Dear Yaz Anarki,

Thank you for taking the time to read my work and thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject.

I could not agree more with you in the sense of valuing Bitcoin actively in terms of price, because trying to call Bitcoin at any price, whether it’s US$10,000 or US$25,000 misses the point in its entirety — such a perspective continues to derive from a dollar-denominated world where the price of everything is measured in dollars, but the value of anything is not captured.

Depending on the time frame one uses for measurement as well as the timing at which one entered into an investment of Bitcoin, Bitcoin could either have been the most profitable investment for an investor, or the worse.

And I would hasten to add that at no point in my article did I once suggest that Bitcoin has no role in the world, quite instead, I merely presented two differing views as to whether or not Bitcoin is a “safe haven” for investors.

My contention is that given the current history of Bitcoin as a digital asset, at just over a decade, it is still too new and too young to be classified as a “safe haven” asset — there just simply isn’t enough data to draw any strong correlations.

Just because Bitcoin moved in tandem with other historical “safe haven” assets such as gold, the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen does not a priori mean that it is of the same quality and nature as those assets because correlation does not imply causation.

Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

Yours,

Patrick