Latest news with #Libertarians
Times
7 days ago
- Business
- Times
Universal basic income is not the answer if AI comes for your job
As artificial intelligence upends the world of work, brace for renewed advocacy of a universal basic income (UBI). Tech enthusiasts, certain AI will turbocharge productivity but at the cost of millions of jobs, see UBI as a necessary monetary cushion for technological unemployment. And their cause attracts strange bedfellows. Social democrats salivate at the prospect of having more stigma-free redistribution; libertarians hope UBI might supplant employment regulation and the means-tested welfare state. Yet UBI's most fervent supporters foresee much broader benefits. To many, UBI isn't just a palliative for creative destruction or even a welfare reform. No, its proponents claim a modest government-guaranteed income is the key to unlocking a freer, healthier, more entrepreneurial society. If only it were that simple. Interest from the tech world has enabled expensive randomised controlled trials of UBI-inspired policies in the US. The results are largely disappointing. • Germans happier — but not lazier — with extra €1,200 a month In the OpenResearch Unconditional Income Study, 1,000 low-income participants across Texas and Illinois were given $1,000 a month, no strings attached, for three years. A control group of 2,000 received $50. One working paper released this week confirms the findings of another last year: the policy was no silver bullet for most economic and social problems. Advocates hoped extra income for families would mean more attentive parenting, greater investment in children's education and reduced family stress. And yes, parents receiving more money reported smacking their kids less and spending $32 more on them each month, including for clothes and essentials. Yet this didn't translate into educational gains or improved behavioural outcomes. In fact, parents reported a jump in issues such as child hyperactivity and fights between children. The researchers speculate that the extra cash freed parents to monitor children more closely, so noticing these problems. But might more intense supervision — edging towards helicopter parenting — itself worsen these outcomes? Nor did parents themselves get lasting relief. Sure, there was a brief improvement in their mental health in year one, but this faded quickly. By year two, anxiety and stress were back where they started. Free cash might calm nerves temporarily, but it didn't buy lasting peace of mind. A paper last year on the same experiment poured cold water on the idea that a guaranteed income would free people to invest in their productive future, too. Recipients, on average, banked the extra cash and enjoyed more leisure time, reducing their earned income. Yet there was little evidence that they used those extra hours to find better job matches, invest in education, or start (rather than just thinking about starting) a business. Instead, passive dependency grew. Even health outcomes showed scant improvement, with self-reported disability rising somewhat. Predictably, UBI's most die-hard supporters have questioned these disappointing results. Is it really a test of 'universal' income if the cash isn't given to everyone, permanently, but targeted temporarily at a young group volunteering to trial? But their quibbles cut both ways. The main reason governments reject UBI out-of-hand is that it is prohibitively expensive. With 69.6 million people, giving everyone in the UK £1,000 monthly would cost £835 billion a year — almost four times the NHS budget. • Britain is broke: how inflation-linked debt costs us £60bn Trials like this, conveniently, never test the higher taxes required to redistribute such sums. And being targeted at those on low incomes to begin with, one suspects this trial's results are, if anything, biased towards overestimating any benefits of the policy. Surely the uncomfortable truth is that most economic and social problems are too complex to solve by handing out cash. Children's development, adult mental wellbeing, and accessing fulfilling work require robust institutions, skills, and countless other factors that money can't buy. Yes, cash definitely helps ease poverty, and this trial confirms that beneficiaries were able to spend and save more. Yet as UBI enthusiasm resurfaces, the results suggest that seeing taxpayer-funded cash handouts as the path to widespread happiness and self-actualisation isn't visionary; it's delusional. Ryan Bourne is an economist at the Cato Institute and editor of the book The War on Prices
Miami Herald
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Elon Musk and the America Party: A real shot at a 3rd party or a way to manage Trump?
