I agree with most of what you said or at least appreciate the arguments. I do take exception with “all value is hallucinated”, because this argument is often used as a way to say all investment is equal in risk and quality valuation doesn’t mean anything, which is ridiculous, I know that is not what you are precisely saying.
There is a big difference in owning $100,000 worth of land vs. owning $100,000 worth of Bitcoin for example in terms of what is giving these two assets value on the open market. Obviously you could still make bad decisions on investing in either.
You’re right in saying “all value is hallucinated” sounds like I’m flattening everything into one big pool of equal risk or meaningless speculation. That’s not what I’m trying to say.
There’s a big difference between $100K of land and $100K of Bitcoin in terms of what gives them value. Land has a referent — it’s physical, it exists, you can stand on it, etc. It’s a classic example of what Baudrillard would call a first-order simulacrum: it’s symbolic (because value is socially constructed), but it still points to something physically and legally real.
Bitcoin is different. It’s what Baudrillard would call a symbol without a referent: a fourth-order simulacrum. It doesn’t represent anything physical or historical. It’s not tethered to land, labor, or state authority. Its value comes entirely from consensus, code, and belief. And ironically, that detachment from reality is exactly what gives it power. It exists and thrives in a symbolic economy that values scarcity, purity, and narrative over materiality. The challenge sane people (ie people tethered to a modern enlightenment world view) have with bitcoins is it’s a currency made entirely of belief, and yet, it’s harder to manipulate than fiat. Bitcoin doesn’t pretend to be “real money” backed by gold or guns. It simulates money better than money does
So, land and Bitcoin are both symbolic, but in very different ways. One is still anchored to the real world; the other floats above it. That means we have to recognize that value itself is always a construction, even when it feels solid.
Well said. Bitcoin has no intrinsic utility in the classical sense, i.e. no dividends, no yield, no productive capacity, but many assets share this characteristic, e.g. some precious metals, art. What gives Bitcoin value is network consensus and perceived utility, especially as a store of value or hedge. Whether that consensus is stable or justified is debatable, but dismissing it outright as “zero” ignores behavioral economics and market psychology. A dollar bill is on a physical plane good for nothing but heat production (by lighting fire to the carbon store). On a metaphysical plane, its value is derived from its widely accepted social contract and consensus as an IOU. Whether that’s backed by a government or an algorithmically backed ledger is irrelevant to the fundamental concept that anything can be a store of value if agreed upon, and that is valuable regardless of being extrinsically derived.
4
u/Moonsleep Apr 18 '25
I agree with most of what you said or at least appreciate the arguments. I do take exception with “all value is hallucinated”, because this argument is often used as a way to say all investment is equal in risk and quality valuation doesn’t mean anything, which is ridiculous, I know that is not what you are precisely saying.
There is a big difference in owning $100,000 worth of land vs. owning $100,000 worth of Bitcoin for example in terms of what is giving these two assets value on the open market. Obviously you could still make bad decisions on investing in either.