Hargreaves Lansdown claims bitcoin isn't an asset

Hey everyone, just a quick reminder that back in January, the FCA banned retail investors from trading crypto ETNs. The good news is that this ban was finally lifted on October 8, 2025. Recently, Hargreaves Lansdown, the largest exchange in the UK, made some waves by stating that bitcoin isn't really an asset. As of 2024, they manage a whopping £1,499.2 million in assets which includes bitcoin ETFs, gold, stocks, and bonds. They've been vocal about the risks of investing in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies due to their high volatility. I can’t argue with that since many investors jump in with money they can’t afford to lose, which can lead to a lot of frustration, especially for traders looking for quick gains. But I strongly disagree with them saying that bitcoin isn’t an asset just because they claim it lacks intrinsic value. They seem to overlook how bitcoin’s limited supply actually gives it a unique position as a store of value, especially against inflation. The laws of supply and demand help manage the volatility. Plus, the bitcoin market has reached over $2.24 trillion in market cap over its 15-year history since 2010. Not many assets can boast such a track record. So given its past performance and potential for appreciation over time, I think it’s pretty convincing that bitcoin should be considered an asset, regardless of its ups and downs.

If bitcoin gets to $1 million today, you will still see the critics talking about bitcoin. There is nothing that you can use or be able to use to convince them but they will remain to be critics. But I know that after a long period of time, bitcoin will always disappoint them. Bitcoin has disappointed the critics times within number.

Okay, so some mentally challenged people who run an exchange are foolish enough to offer products with exposure to Bitcoin and criticize it without understanding anything. I don't know why I'm not surprised, seeing people like Peter Schiff who then goes to the Bitcoin conference and boasts about being the biggest cause of Bitcoin buyers. I don't pay much attention to this nonsense and continue to accumulate Bitcoin.

Would be funny if they've been waiting THIS long for the price to fall again (which would be years for professional investors, there's no way they haven't heard about bitcoin since 2017-2021). Did they not apply for an etf or could they not get one approved in the UK?

I think people who have little understanding about bitcoin would always speaks against bitcoin with all hatred, and after sometimes they would start investing secretly and accumulating more of it after when they may have understand how it works or probably has seen the increments within time changes. I could recall how it many people were speaking against bitcoin even Donald Trump who is the sole lover of bitcoin today was ones against it but currently has knew the value in it and has decided to join the race even to an extent of having his own coin and that of his wife.

Bitcoin happened to the world in ways it didn’t expect and when you find those whom have found a means before the Bitcoin evolution realizing how it’s paved a path of its own, very distinct from the norms and how they’ve made their name and fortune over the years, it never truly makes sense to them. It subjects everything to definition and contexts but, all that has got to change. We now have digital assets, just in the same way you buy stocks and bonds online, it’s the case with Bitcoin now and the least we could do is change with it. Decentralization is a plus to a world where everything is highly centralized.

What is the intrinsic value of fiat? I am surprised people are warning investors about the volatility of Bitcoin but nobody is talking about how fiat is losing value. My country's currency lost about 40% in a few months and it has not recovered to date. But those who bought Bitcoin within that period have not only recovered the losses but made a high profit.

In this world, people can call bitcoin whatever they like, some named it after what comes their name, some called it what is it and some what is it not, but before we can go into anything or say anything, we have to understand what bitcoin is and why it was created, this will then  save us from any other things we hear other people saying about bitcoin, but i can it is louder and clearer, bitcoin is an a profitable asset, digital currency and investment, far better than fiat.

The intrinsic value critique supposes that there is value in objects and not in human coordination systems. Nothing has intrinsic value. Value is always relational. It arises out of what communities choose to exchange, store of value, or futuristic planning. The turnaround by the FCA speaks volumes. Bans on things are lifted when institutions no longer seriously believed they were worthless. They lift them up if the cost of out is greater than the cost of change. The UK investors were already investing in crypto via offshore platforms; the ban simply shifted it to less regulated areas Bitcoin's 15 year survival through various "death" cycles, attacks by regulators and competing technologies is testament to something traditional finance doesn't want to admit: decentralized consensus is capable of creating long lasting value without institutional gate keepers. That is the entire point Hargreaves Lansdown warning volatility? Completely fair. But to exclude it as not an asset when running portfolios of speculative technology stocks and sovereign bonds of nations with 100% or more debt-to-GDP ratios? That is category defense, or, stupidity

The strange thing is they invest a chunk of cash in gold, which while having some practical uses for it's special properties and desirability for jewelry, isn't all that much different than cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is something that a lot of people have decided is very useful to transfer money without involving banks or payment processing companies.That is it's special quality, just like gold, which is not currently served well enough by any other device. In my opinion HL simply don't feel like they can generate enough fees from this and are trying today discourage people from buying into it. They do have a responsibility to their customers to protect funds, so crypto should never be more than 5% of a portfolio, but it should be allowed and facilitated by them if there is demand.

If that is only what he uses to determine an asset, then his definition is flawed because all assets have intrinsic value. Gold, for example, does not have an intrinsic value (I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong). I mean, we can all agree Gold is an asset, right? But it does not have a cash flow, and it does not produce income, but we agree it's an asset. I can even argue that oil does not have an intrinsic value, but since I'm not so sure about that, I would leave it. If a thing has monetary value, can be sold for a profit and has future economic or financial benefit, that thing can be regarded as an asset, and Bitcoin ticks all those boxes. I know these people know these things; they're not dumb, they won't be where they are today if they were dumb, but for some reason, they try to twist things. Its cool though, its there opinion.