Editor's note: Welcome to Double Take, a regular conversation from opinion writers Melinda Henneberger and David Mastio tackling news with differing perspectives. DAVID: There are two ways to think about a national third party: as a vehicle to get people elected and as a way to change policy. If Elon Musk's plan for the America Party is to elect a president or even compete with Democrats and Republicans for control of the House or the Senate, I wish him luck. One thing is for sure, he's found a great way to spend a lot of money — a lot more than the $300 million he blew on the presidential candidate he now disavows. But if his idea is to turn a third party into policy regardless of electoral wins, then it is a smart move. Just look at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ,who turned a ridiculous third party candidacy into his own mini-MAGA movement and control of America's health care apparatus as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, where he's reshaping federal health policy based on the fantasyland science of his Make America Healthy Again movement. For a bigger win, look back to Ross Perot, who was obliterated in the 1992 election, but whose deficit control ideas were adopted by both the Democrats and the Republicans, resulting in the first balanced budgets in decades. I can't read Musk's minds, but his tweets seem to indicate he wants to target a handful of Senate races and a bigger number of House races to build an independent caucus in Congress that will be the kingmaker at critical moments on legislation. That's folly for three reasons. First, recruiting the kind of candidates who can break through and win is really tough, when Republicans and Democrats can offer ambitious people easier routes to power. Second, to have influence in this way, he'd have to win actual elections. There's not much history of Libertarians or democratic socialists winning elections outside the two party system. Third, Trump will still have the veto, and spendthrifts among Democrats and Republicans alike could choose to work together to keep up their reckless ways without bowing to the America Party's green eyeshade accountants pointing at the deficit. MELINDA: Since we've discussed Mr. Musk before, you know that the kindest thing I can say is that I do not hold him, his dodgy DOGE or how he sees women, families, compassion or what we owe one another while we're here on this planet in very high regard. However, since we desperately need real alternatives to both of our major parties, I think this America Party he wants to fund is an idea worth trying. Now, Musk may well change his mind again — or as you said, minds, which although it might have been a typo is perfect. DAVID: Now I am going to have to be careful of my typos because if you mention them, then I can't correct them later. MELINDA: We all make 'em. Though my kids delighted in calling me 'grammar freaky,' I also make that kind of mistake. Anyway, as I was saying, Musk's America Party would presumably mostly pull from Republicans. But it's too bad there's no center-left Musk willing to do this as well, for the good of the country, and please don't mention No Labels. DAVID: No Labels has been amusingly hapless. It is like they are trying to create a third option without upsetting anyone in the Democratic or Republican parties. I too wish, someone would shake up the Democratic Party, too. MELINDA: They did not amuse me, but relieved a lot of well-intentioned people of their cash to pay #MeToo offender Mark Halperin a huge salary as a consultant, which did not signal values for any third, fourth or fifth way I wanted any part of. Yes, quaint me, but as The New York Times would say, this was emblematic of what they were selling, which was the same old thing, which can't ever be an exciting new thing. Democrats are in trouble even with their own tribe; while only 4 in 10 Americans say they approve of the job Trump is doing, that's a stadium wave of enthusiasm compared to the 27% approval rating for congressional Democrats, mostly because Ds themselves have had it with their team's meek approach. While 73% of Republicans are A-OK with Congressional Rs doing whatever Trump says that day, even if that changes so often that Trump himself doesn't always seem to know what that is, just 44% of Democrats are satisfied with the job their representatives are doing. With some exceptions, I agree with this harsh assessment, and do have one suggestion: Chuck Schumer, what if you just stopped talking? Back to Musk, he is not trying to elect a president; he did that already, and did it make him happy? He walked away richer and more powerful but if anything, all the more furious. He says his goal is to 'laser-focus on just two or three Senate seats and eight to 10 House districts.' If what he's really after is to elect a bunch of deficit hawks, I don't see that going anywhere with the public, especially once they see what a bite the Big Nasty Cuts will put on them, so among other things we could spend $45 billion on filling a bunch of Alligator Alcatraz prisons with non-criminals. I know Musk will never soften that focus, but if he widened it, I see what he's setting out to do as difficult, but not impossible. DAVID: If Musk had some political smarts, which he may or may not, he'd build his party not around stricter accounting— he'd build it around his brand, which is the future. Think Mars and artificial intelligence and electric cars. Perot was on the right track, but he thought too small. Deficits and debt are a burden to the young — our future — but there is much more than that. Social Security and Medicare are giant subsidies for the past at the expense of the future. So are ag subsidies and steel tariffs and high-speed train dreams. MELINDA: Oh, Mama. Social Security and Medicare are not subsidies for the past but benefits we've earned over the course of our working lives. And I think we agree that we're going to need to start over on public health once RFK Jr. is done. DAVID: Spoken like you're FDR himself. Look at it another way: Why do we invest in the technologies from literally Before Christ (agriculture and steel) and 1804 when the train locomotive was invented? Most of the federal budget is invested in the past. Second most is spending on the present (defense and public health). As a percentage of the federal budget, very little is spent on the future (space and research and education). A party focused on that could start some conversations that are badly needed and draw supporters from both political parties, as well as those who are so profoundly uninspired by our present politics, which seems to be more focused on handing out the booty from political victories than taking our country to any particular place. MELINDA: FDR was derided by my family, so I know all of the 1930s jokes about him. As you probably know, there were serious concerns, valid ones, about his health as early as his second term, so maybe when Congress finishes booting Joe Biden and his loved ones around, they can look into that scandal, because what did Roosevelt's ailing, nonambulatory self ever accomplish, even on the brink of death? Oh, right. In this century, in any case, we need several new parties, and if Musk wants to begin the splintering, which is definitely his best event, then he should by all means go right ahead. Should he succeed, then his faction would wield a lot of power in an evenly divided country and Congress. And so, would be able to provide a real check on his former whatever he was, Donald Trump, someone Musk already thought he'd bought and paid for once. Yeah, I think that's the goal.
