there when skeptics fall off their donkeys. And in the middle, the disorienting data: the price has doubled since this discussion peine, and the one who warned of the blow is still waiting for it to arrive.