Kevin Hua on Nostr: I'm now more inclined to think that bitcoin does have use-value. Given that store of ...

I'm now more inclined to think that bitcoin does have use-value. Given that store of value is usually, but not necessarily, the function of money, it is a direct use, especially when the money we use today does not have that function. Being a good that is suitable for storing wealth presupposes the fact that it is not liable to change. And unlike any other goods in which use-value is predominant, add more unit of it will not make us better off. So in my view bitcoin will emerge as money (commonly used medium of exchange) just like any of its predecessors before. It will emerge as money based on its direct use (i.e., store of value).

Money has value because it can be used in an exchange. In a barter economy, people exchange their goods for certain good because they either (1) want to consume that good directly, or (2) by taking that good they are closer to their goals of obtaining the goods they want to consume directly. People engage in an exchange because they expect to benefit from it. In other words, the good people take has higher salability. In ancient times, cattle had high salability and therefore was used as money because people want it (use-value) and it's durable and not costly to maintain. But over time, with the development of industry, metallic money took its place, and cattle lost its salability drastically. Metal became money because it was useful and people wanted it. From this we can see that salability is subjective and therefore liable to change. The salability of a good is limited by the persons, area and time to which it can be sold, it is also limited by the demand for it. In the case of bitcoin, it pretty much maxes out in all of those criteria.

In short, money emerge because people want it and it's useful, and holding it make them closer to the goods they directly consume.