Politico
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Libertarians seek partnership with Elon Musk
'Once the capital is there, the doors get blown wide open,' Nekhaila said. Nekhaila has not heard from Musk directly, but he said the party is trying to break through to the billionaire, who has been showing continued support for one of the most Libertarian-leaning members of Congress: Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie. Musk — who in recent days reignited his war against the GOP's megabill — said once the legislation passes he will immediately go forward with his new 'America Party.' So why exactly should Musk forgo his own effort and instead join with the Libertarians? To Nekhaila it's pretty simple. They have ballot access in almost every state, which many recent third-party efforts have failed to secure. 'There's no way an independent or a new party can actually do this,' he said. 'It takes years and years and years, and the infrastructure and everything else. It's not a fun process.' Most recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. found success in getting ballot access in the 2024 election, but it took loads of time and resources. He ultimately removed his name from many of the ballots following his endorsement of Donald Trump. So far, Musk hasn't gotten the return on his investment he once hoped. Musk renewed his fury of the Republican megabill this week, calling the bill 'insane,' and pledged to put money behind Massie, who is already facing an onslaught of spending from Trump's political organization. 'He took a big hit to his businesses. He took a big hit to his reputation, he took a financial hit, he made an investment, and got nothing in return,' Nekhaila said. The Libertarians are not alone in their effort to court Musk. No Labels, the political group that pushed for a centrist presidential ticket to avoid a rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, is also interested in talking to Musk, said Dan Webb, a leader of the group.
Indianapolis Star
01-07-2025
- Business
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana taxpayers shouldn't subsidize $168M in data center corporate welfare
The next time you see a huge data center pop up in your backyard, enjoy it, because you're paying for it. If the Indiana Economic Development Corp. gets its way, the state will have four new energy-and-water-hogging data centers in high-population areas — all funded by you, the taxpayer. The IEDC recently approved $168 million in tax incentives to attract four data centers. Hoosiers will be subsidizing these monstrosities for up to 50 years. Government leaders claim they will create jobs — a total of 180. For those keeping count at home, that's more than $930,000 in taxpayer money per job being "created." Hicks: Braun's smart IEDC picks must now tackle Indiana's development spending mess Indiana has become a haven for data centers because, in 2019, the state government allowed them a 35-year tax exemption to entice them to plop down in Hoosier cornfields. As Libertarians, we believe in private property rights. You can do what you want with your justly acquired property, as long as you pay for it and you own the property. However, the line is drawn when governments get involved. Governments should not take land from others, nor should it hand out bags of tax money and incentives to give one business a leg up over any other competing uses for a property. Nearly all of these data center projects are in high-growth, high-demand suburban areas, where there would be multiple viable uses for the land. Without incentives, the market prevails — and the data centers likely find less populated areas to locate. We also believe in transparency. These four projects are using code names because they're operating in secrecy to prevent the public from knowing which companies they're throwing your money toward. One of the projects, in Hancock County (or Project Redline), is being proposed by Surge Development LLC. Its principal, Chris King, just happens to be an IEDC board member. This approval doubles down on a data center plan Surge recently withdrew due to intense public opposition. The Republican-led state government claims to be pro-business. It needs to embrace the free market instead. Free markets don't have governments picking winners and losers, nor making deals in secret. Free markets don't use taxpayer incentives to favor one business over another. They don't have governments spending billions to buy land and then turn it over to other private companies, as happened in the controversial LEAP project in Boone County. They don't privatize profits and leave the losses on the backs of the taxpayer. Opinion: Indiana's 201% cigarette tax hike will fuel smuggling, not just revenue For every new state-funded project by the IEDC, taxpayers get the shaft. They have to pay for the road, water and power lines, while the businesses themselves are getting a break from paying sales and property taxes, especially as local governments pile on with tax abatements of their own. That means residents and small businesses who have been in the community for years get to shoulder more of the burden of paying for roads, schools and public safety. If Indiana truly wants to be pro-business, it needs to embrace the free market. No tax abatements, no exemptions, no handouts, no special favors that the common citizen or small business doesn't have access to. Instead, focus on keeping taxes low and having a common-sense regulatory environment. Indiana should abolish the IEDC, as well as local economic development corporations. A business can thrive on its own. It doesn't have to mooch off the taxpayers to do so.
