More on Bitcoin: Why It Cannot Replace Money

There has been much debate amongst economists over the nature and usage of bitcoins.  I recently wrote an article in which I briefly summarized the facts that give rise to the need for exchange and the necessary attributes of money, concluding that bitcoins will one day “go to zero” in terms of the gold price.  In the wake of many good comments, this post is a follow-up to that post and elaborates my views on the nature of bitcoins.

First, it’s important to define a few terms related to the meaning of exchange and money.  Following Reisman’s Capitalism, a “media of exchange” are goods “sought neither as articles of personal consumption nor as means of further production, but as means of effecting further exchanges.”  Media of exchange can be just about anything including cigarettes, cattle, furs, etc.  “The acceptability of the most preferred medium or media of exchange tends to go on increasing, until it or they are universally acceptable-i.e., have developed into money. Money is merely a medium of exchange whose use has grown to the point where it is directly and readily exchangeable against all other goods in a given geographical area.” As discussed in the previous post, precious metals became accepted as money due to their unique physical properties.

Another important concept when understanding the nature of bitcoins is “standard money.” Again quoting Reisman: “Standard money …is money that is not itself a claim to anything further.  It possesses ultimate debt-paying power, in that when it is received no further claim to be paid is present.  Under a gold standard, standard money is gold.  Any paper money that exists is a claim to it.”

In a 2013 article, The Bitcoin Money Myth, Austrian economist Frank Shostak wrote: “Bitcoin is not a new form of money that replaces previous forms, but rather a new way of employing existent money in transactions. Because Bitcoin is not real money but merely a different way of employing existent fiat money, obviously it cannot replace it.” In other words, a bitcoin is not itself money, because it always relies on an actual form of money (standard money) to underlie it. To see this point, consider the following example.  Most people are familiar with Western Union.  It is a way to transfer money to someone in a different place. You can go to a Western Union office, give them a certain amount of cash, and someone in a different city can go to a Western Union office and get the money.  Western Union provides a transferring function and you pay them a fee for their service.

Let’s say Western Union created tickets.  One buys a ticket for say $100.  He can then send the ticket to someone, rather than the $100 bill. The ticket is market “$100 payable on demand at any Western Union office.”  When someone receives the ticket, he can take it to a Western Union office and get the $100 in cash. He may be able to trade the ticket to someone for a good or service because the recipient knows he can take the ticket to a Western Union office and get $100.  The tickets in this instance represent transferable claims to standard money payable upon demand to the holders of the tickets.

The ticket is only valuable for three primary reasons.  First, the ticket is redeemable for $100 in standard money (in this context, the $100 fiat currency is standard money). In other words, the Western Union tickets would have no value in and of themselves.  Their value depends on the existence of, in this case, fiat currency or the $100. Second, the ticket is a legal obligation on behalf of the Western Union company to pay the ticket owner the $100 so that the bearer has a legal claim.  Third, the dollar amount, $100 in this case, is known and not subject to change.

Bitcoin essentially provides a transfer function.  Like the Western Union tickets, one buys a bitcoin for a certain price and the transaction is recorded.  One can then send a bitcoin to another party to pay for a certain good or service if they are willing to accept it.  With respect to this transfer function, Bitcoin employs sophisticated network technology and appears to be very good at transferring the coins securely and anonymously.

Like the Western Union example, when someone receives the bitcoin, the bitcoin is only valuable to the extent that someone can trade it for a good or can sell it to someone else for standard money.  Again, as Shostak notes, its value depends on the existence of another form of money.  However, unlike the Western Union example, no one is legally obligated to redeem a bitcoin for actual money, i.e., once you buy the bitcoin, no one has a legal obligation to accept it or redeem it, and consequently, the value of the bitcoin may change substantially in terms of actual money, potentially being worthless.

This is why, from an economics standpoint, bitcoins cannot replace actual money. Bitcoin is not money in and of itself. The bitcoin price is essentially the price of transferring already existent fiat currency or, in another sense, it is simply a non-binding “claim” to standard money.   Since the value of bitcoins are not in their usage as standard money but in their usage in transactions, bitcoins are only as good as the fiat currencies in which they can be sold.  In other words, since bitcoins are not redeemable in something physical, if fiat currency goes to zero, bitcoins will go to zero.  Bitcoins may in fact go to zero even if fiat currency does not go to zero, if people just decide to stop using them for some reason. However, if fiat currency goes to zero, in terms of gold, what good is a bitcoin in its present form?

So why does anyone use bitcoin and what accounts for its popularity in some countries and industries?  Merchants or individuals who accept bitcoins in foreign countries are betting that they can either exchange the bitcoins for something or cash them in for a more stable currency in the future as opposed to accepting local currency.  This is a rational bet if you live in a country with a tyrannical government and/or an unstable currency.  I would rather possess an anonymous potential claim to a valuable currency (in the form of a bitcoin) than possess a currency which is itself of little future value or obtained under monitoring from a government authority (Iran, China, etc.).

While bitcoins may serve a purpose and be of value in this and many other contexts, its actual nature, purpose and value should be better understood by potential buyers and sellers.

  • Aki Suihkonen

    A sophisticated crypto-currency is as good as gold or better. Rare, divisible, recognizable, unforgeable. There’s no infinite supply of them. Due to its physical properties, gold is considered the closest match (or symbol) of the metaphysical. What then could be said about properties of large numbers, knowledge and logic itself? That’s what the crypto-currencies ultimately are.

    If one thinks that bitcoins can be made illegal, one should remember, that at least historically gold is no different in that respect.

    Bitcoins are more than just a secure or anonymous method of transmission. Those protocols, such as SSL, or PGP, have a completely different identity. But just as one doesn’t have to understand the money speech from Atlas Shrugged to buy a popsicle, one doesn’t have to understand cryptography to use or enjoy crypto-currencies.

  • writeby

    The problem is that fifth requirement of an objective currency: universally held to be valuable. No one had to “sell” gold or silver’s value to mankind. But to be held as such requires actual existence, as in hold-it-in-your-hand, jingle-it-in-your-pocket, stash-it-in-your-wall-safe real.

    Moreover, since bitcoins have but virtual “cybereality,” it seems (to me) one could easily manipulate their supply. To say they can’t–isn’t that akin to saying this system or that system is “unhackable”?

    If what you say is true, though, time & truth will out. But color me a skeptic, though not a critic. If bitcoin can, I sincerely hope it will.

  • Chris Sutton

    All that requirement demand is ubiquitous use. As soon as a critical mass of people (not necessarily a majority) use Bitcoin as their “transfer mechanism” it’ll be a unit of account unto itself. Dollars will be priced in Bitcoin, just as easily as the reverse is true today.

    Also, gold will also be priced in Bitcoin, just like it’s priced in dollars today.

    The fact that a few funny people price dollars in terms of gold doesn’t change the fact that most don’t, and don’t care to. The dollars in their wallet and their bank account are stable enough for them to disregard gold entirely.

  • Francesca Ford

    Bitcoin has far more objective value. None of your arguments come off as convincing here because simply nothing you’re saying regarding bitcoins potential as a currency is true. Every requirement you make for a good currency, bitcoin has in greater supply than gold and yet you try to say it doesnt ironically with many of the same faulty arguments people make against gold. It can be the standard provided people simply treat it as such, it’s more divisible, easier to hold, self regulating via the right code, quicker, works for the internet age, and so much more. I think in time gold will be the “tickets” to bitcoin’s standard.