Everyone who bought Bitcoin 2 weeks ago has already experienced far greater negative losses than any Danish bank customer will over the next year. Danes can buy US government bonds quite easily if they want risk-free positive yields.
In all of Bitcoin's existence, at today's price, there's only few time ranges where you would have lost money, if you just held on, you made it back and then some.
Of course, past performance doesn't indicate future, but so far, BTC has performed much better than fiat consistently.
While this is true, there has actually been no point since Dogecoin's inception where buying Bitcoin was the better option (denominated in fiat, of course).
For much of doge's existence, it was worth practically nothing and still has very low trading volumes compared to BTC, so you can't easily get in and get out of a position. Tesla was able to sell 200M$ worth of BTC relatively easily, can't necessarily do the same with Doge.
So how does this invalidate the parent comment’s point? If Dogecoin was a better hold than Bitcoin does that somehow imply that Bitcoin is a worse hold than dollars?
And before you lecture about the function of fiat currency, remember the bottom half of society is forced to keep their entire net worth in cash because they are in a continuous financial emergency...
It doesn't. I just don't believe in advocating for regular people to hold highly volatile assets with unpredictable performance.
The bottom half of society also hold large amounts of debt, one of the key functions of inflation is eroding the value of that debt. A currency like Bitcoin does not provide for this.
