The FT still struggles to separate signal from noise when writing about “crypto”. It’s like a throwback to articles on AOL and Compuserve being “the internet” and entirely missing the promise of the future open internet and the new industries it would spawn.
Just like the open internet protocols free of political or corporate meddling, there’s value in a money protocol that operates without a central authority like a government or a bank. This gives users greater financial authority and security, as transactions are recorded on a public blockchain which is transparent and immutable and not at the whim of politics.
Yes, fiat currencies have an intrinsic value that cryptocurrencies do not: specifically, governments demand tax payments in fiat rather than any other form of property.
But Bitcoin is *the* alternative currency (not “crypto”) for people who do not believe in government created money (not dissimilar to gold bugs) or need to escape their rather oppressive governments in less free states. Bitcoin is for the same people who saw that AOL and Compuserve were just a passing fad on the way to the open internet.
Should Anyone Ask 