While bitcoin has evolved since its early days, it was engineered to be a substitute for fiat money, highlighting the need for a system that could function without the intermediation of usual third parties like banks. This aspect of bitcoin was emphasized when it was first promoted some time ago, with the debate going to other aspects recently.
Michael Saylor, co-founder and executive chairman of Microstrategy, the first company that adopted the bitcoin standard, is one of the personalities that has shifted the debate from bitcoin as a medium of exchange to its more attractive store of value role. This has attained him the title of one of the best spokespersons on the planet for bitcoin, according to investor Fred Krueger.
Nonetheless, the debate is still out on the things that give bitcoin its value. On social media, X user Pledditor criticized Saylor’s take on bitcoin, stating that while he was indeed a great spokesman for Microstrategy, he failed to convey bitcoin’s functions at a technical level. He also recommended newbies study Andreas Antonopoulos, one of the biggest bitcoin proponents since its launch.
Read more: ‘They’re Missing the Point!’ – Antonopoulos Slams Banks’ Blockchain Romance
Some believe that Andreas Antonopoulos’s focus on bitcoin’s medium of exchange function is inadequate for what the cryptocurrency represents for financial systems today. American Hodl, another bitcoin proponent, stated:
The thing about early Andreas is that he talked mainly about bitcoin as MOE and often said it was near instant & near free. The implication being that those were the things that gave Bitcoin value.
Furthermore, he emphasized that if bitcoiners listened to Antonopoulos’ early bitcoin talks, they would likely end up valuing other blockchains over bitcoin, what he called “end up as a shitcoiner.”
While bitcoin today is valued as a store of value mostly, there seems to be still interest in its medium of exchange proposal, even among the maximalist crowd.