Lot of anticipations and speculations of the bitcoin price has muchly been taunted but the valuability consensus of the bitcoin potential has always proved them wrong. So whenever they become dramatic again we can always remind the historical performance how they never imagined how bitcoin could be so sustainable to reach $100,000. So they can also taunt it that bitcoin doesn't hold an intrinsic value but yet it's probably hedging against inflations. They also think bitcoin blockchain is vulnerable and can be cracked/crashed but yet it security consensus is growing tighter as adoption rate also erupts. So if bitcoin could be this provable and trusted what else should make it an asset? Well the truth about reality is that your enemies will never celebrate your success with you.

People will always come up with their conclusion, from their findings, research but at the end of the day, its all personal. They cant think what they like about Bitcoin, all you need is to have your conviction and conclusion. One thing I have realized is that we use Bitcoin differently. So my experiences in it may not be the same with another. I cant just believe everything anyone would say.

They have not done any findings or research and they are basically spouting nonsense, probably to gain attention from the community, just as we are discussing about this right now. Their reason for saying what they said is also bullshit, which is that bitcoin lacks intrinsic value to be regarded as an asset. BTC's value comes from its scarcity, utility (use cases), decentralized nature, supply and demand, etc. If we are to go by HL's statement, gold wouldn't have any intrinsic value because its value also comes from its rarity, its quality and also the fact that it is "precious".

The governments aren't satisfied with the decentlized system of bitcoin and likely to act opposition so that everyone doesn't have to gain the financial monetary freedom such that bitcoin users holding their funds in the blockchain are custody to their funds. So they speculates falsely campaigning against decentralized blockchain. So they don't only taunt on the security network but talking baseless shits that it's not an asset but yet, it's volatile that it has gained so much global massive adoption with it economy possessions surpassing most stock assets in holding good values. Those who're not twice thoughtful and considers possibilities in every action can't accept reality and it also becomes skeptic to then to trust events that the governments aren't regulating. So they've been fud to the extent they can't even realize how much the traditional monetary value is depreciating the banking savings. So they just commonly believe that gold has an intrinsic value just because the government said so. So when the government creates policies to encourage adoptions and pronounce bitcoin legal in their respective regions then is when they could have the courage to invest or believe bitcoin genuinely.

You know, I can go into a debate with the person that send that. Funny enough this is not the first time I am hearing someone saying Bitcoin lacks intrinsic value. If he said that for attention, I think he got the required attention. Obviously, the value of Bitcoin cannot be underrated. The decentralize nature of Bitcoin has great value, we should be thanking Satoshi everyday because that is the reason Bitcoin went against all odds. Recently we are complaining of high influence from economic leaders affecting Bitcoin, then imagine a scenario where Bitcoin was centralized?

Saying that bitcoin is not an asset should be made by old school analysts only who are not aware of the growing developpment in the financial market even before the bitcoin has emerged. I find it really strange that an old player in this industry didn't notice the inclusion of bitcoin in the investment portfolios of major institutions/companies and its trading on global exchanges solidifies its position as an asset. Therefore, ignoring Bitcoin as an asset is ignoring the fact that bitcoin has become an actual influential component of the contemporary financial system.

The critics is the reason why Bitcoin is actually doing well today, if Bitcoin was loved by everyone, used by everyone, then the popularity and adoption wasn't been huge by today. Critics make a product or a profile stands in the test of time, the same Bitcoin is everywhere because of critics everywhere.

bitcoin does have intrinsic value much like dairy farmers have cost to produce their milk. they wont sell milk below cost. so milks intrinsic value is its farmers wholesale rate of the cheapest efficient rate farmable . even if the retail price of milk is shifting depending on retail profits, deals, offers and inflation above this rate .. unlike crapcoins that are literally minted for free, bitcoin mining comes with a cost if you look at this years current generation asic costs and efficiency. you calculate how many asics are needed to reach the hashrate.  and then apply an electricity rating of $0.04-$0.50 per kwh for them few million asics combined spreading the hardware cost over 2 years(105000blocks/3.125). and then calculate electric down to cost per btc rather than cost per hour(/6/3.125).. you can work out the ultimate window of most efficient mining cost on planet and most innefficient mining on planet. no one is going to sell bitcoin below the lowest mining cost. so thats the intrinsic value

Critics actually ignores out of hatred. If they've only got clue of what actually bitcoin characteristics may posses, then they wouldn't even tend to ignore it so, let's leave it up to them that're acting out of lack of knowledge. Let the critics be there. They're also marketing tool for bitcoin speculations. Their implications initiates very high optimisms where after criticizing bitcoin in the public, those who're thoughtful before concluding will always do their research to know better about the "junk" bitcoin as heard but fortune that as they returns to the critics in the event of quoting them wrong that bitcoin isn't that bad as said. Then a wise critic who was criticizing bitcoin out of ignorance may follow suit by testing the dip. Imagine after taunting bitcoin dip while assumes it's worthless to be asset and you just invested with an affordable funds you can actually let go and exercise your dramatic patient for a long time and then what you thought of being a nightmare comes reality where bitcoin would prove it potential value as a potential asset, I guess you'll ever regret missing out the good times when you were busy mocking it.