This doesn't make any sense. The problems a business faces are:
- Receive money from customers. If the customers don't have Bitcoin, they're not going to pay you in Bitcoin.
- Pay your employees and suppliers. Very few of them will accept Bitcoin.
- Borrow money to cover differences between revenue and expenses. The entity loaning you the money may or may loan you Bitcoin, but what difference does it make? They're going to give you the same scrutiny and terms as any other lender in any currency.
- Security for your enormous wads of liquid assets. Banks have vaults and FDIC insurance. Bitcoin has nothing on its own, and if you use an exchange, they can do exactly what a bank does and freeze your funds, or in many cases, just steal it and spend it themselves.
You say later you just mean "well, you can withdraw some of your country's legal tender from the bank and store it as Bitcoin in case you need it later." You can just diversify the same way everyone else suggests by using multiple banks. If you trust zero banks, you can withdraw cash and stuff it under your mattress. You can loan it to a local drug lord. You can buy gold. You can buy forex and put it in a foreign bank. I guess some of these options are less liquid than others, but what advantage are you really claiming keeping your rainy day fund as Bitcoin has over anything else? Generally speaking, businesses tend to stick with things like commercial paper and treasuries and that has seemingly worked out fine.
I wish we had real verifiable base rates on the probability that a business will go under because it's cash and near cash equivalents line item was seized by authorities even though they legitimately did nothing wrong versus a business will go under because it decided to keep all of its funds in cryptocurrency and it either tanked overnight, they lost the key, SBF took their money because he felt like it, or whatever other reasons might happen.
Would you seriously bet the former is more likely than the latter?
In the current epoch, I'd cite Murphy's Law and say that anything is possible and it's wise for a CEO/CFO to plan ahead in case this happens. Bitcoin is one among several options and an excellent safeguard against corruption, political persecution, etc.
As for exchange hacks and lost keys, the business that relies on this will intelligently keep funds off-exchange/self-custody and use multisig wallets with signatures held by multiple officers of the company.
Today, it's the "nuclear option." But if enough people start transacting in Bitcoin routinely, it's the ideal future.
> because it decided to keep all of its funds in cryptocurrency and it either tanked overnight, they lost the key, SBF took their money because he felt like it
Tell us you don't comprehend cryptocurrency without telling us you don't...
- Receive money from customers. If the customers don't have Bitcoin, they're not going to pay you in Bitcoin.
- Pay your employees and suppliers. Very few of them will accept Bitcoin.
- Borrow money to cover differences between revenue and expenses. The entity loaning you the money may or may loan you Bitcoin, but what difference does it make? They're going to give you the same scrutiny and terms as any other lender in any currency.
- Security for your enormous wads of liquid assets. Banks have vaults and FDIC insurance. Bitcoin has nothing on its own, and if you use an exchange, they can do exactly what a bank does and freeze your funds, or in many cases, just steal it and spend it themselves.
You say later you just mean "well, you can withdraw some of your country's legal tender from the bank and store it as Bitcoin in case you need it later." You can just diversify the same way everyone else suggests by using multiple banks. If you trust zero banks, you can withdraw cash and stuff it under your mattress. You can loan it to a local drug lord. You can buy gold. You can buy forex and put it in a foreign bank. I guess some of these options are less liquid than others, but what advantage are you really claiming keeping your rainy day fund as Bitcoin has over anything else? Generally speaking, businesses tend to stick with things like commercial paper and treasuries and that has seemingly worked out fine.
I wish we had real verifiable base rates on the probability that a business will go under because it's cash and near cash equivalents line item was seized by authorities even though they legitimately did nothing wrong versus a business will go under because it decided to keep all of its funds in cryptocurrency and it either tanked overnight, they lost the key, SBF took their money because he felt like it, or whatever other reasons might happen.
Would you seriously bet the former is more likely than the latter?