>
At this point there's waayy too many actors and people who want Bitcoin to succeedThis has no relation to whether something goes to zero (or practically zero). Political influence? Sure. But I don't think anyone expects D.C. to bail out Bitcoin.
> A company has a "single point of failure"
Companies trade after bankruptcy. There are stubs, practical and theoretical, for companies improperly wound up going back decades.
Even if a state says "XYZ failed to pay franchise taxes and is now inactive," a shareholder can sue the former directors, holders of proceeds from the company, et cetera. (Company "ownership" is de-centralised and ambiguous, a fact that becomes uncomfortably clear post mortem.)
Colloquially, we call "practically worthless," i.e. where the cost of valuing something is likely more than it's worth, zero.
This has no relation to whether something goes to zero (or practically zero). Political influence? Sure. But I don't think anyone expects D.C. to bail out Bitcoin.
> A company has a "single point of failure"
Companies trade after bankruptcy. There are stubs, practical and theoretical, for companies improperly wound up going back decades.
Even if a state says "XYZ failed to pay franchise taxes and is now inactive," a shareholder can sue the former directors, holders of proceeds from the company, et cetera. (Company "ownership" is de-centralised and ambiguous, a fact that becomes uncomfortably clear post mortem.)
Colloquially, we call "practically worthless," i.e. where the cost of valuing something is likely more than it's worth, zero.