In a novel model of an endowment economy, we analyze coexistence and competition between traditional fiat money (Dollar) and another intrinsically worthless medium of exchange, not controlled by a central bank, such as Bitcoin. Agents can trade consumption goods in either currency or hold on to currency for speculative purposes. A central bank ensures a Dollar inflation target, while Bitcoin mining is decentralized via proof-of-work. We analyze Bitcoin price evolution and interaction between the Bitcoin price and monetary policy which targets the Dollar. We obtain a fundamental pricing equation, which in its simplest form implies that Bitcoin prices form a martingale. We derive conditions, under which Bitcoin speculation cannot happen, and the fundamental pricing equation must hold. We show that the block rewards are not a tax on Bitcoin holders: they are financed by Dollar taxes imposed by the Dollar central bank. We discuss monetary policy implications and characterize the range of equilibria.
The amount of computational power devoted to anonymous, decentralized blockchains such as Bitcoin’s must simultaneously satisfy two conditions in equilibrium: (1) a zero-profit condition among miners, who engage in a rent-seeking competition for the prize associated with adding the next block to the chain; and (2) an incentive compatibility condition on the system’s vulnerability to a “majority attack”, namely that the computational costs of such an attack must exceed the benefits. Together, these two equations imply that (3) the recurring, “flow”, payments to miners for running the blockchain must be large relative to the one-off, “stock”, benefits of attacking it. This is very expensive! The constraint is softer (i.e., stock versus stock) if both (i) the mining technology used to run the blockchain is both scarce and non-repurposable, and (ii) any majority attack is a “sabotage” in that it causes a collapse in the economic value of the blockchain; however, reliance on non-repurposable technology for security and vulnerability to sabotage each raise their own concerns, and point to specific collapse scenarios. In particular, the model suggests that Bitcoin would be majority attacked if it became sufficiently economically important — e.g., if it became a “store of value” akin to gold— which suggests that there are intrinsic economic limits to how economically important it can become in the first place.
This thesis will begin with a critique to the orthodox paradigm in monetary economics. Secondly, I will offer a theoretical, economic, structural and biopolitical analyses of the origin, nature and effects of money on society. After a critique to conventional paradigm of money, I will then propose a semiotic genealogy of money followed by an analysis of the Common, the Multitude together with a tentative fourfold proposal for monetary reform, i.e. a monetary dispositif for the socio-economic emancipation of the Multitude from the rule of capital to build a new paradigm of money. In particular, I will discuss the literatures on basic income and the emerging notion for bottom-up welfare named Commonfare; the Neo-Chartalist approach to money; complementary, viz. subaltern currencies; and crypto-currencies and distributed ledgers technology. In turn, I will present the two qualitative methodologies that I endorsed to design and research four sites of inquiry in Iceland, Spain, Finland and Italy: Participatory Action Research and Critical Muti-Sited Ethnography. A discussion of fieldwork findings will follow. Moreover, I will offer a comparative analysis on fieldwork findings by identifying not only commonalities and differences among the four sites, but also by eliciting the limits of methodological choices. I will conclude this thesis by arguing to refine the theoretical framework introduced in the literature review; and notwithstanding personal and objective limitations to the application of the monetary dispositif in the real world, I will advocate for further inquiry on Money for the Common Wealth of the Multitude to increase the quality and effectiveness of the debate on suggestions for monetary reform.
This chapter examines how Bitcoin came to secure a place as money at the margins of the global monetary system by focusing on the possibly most controversial question surrounding Bitcoin. It examines the topic of theorizing money. The chapter discusses the initial positioning of Bitcoin against the dominant money game. It develops the original three phases that defined the evolution of Bitcoin as a money game based on evaluation of recent journalist, academic, and governmental publications. The chapter summarizes how the Bitcoin money game changed and shifted since its inception, and how this might affect other existing money games. Bitcoin was initially positioned as a clear criticism of the two-level money system consisting of central banks and commercial banks. The chapter examines the development of the Bitcoin money game over time to understand how Bitcoin could prevail despite starting off without any institutional underpinning or political backing.