Miami Herald
27-06-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Bitcoin's price journey: A data-driven history from 2009 to 2025
Bitcoin's price journey: A data-driven history from 2009 to 2025 Bitcoin launched in 2009 without much fanfare, created by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto. What began as a niche digital currency experiment with the bold goal of allowing people to manage and move their money freely, without relying on traditional banks or government oversight, has resulted in a more profound shift towards a global digital economy. This transformation was made possible by a breakthrough technology: blockchain. More than just a ledger, blockchain is the decentralized engine that powers secure, peer-to-peer interactions. It records every Bitcoin transaction across a vast network of computers, making it nearly impossible to alter past data without consensus. While blockchain helps reduce certain types of fraud, it doesn't eliminate all risks-scams, phishing, and other schemes remain prevalent in the crypto space. Crucially, blockchain prevents issues like "double spending," where someone might try to illegitimately use the same digital coin in multiple transactions. All of this occurs without a central authority, laying the groundwork for today's broader cryptocurrency ecosystem. Over the years, Bitcoin has faced extreme volatility. It has rallied, like its 8,000% surge in 2011, and plunged, like the 80% drawdown during the 2018 crypto winter. These swings were often aggravated by their speculative nature and sensitivity to macroeconomic forces, including inflation trends and central bank policies. Despite this turbulence, Bitcoin steadily transformed from a fringe internet experiment into a recognized financial asset, buoyed by its asymmetric recovery patterns. For instance, after each major crash (e.g., the 2014 Mt. Gox collapse or the 2022 'crypto winter'), Bitcoin regained losses and reached new all-time highs within 2–3 years. Its strength, ties to tech stocks, and tendency to move opposite to the U.S. dollar (since 2020) show it's becoming more mature and accepted by major investors, evident in key milestones like spot ETF approvals and companies adding it to their treasuries. Every Bitcoin spike and crash has a story. Some came from uncertainty, others from new technology developments. Market crashes, government spending, strict regulations, and crypto breakthroughs have all shaped its path. The start of Bitcoin In its early days, Bitcoin mostly drew the attention of tech-savvy individuals, cyberpunks and Libertarians interested in its decentralized nature. It didn't have any official market value and was exchanged casually between early adopters, but curiosity kept building. What began on the margins slowly worked its way into the spotlight. Bitcoin's price swings reflected increasing interest, growing adoption, and rampant speculation. They marked its climb from relative obscurity to global attention. As more people caught wind of it and new exchanges made buying and selling easier, Bitcoin steadily evolved from an experimental idea into a serious contender in mainstream finance. 2009–2010: The genesis years Bitcoin's early days were quiet and experimental. The first recorded trade in 2009 had almost no value. People exchanged it for fun or curiosity, not profit. There wasn't even a market price, just code and a concept. The economic backdrop helped fuel interest. The 2008 financial crisis left many disillusioned with banks and governments. As a decentralized alternative to traditional money, Bitcoin offered something different. As Bitcoin's price history shows, this distrust played a big role in shaping its appeal during these early years. In May 2010, Bitcoin had its first real-world use. A programmer named Laszlo Hanyecz paid 10,000 BTC for two pizzas in an event that became known as Bitcoin Pizza Day. At the time, Bitcoin's estimated value ranged from $25 to $41. By late 2010, Bitcoin had finally reached the open market. Prices climbed slowly but steadily, reaching between $0.10 and $0.30. For something that didn't have an exchange rate until 2010, it was a small but meaningful start. 2011: First major rally and volatility In 2011, Bitcoin saw its first dramatic price movement. It surged over 8,000%, from around $0.30 at the end of 2010 to a peak of $26.90 in June 2011. The massive rise caught the attention of tech circles, early investors, and a growing online community. That same year, Bitcoin also experienced its first major crash. Reportedly, large sell orders on the Mt. Gox exchange (then the largest Bitcoin trading platform) sent the price tumbling from around $17 to about $0.01 in minutes. Mt. Gox never explained what happened, though some theorize a hacker was involved. And though the market eventually stabilized, the damage was done. This "flash crash" gave early adopters a lesson in crypto's volatility. Prices were often driven by speculation, hype, and a lack of regulation. The foundation for future booms and busts was set. 2012–2013: Building momentum After the 2011 crash, Bitcoin began climbing again. Prices and trading volume slowly picked up as more people joined the network and exchanges became easier to use. Bitcoin was no longer just for tech-savvy users as it started to reach a broader audience. By 2013, momentum had clearly shifted. Bitcoin passed $100 in April, then hit $200 in October. In November, it reached $1,000 on Mt. Gox for the first time. Bitcoin started getting real attention. News sites covered it more often, stores and services began accepting it, and investors started treating it like more than just a novelty. It had moved beyond the idea of digital money and was emerging as a credible alternative to fiat currency and a new kind of financial asset. 