> The thing is, individuals and institutions worldwide currently own around $300 trillion in financial assets.[a]
The overwhelming majority of which is productive assets. The only major non-transient holdings of non-productive assets is of gold. And that makes up about half a percent. So 2% for bitcoin, which at absolute very best is a slightly better gold, seems like a real stretch.
> Note that before Bitcoin it was impossible to diversify away from all nation-specific risks.
I don't disagree but wonder whether the fact that it doesn't have a phyiscal property would militate in its favor over gold. I recently read a story about how a Saudi prince was having a few tonnes of gold driven to a neighboring country every day in order to avoid trade restrictions. Seems like it would be a lot easier and safer to just click a button on his computer. That said I could imagine it easily cutting the other way and saying that golds tangible properties are an advantage. This is a fascinating subject!
It also just involved a click of a button. Nonetheless it was uncovered.
Too often would be cypher-anarchists forget about rubber hose cryptoanaysis. And unlike gold, bitcoin are fundamentally non-fungible and traceable.
The biggest advantage gold has over bitcoin is 5000 plus years of history as a store of value. The biggest advantage bitcoin has over gold is its immateriality. Personally I think the former outweighs the latter (no put intended).
The overwhelming majority of which is productive assets. The only major non-transient holdings of non-productive assets is of gold. And that makes up about half a percent. So 2% for bitcoin, which at absolute very best is a slightly better gold, seems like a real stretch.
> Note that before Bitcoin it was impossible to diversify away from all nation-specific risks.
Gold