What does being fully sovereign mean for something that's only used as a medium of exchange? It's value is always only meaningful when at least two people agree on it's value. At best you only control half of the equation.
> It's value is always only meaningful when at least two people agree on it's value.
Is it not totally obvious that bitcoin has market value?
If not, consider these points - bitcoin was not created by MIT and Uchicago STEM and econ PhDs, it was born out of an anonymous internet "white paper." It proved itself as a type of "money" in the internet dark markets, and continues to do so. It wasn't "lab tested," it was tested in the real world. When China banned crypto, the price of bitcoin did not crash. Only authoritarian countries have banned it, while some US lawmakers hold bitcoin and Gensler (chairmen of the SEC) taught a class at MIT about crypto.
These should be very compelling aspects of bitcoin.
What about the sovereign part? No one has total power over their money because its utility is always based in another's willingness to participate in the transaction.
If bitcoin existed before the Civil Rights movement in the US, it would not have helped people of color spend their money in "whites only" establishments or buy houses in white neighborhoods when (prior to 1948) a covenant could legally exclude a person of color from owning certain homes. And after 1948 the legal system could still be weaponized against such purchases, or if all else failed the buyer harassed or worse.
These are more extreme examples, but that sort of thing does still go on in places both in the US and elsewhere. Bitcoin or other crypto fall short of solving monetary censorship.
Separately, why does it matter where bitcoin was created? (especially given that we really don't know who created it anyway).
Market value is having someone else have control over the value of what you control. Market value may not be centralized, but it is the definition of something you do not control. This is my point. You cannot have full control over something that's value is dictated by an external entity, the entity being the market in this case. The concept of having "full sovereignty" over something that you don't control the value of, and the only purpose is to exchange for something of value, is non-sensical.
The comparison isn't reasonably between "sovereign control of your wealth" and "in total control of what everyone else values." That doesn't even make sense.
The question worth asking is about how controlling your own wealth, but having to trust the value of it to a giant swath of people over which no one entity has any significant control, compares to not having any control of your own wealth, AND having the value of any wealth you do have dependent entirely on the will of some unelected bureaucrat.