With the rise of the modern technologies and wide implementation of digital systems, establishment of cashless economy is perspective trend in Ukraine. In contrast to the traditional kinds of money, which can be considered as a payment facility in online deals too, smart currencies have advanced level of security from cybercrime. These factors induce new “e-money” epoch and “cryptocurrency” term is extensively discussed. The aim of the article is to justify the perspectives of using cryptocurrencies for payment operations guided by historic aspect of research. The study is based on the use of historic and analysis and synthesis methods of research. The principles of cryptocurrency functioning and the essence of “blockchain” technology are analyzed. Formed the potential possibilities of blockchain bank integration. Previous conditions of origin and main stages of cryptocurrency development are determined. The essence of digital currency is revealed and Its main kinds are described. The history of development and functioning of cryptocurrency is divided into seven periods. Its proved, that cryptocurrency is not a full-fledged money but highly liquid asset, which perspectives on a worlds capital market are undeniable.
This paper presents a simple game theoretic framework, assuming complete information, to model Bitcoin mining activity. It does so by formalizing the activity as an all-pay contest: a competition where participants contend with each other to win a prize by investing in computational power, and victory is probabilistic. With at least two active miners, the unique pure strategy Nash equilibrium of the game suggests the following interesting insights on the motivation for being a miner: while the optimal amount of energy consumption depends also on the reward for solving the puzzle, as long as the reward is positive the decision to be an active miner depends only on the mining costs. Moreover, the intrinsic structure of the mining activity seems to prevent the formation of a monopoly, because in an equilibrium with two miners, both of them will have positive expected profits for any level of the opponent’s costs. A monopoly could only form if the rate of return on investment were higher outside bitcoin.
Despite its increasing popularity, no official guidance on the financial reporting of Bitcoin transactions has been provided by standard setters, although tax accounting guidance began to appear in 2014. Designed as a decentralised currency, Bitcoin is not intended to become a reporting currency and will instead complement fiat money. We argue that in the case of Bitcoin the accounting principle of faithful representation requires interpretation of the economic substance for financial reporting that varies with reporting entity: trading firms recognise Bitcoin like a foreign currency and measure the revenue, or expense, at the equivalent amount of the reporting currency and digital currency exchanges recognise Bitcoin as goods in line with tax accounting treatment. An Economica paper by Radford (1945), which describes the use of cigarettes as commodity money in a prisoner of war camp alludes to this economic basis. This paper applies accounting principles to a practical issue and contributes to the process by which standard setters may issue an interpretation.
In spite of a still very low volume at the global level, in comparison with the main reserve currencies, digital currencies attract a lot of attention. The paper reminds that it is above all the exchange mechanism incorporated in digital currencies (the distributed ledger technology) which should contribute to their success. It is shown that a widespread use of these currencies is likely to materialize only under conditions that woulDeessentially leave unchanged the capacity of the central bank to pursue the same inflation target using the same instruments as today, by setting an interest rate level. However, some adjustments may have to be made to the definition of monetary aggregates and possibly also to the base and/or the ratios of reserve requirements. Even in the most extreme and unlikely scenario, where the central bank would issue CBDC the public would have access to and massively adopt, banks role in distributing credit would likely not be seriously impaired. Banks might rather have less direct information on their clients. They would possibly also become more dependent on central bank refinancing, which would call for a clear and pre-announced lending of last resort policy in order to limit moral hazard considerations.
Jonathan Chiu, Thorsten V. Koeppl, Chiu, Jonathan, Koeppl, Thorsten
How well can a cryptocurrency serve as a means of payment? We study the optimal design of cryptocurrencies and assess quantitatively how well such currencies can support bilateral trade. The challenge for cryptocurrencies is to overcome double-spending by relying on competition to update the blockchain (costly mining) and by delaying settlement. We estimate that the current Bitcoin scheme generates a large welfare loss of 1.4% of consumption. This welfare loss can be lowered substantially to 0.08% by adopting an optimal design that reduces mining and relies exclusively on money growth rather than transaction fees to finance mining rewards. We also point out that cryptocurrencies can potentially challenge retail payment systems provided scaling limitations can be addressed.
