Abe Lincoln reveals what conviction is. It is faith.
"...undeniably risk-off..."
Not only is it impossible to reason with a religious fanatic, doing so is harmful to them, and the worst harm you can do them is to break their faith. I know this, because it happened to me.
So, everything is going to be ok.
Thanks!
Now, your job is to put Bitcoin into one of these categories.
Oh look at that you just categorized it as risk off.
Isn't that weird?
The argument that "risk-off" doesn't mean "zero-risk" is a strawman.
Risk-off means risk-off means risk-off.
"risk-off" doesn't mean "zero-risk"
What does it mean then? Off has a meaning, and in this context it means zero. If something is on me, then I bear that burden. If it isn't on me, it is off me, and I don't bear that burden. It is a binary term, and if it doesn't mean zero, then it is deceptive.
There is no aspect of life that is without risk. Therefore it is necessary to act to mitigate risk in every endeavor.
Edit: I have literally been robbed of assets you describe above as risk-off. Therefore I know they are not without risk. Because of this experience, I will refrain from depending on assets that have unacceptable levels of risk that I can mitigate no other way. I literally do not put BTC into risk off assets. That is why I do not have any BTC, because I find the risk it will be stolen unacceptable to justify investment in it.
There are two kinds of cattle. There are the fat, happy cattle in the fields, that are pleased the farmer tends to them, feeds them, tenderly washes their teats for them, and keeps the wolves away. The cattle are happy that their beloved farmer secures them from every hazard and provides for their every need. They will all die when the farmer kills them. Note: the farmer kills them when they are at their peak condition, as fat and happy as they can be.
There is another kind of cattle, the Gaur, a wild cow in India that is a fearsome beast, the bulls standing ~2M at the shoulder. They live their lives foraging for food in the wild, constantly on a hair trigger and looking over their shoulders, ready to stampede to safety at a moment's notice, because there are tigers that will kill them and eat them if they are inattentive to their security. Eventually, the tigers kill them and eat them all, when they become old and sick. Note: the tigers can only kill and eat them when they are old and weak.
Choose your player.
What does it mean then?
Google it.
I mean you don't have to Google it you already know what it means.
But Google it anyway.
Oh yeah, what you doing in this situation?
Checkmate!
Fear based logic is not insightful.
It's the standard.
I have literally been robbed of assets you describe above as risk-off.
That was, indeed, the entire point of me saying it.
When you have been robbed of >$1M of your assets, you will have the benefit of experience that will enable you to secure your assets from such vectors of harm.
Being fearless is not being brave. It's being food.
There are risks. Mitigating risks is what is necessary to preserve capital. Calling mitigations that are necessary 'fear based' is foolhardy, and invites the rewards of lacking reasonable fear.
Reason is not the enemy, and fear is reasonable when there are predators.
It's odd how you fully believe that you aren't making a case for Bitcoin right now.
Literally every Bitcoiner is going to tell you that all these things you talk about are exactly why you get into Bitcoin. There's an entire culture and series of memes that revolves around this exact problem and how Bitcoin solves it.
And here you are saying you've found a better solution.
And that solution is actually communism with a barter system.
It really doesn't get much more ironic than that.
I am baffled by the idea of reciprocity and gratitude for kindness to be Communism. Stalin is surely rolling over in his grave. Neither is it barter. There's never a quid pro quo, 'I'll do this if you do that.'
Perhaps you didn't grasp the details of the theft in the event I ever shared them, but BTC would not at all have been any kind of barrier to the fraud. Lawyers were involved, but lawyers cost money, even if it's BTC they charge, and the courts are designed to make tort actions expensive, even highly weighted in favor of deep pocketed transnational corporations that can keep throwing motions at the courts for decades, just waiting til you die and forfeit the case.
If your BTC wallet is the property at stake you can't spend it on your legal case. You make maxi sounds here for some reason I can't fathom. You still mad about that SSI thing?
Ha well continue being baffled by it because it's the literal definition of grassroots communism.
What exactly do you think communism is on a small scale?
Give what you can; take what you need.
Have you heard this before?
Communism.
The only differences between large scale and small scale communism are voluntarism (small scale communists voluntary participate) and centralization (someone has to be in charge of distribution and determining who needs what). Obviously these are not small differences and lead to exactly where they lead to.
You're response in referencing Stalin... the most notoriously fascist government ever... and then equating it to small-scale communism is just... no.
Give what you can; take what you need.
But that's not what I said, or what is happening. I provide what they need, and they provide what I need. I don't take, and they don't take. It's just reciprocity. It's not governance. Sometimes I have to accept money instead of chocolate chip cookies, but I try to avoid that when I can.
Stalin IS Communism. Society isn't instituted. We can disagree.