“Crypto is a great hedge for inflation and store-of-value”. But, “we shouldn’t put in more than we can afford to lose”? Which one are we going with?

The "crypto is a great hedge for inflation and store-of-value" topic has been quite popular in the sub over the last week.

We hear examples of Argentina where inflation is eating away at their currency, with Year-on-Year inflation sitting at more than 100% (https://tradingeconomics.com/argentina/inflation-cpi).

A store-of-value according to wikipedia is "an asset, commodity, or currency that maintains its value without depreciating" (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/storeofvalue.asp).

At the most simple level, if something can buy you a car today, you want that something to also be able to buy you a car ten years into the future. As we know, gold is probably the best known store-of-value over many centuries.

But then in the next moment we see the advice given out in this sub to "only invest in crypto what you can afford to lose". Crypto has proven to be highly volatile, and what you had last week may be worth 10% less, or more, next week.

So now we face ourselves with the sub giving out conflicting advice.

Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Are we only suggesting Bitcoin as a store-of-value because "it's not as bad as the Argentinian currency", and that same advice wouldn't apply to those who are living in countries with more stable economic systems?

Are we just hypocrites?

Or is Bitcoin now at the stage where we are comfortable going "all in" because it is actually a safe long term store of value and the generic advice of this sub will forever change to "only invest what you can afford to lose …unless it is Bitcoin"?