2014–2016: The Mt. Gox collapse and market maturation Bitcoin faced one of its biggest setbacks in early 2014 when Mt. Gox, the largest Bitcoin exchange, went offline and filed for bankruptcy. It had reportedly lost between 650,000 to 850,000 BTC, triggering panic and shaking confidence in the young crypto market. The crash marked the start of a long bear market. By early 2015, Bitcoin prices slumped, and skeptics called it the end. But instead of fading away, the community regrouped. Even when the hype died down, developers didn't stop. While Bitcoin faded from the news cycle, they were behind the scenes, working on security and shoring up the tech to make it stronger for the future. Wallets became safer, early regulatory efforts began to take shape, and newer exchanges stepped in with better protections and more reliable platforms. 2017: The ICO boom and regulatory responses Bitcoin hit the mainstream in 2017 with a steep climb that captured global attention. The price soared from under $1,000 at the start of the year to nearly $20,000 by December. The frenzy was fueled by media coverage, hype, and a flood of speculative interest. Much of the excitement also centered around Initial Coin Offerings, or ICOs, OANDA reports.. New crypto projects were popping up almost daily, and in 2017 alone, ICOs raised approximately $4.9 billion from investors eager to get in early, even when many of those ventures had little more than a white paper to show. But the excitement came with problems. Scams, vaporware, and a lack of oversight caused concern, and governments took notice. China banned ICOs and shut down domestic crypto exchanges. Meanwhile, other countries began creating regulatory frameworks and clarifying their stance on digital assets. For example, the U.S. SEC started cracking down on unregistered securities offerings, and many jurisdictions introduced Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements for exchanges and token issuers. While the price peak made headlines, 2017 was also a turning point for how Bitcoin and the broader crypto market would be treated by regulators moving forward. 2018–2019: Bitcoin faces traditional market forces After the explosive highs of 2017, Bitcoin came back down to earth. By the end of 2018, its price dropped sharply, falling below $4,000 by the end of the year. The correction wasn't surprising because it followed the classic pattern of speculative bubbles. But this time, something had changed. Despite the downturn, institutional players didn't back off. Major firms looked into crypto custody solutions, futures products launched, and the ecosystem grew more polished. Bitcoin was no longer just the domain of hobbyists and early adopters. It also began mirroring movements in broader financial markets, particularly tech stocks and risk-on assets, reacting to macroeconomic shifts like inflation data, interest rate changes, and Federal Reserve announcements. Traders began comparing Bitcoin's movements to those of stock markets, gold, and macroeconomic indicators. While it remained volatile, Bitcoin started behaving more like a hybrid traditional asset-part risk-on asset like tech stocks, part store-of-value like gold. 2020: The COVID-19 pandemic impact In March 2020, as global markets collapsed during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Bitcoin wasn't spared. Its price dipped below $8,000 in early March and dropped even further to $3,850 on March 12, wiping out nearly four months of gains in just a handful of days. The crash reminded investors that Bitcoin could still move with risk assets during moments of panic. CoinDesk's breakdown of 2020 prices captures how sharp and sudden that drop was. But the recovery was just as fast. Massive government stimulus programs and low interest rates pushed investors toward alternative assets. Bitcoin rebounded quickly, finishing the year near $30,000. During the market panic, Bitcoin briefly acted like gold, showing a moderate link (+0.47). But later that year, it moved more like riskier assets such as the S&P 500. This shows Bitcoin can play two roles: acting like 'digital gold' in times of crisis, and like a stock during market rallies. At the same time, it became more negatively linked to the U.S. dollar (nearly -0.4), suggesting it could help protect against the falling value of regular currencies. This volatility reignited the debate over Bitcoin's role. Prominent voices like Paul Tudor Jones, MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor, and Grayscale Investments called it "digital gold", while others saw it as a speculative play. Either way, 2020 proved that Bitcoin had a place in conversations about global finance, even in a crisis. 