Bitcoin is a widely-spread payment instrument, but it is doubtful whether the proof-of-work (PoW) nature of the system is financially sustainable on the long term. To assess sustainability, we focus on the bitcoin miners as they play an important role in the proof-of-work consensus mechanism of bitcoin to create trust in the currency. Miners offer their services against a reward while recurring expenses. Our results show that bitcoin mining has become less profitable over time to the extent that profits seem to converge to zero. This is what economic theory predicts for a competitive market that has a single homogenous good. We analyze the actors involved in the bitcoin system as well as the value flows between these actors using the e3value methodology. The value flows are quantified using publicly available data about the bitcoin network. However, two important value flows for the miners, namely hardware investments and expenses for electricity power, are not available from public sources. Therefore, we contribute an approach to estimate the installed base of bitcoin hardware equipment over time. Using this estimate, we can calculate the expenses miner should have. At the end of our analysis period, the marginal profit of mining a bitcoin becomes negative, i.e., to a loss for the miners. This loss is caused by the consensus mechanism of the bitcoin protocol, which requires a substantial investment in hardware and significant recurring daily expenses for energy. Therefore, a sustainable crypto currency needs higher payments for miners or more energy efficient algorithms to achieve consensus in a network about the truth of the distributed ledger.
Abstract By declaring an item legal tender or making it publicly receivable, governments might generate sufficient demand to determine the medium of exchange. How do private actors launch a new money? There are two views in the literature. The first requires offering an item with a use value to some agents that is distinct from its role as a medium of exchange. The second suggests that agents might coordinate on an intrinsically useless item. With these views in mind, I survey the logs from the original bitcoin forum, bitcoin-list. I find that early participants in the bitcoin community understood the importance of coordination and took steps to coordinate users.
Shayan Eskandari, Jeremy Clark, Vignesh Sundaresan, Moe Adham
In this paper, we present Velocity, a decentralized market deployed on Ethereum for trading a custom type of derivative option. To enable the smart contract to work, we also implement a price fetching tool called PriceGeth. We present this as a case study, noting challenges in development of the system that might be of independent interest to whose working on smart contract implementations. We also apply recent academic results on the security of the Solidity smart contract language in validating our codes security. Finally, we discuss more generally the use of smart contracts in modelling financial derivatives.
Attempts to accurately measure the monetary velocity or related properties of Bitcoin have often attempted to either directly apply definitions from traditional macroeconomic theory or to use specialized metrics relative to the properties of the Blockchain such as bitcoin-days destroyed. In this paper, it is demonstrated that beyond being a useful metric, bitcoin-days destroyed has mathematical properties that allow one to calculate the average dormancy (time since last use in a transaction) of the bitcoins used in transactions over a given time period. In addition, transaction volume and average dormancy are shown to have unexpected significance in helping estimate the average size of the pool of traded bitcoins by virtue of the expression Little's Law, though only under limited conditions.
Monies are typically categorized as commodity or fiat, depending on whether the item in question is intrinsically worthless. In the case of bitcoin, it is not so clear. I consider the superficial subjective value argument often put forward by non-monetary economists and a more sophisticated payments technology argument. After dismissing both, I argue that there are two reasonable views on the value of bitcoin. One might claim bitcoin lacks intrinsic worth, in which case its value depends on foresight and coordination. Alternatively, one might claim that bitcoin has intrinsic worth, even if no one else accepts it, because some users have peculiar preferences. In either case, the existence of bitcoin calls into question the practical relevance of the regression theorem.
Abstract Bitcoin provides its users with transaction-processing services which are similar to those of traditional payment systems. This article models the novel economic structure implied by Bitcoin’s innovative decentralized design, which allows the payment system to be reliably operated by unrelated parties called miners. We find that this decentralized design protects users from monopoly pricing. Competition among service providers within the platform and free entry imply no entity can profitably affect the level of fees paid by users. Instead, a market for transaction-processing determines the fees users pay to gain priority and avoid transaction-processing delays. The article (i) derives closed-form formulas of the fees and waiting times and studies their properties, (ii) compares pricing under the Bitcoin Payment System to that under a traditional payment system operated by a profit-maximizing firm, and (iii) suggests protocol design modifications to enhance the platform’s efficiency. The Appendix describes and explains the main attributes of Bitcoin and the underlying blockchain technology.
Sinclair Davidson, Primavera De Filippi, Jason Potts
Abstract Blockchains are a new digital technology that combines peer-to-peer network computing and cryptography to create an immutable decentralised public ledger. Where the ledger records money, a blockchain is a cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin; but ledger entries can record any data structure, including property titles, identity and certification, contracts, and so on. We argue that the economics of blockchains extend beyond analysis of a new general purpose technology and its disruptive Schumpeterian consequences to the broader idea that blockchains are an institutional technology. We consider several examples of blockchain-based economic coordination and governance. We claim that blockchains are an instance of institutional evolution.