I don’t follow Lots of things already replace the savings function of the dollar, with various trade-offs, including gold and bitcoin (and stocks and real estate and bonds, namely)

What is necessary is that it is widely saved, so that prices are legible between us and we actually accept the same form of savings. The categories you listed other than gold have counter-party risk. This is an indication that they are not final payment and thus investment rather than savings.

Satoshi owes you some Bitcoin for maintaining his ledger. He will never, ever pay up. A pretty silly investment but it did have a lot of libertarian technerd hype around it.

We’re being slippery with terms. Savings is holding something to preserve value to be communicated/exchanged with someone later. Investment is deploying something of value in the hopes of generating more value than initially deployed (and involves risking loss of value in the process). Counter party risk is a relevant concern when choosing a good savings tool or investment vehicle, but it doesn’t come into play in classification Planting seeds is a form of investment that carries no counter party risk, for example

Satoshi owes no one anything, the maintenance of the ledger is paid for by the block reward for now (dilution of outstanding shares) and transaction fees forever. Holding Bitcoin as savings is a speculative action (like all savings and investment) but it’s not an investment because holding Bitcoin will never produce more bitcoin

You give up control of an investment and rely on others to return the value to you (including mother nature) You do not give up control of savings Hence counter-party risk is part of the relevant distinction

It's not savings because you don't actually control it, the consensus network does. If all goes well you can influence that network to deliver value to you in future, but that is true of all investments.

Again, you are adding things to the definition of savings that do not apply. Unilateral sovereign control is a desirable but not necessary component of a savings instrument. All that matters for the definition is that you have value/purchasing power now, and you want to preserve as much of it as you can until a later date, so you utilize this thing to do it. That’s it.

Mother Nature is not a counterparty, to consider her one is to torture the meaning of the term - counterparty risk refers to exposure to other economic actors required to perform Mother Nature presents risks, but they are “acts of God” in the law, for example. And again, savings is not an absolute sovereignty thing. It’s a spectrum. It sounds like you’re trying to say the only thing that can be called “savings” is something that is absolutely risk-free. Nothing, of course, is totally risk-free. And the existence of risk has nothing to do with whether something is savings, just whether it is a *good* tool for savings You hold your gold, but you have risk that someone will shoot you and take it. Your control is contingent on others’ respect for your property rights. You can be secretive about the amount of gold you have, but only until you spend it. Then, you are relying on the other party’s respect for your property rights - that they don’t just rob you. I concede that gold has different trade-offs that might appeal to a particular risk profile, but I would be a little silly to pretend that, because it isn’t my preferred savings tool, it *isn’t* a savings tool at all.

It's not about whether or not there is risk, it's about whether you have a resource or some future plan to acquire a resource

The only thing that can be savings is something you save If you haven't got a thing saved, you haven't got savings

The value / purchasing power is the thing saved If you still have the purchasing power later, you have “savings”

By this definition, if you don’t have your gold in your hand right this exact second, you don’t have gold, you just have a plan to get gold

It is within my control, not necessarily my possession. With an investment you give up control of the resource itself. Investment is sacrifice.

Saving = keeping money safe and handy Investing = putting money at some risk in order to grow it You are suggesting “safe” is a simple binary, I am saying it’s a spectrum, and honest people can disagree about what is “safest” Holding Bitcoin, for example, is not an investment, because it has no chance of growing. Holding it in self-custody means that is handy and safe (no other person can reassign it without the private keys) I get that you feel holding gold is the safest form of savings, and that’s a totally valid opinion. But pretending it’s the *only* form of savings that can be considered “saving” when billions of people are actively using other things to save is just retrofitting definitions to fit your opinion

It's not about risky vs safe. It's about whether you choose to relinquish control.

Control is not in fact part of the dictionary definition of either word. The distinction between savings and investment, according to the dictionary, appears to turn on intent - conservation/preservation versus growth/return If you think gold is the best tool for saving, that’s perfectly reasonable and you’re free to argue that point, but is there really a need to redefine words in the process?

From your own definitions saving - setting something aside for the future investing - expending resources/money in hope of a reward either the resources are set aside (not expended) or they are expended It really is black and white, it really is what I'm saying (although the exact wording is slightly different)

You are adamant that bitcoin is an investment and not savings, but held in self-custody, it is not expended, and there is no possibility of growth These definitions, which are not mine, they are the dictionary’s, are not the same as yours