2021–2023: Institutional adoption accelerates In 2021, Bitcoin hit another milestone by reaching an all-time high of $64,895 on April 14. Prices surged as companies and funds began adding Bitcoin to their portfolios, and confidence in its staying power grew quickly, as shown in historical price data. Major firms like Tesla and MicroStrategy added Bitcoin to their balance sheets. Traditional financial players launched crypto products, such as ProShares' Bitcoin futures ETF and Fidelity's crypto trading platform. Payment platforms also embraced digital currencies; for instance, PayPal and Venmo enabled users to buy, hold, and sell cryptocurrencies directly within their apps.. Bitcoin was no longer on the fringe but in boardrooms and headlines. But the optimism didn't last. By 2022, markets cooled. The so-called "crypto winter" hit hard, with prices falling and several high-profile collapses shaking investor confidence. This period marked one of the sharpest reversals in the market's short life. Still, the groundwork for long-term adoption had been laid: institutional infrastructure was maturing, regulatory frameworks were taking shape, and public awareness of Bitcoin as a financial asset had never been higher. During this time, Bitcoin started to play a bigger role in shaping the overall crypto market. Other coins like Ethereum and Solana began to follow Bitcoin's price more closely. DeFi platforms also started using versions of Bitcoin, like wrapped BTC (WBTC), to tap into its large pool of money. While Bitcoin was seen more as digital gold focused on being a store of value, other coins focused on practical uses. This made Bitcoin stand out as the main currency in the crypto world. 2024: The ETF breakthrough In January 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Products (ETFs). This was a major milestone in bridging the gap between crypto and traditional finance. For the first time, everyday investors could gain direct exposure to Bitcoin through a regulated product available on mainstream stock exchanges. The market didn't wait to respond. Prices climbed as the announcement sparked a wave of renewed optimism, especially among more cautious investors who had previously stayed on the sidelines. With ETFs, getting into Bitcoin suddenly felt a lot more familiar for those used to trading stocks rather than navigating crypto wallets and exchanges. While volatility didn't disappear overnight, the tone had shifted. Bitcoin's price jumped noticeably, and the ETF approval sent a strong signal. Institutional access widened significantly, and ties between crypto and the traditional financial system seemed to be deepening. 2025: Bitcoin's current landscape Sixteen years after its launch, Bitcoin has earned a seat at the financial table. As of May 22, 2025, it is trading above $110,000, marking a significant rise from earlier levels. Trading looks calmer too, with volume and volatility down compared to earlier years, according to Yahoo Finance and CoinMarketCap. Bitcoin's role has also evolved. What was once brushed off as a passing trend is now part of the mainstream financial conversation. Bitcoin shares space with traditional assets in investment portfolios and regularly comes up in discussions about the global economy. No major central banks hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset, but they're watching closely. Regulators worldwide are shaping rules to guide how banks handle crypto exposure. Bitcoin's price history tells the story: wild highs, brutal drops, and surprising resilience. Its rise mirrors the broader shift toward digital finance, and just how far that space has come. As of 2025, Bitcoin exhibits a +0.49 correlation with high-yield corporate bonds and +0.52 with tech stocks, yet maintains a -0.29 correlation with the U.S. dollar. This interplay positions it as a risk-on asset and a macro hedge-a duality institutional investors exploit for portfolio diversification. Meanwhile, Bitcoin's volatility has halved since 2021 (daily standard deviation of ~2.1% vs. ~5.3%), aligning it closer to commodities like crude oil than hyper-volatile altcoins. Where Bitcoin goes next remains uncertain, but its past makes one thing clear-it's not going away. It has already challenged long-held assumptions about the nature of money, sovereignty, and value. This article is for general information purposes only, not to be considered a recommendation or financial advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Opinions are the author's; not necessarily that of OANDA Corporation or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers or directors. This story was produced by OANDA and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
