In Bitcoin We Trust

The “Semper Augustus,” Tulip Mania’s most expensive bulb

Virtual currency Bitcoin has been on a wild ride lately, rising in price from around $50/BTC early March to $260/BTC mid-April, before crashing back down to earth just days later.

This clearly constitutes a speculative bubble, similar to the Dutch “Tulip Mania” of the 1600s.  Tulips became a popular flower among the Dutch aristocracy, which caused a steady rise in prices, which led to increased interest from speculators, many of them French. Traders met in taverns to buy and sell tulip futures, paying just a 2.5% “wine fee” to trade.  At the peak of the bubble, a sale of 40 bulbs fetched 100,000 florins; by comparison, a skilled laborer might make 150 florins per year!  The Dutch traded their possessions, too:  a man offered 12 acres of land for a single rare bulb.  Another man gave away literally all his things: huge sums of wheat, rye, butter, cheese, beer, wine, four oxen, eight pigs, 12 sheep, and the list goes on, again for just a single bulb! The value peaked before the end of the year, and then fell to one hundred thousandth of its value overnight, before any of the bulb contracts even shipped!  Many citizens were made rich; many others were up one tulip bulb or one contract, but down a house, a life’s possessions, or a fortune.

Where did the Bitcoin bubble come from?  Was its source as inane as a fashion trend, or is there something big to this up-and-coming technology?  I argue that the story all started mid-March in Cyprus.  In talks regarding the struggling island nation’s financial woes, officials suggested an unprecedented “bail-in,” in which the government was to tax citizen’s bank accounts directly, by as much as 10%, to bail out Cyprus’s banks.  Unsurprisingly, this triggered an immediate run.  Banks placed a limit of 400 Euros on ATM withdrawals; still many ran out of cash.  People were desperate to empty their bank accounts before the government could.  And, it turns out, many turned to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin’s initial rise coincides perfectly with Cyprus’s “bail-in” talks.  The virtual currency is totally decentralized, meaning that no central bank can manipulate its supply.  Only 21 million bitcoins will ever be produced.  The amount in current circulation will gradually approach that number, reach it in 2140, but never surpass it.  Suddenly, in a floundering Eurozone, even a third party, peer-to-peer cult currency seems more attractive than the Euro.

In fact, Bitcoin is appealing in the midst of any sort of financial instability.  The Cypriots aren’t the only ones whose bank accounts may soon lose value.  Sure, they’re the only ones who have had to face a direct tax on their accounts.  But the same end is achieved through money-printing by a central bank!  Greater supply of money causes inflation, which causes those who have saved to lose wealth.  In countries where monetary policy is regulated by a central bank, you could lose your savings, whether they’re held in the bank or in a mattress.  Therefore, simply the anticipation of inflation is reason enough to move your fiat money into something else: real assets, perhaps, or Bitcoin.

Bitcoin doesn’t have the intrinsic value of gold, real estate, or even the tulip.  But it does offer the prospect of long-term stability due to a hard-set money supply.  Bubbles like last week’s might cause short term fluctuations, but the price should stabilize in the long run, especially as liquidity improves.   Of course, gold prices might be relatively stable too.  But, unlike gold, Bitcoin offers the potential to trade nearly instantly, internationally, anonymously, and without the help (or hindrance) of any bank.  Gold could never directly replace dollars, but Bitcoin could.  The sole true measure of Bitcoin’s value as a currency is the extent of its acceptance among merchants, which, at this point, is frankly pretty low.  But there’s plenty of reason to believe that Bitcoin acceptance will rise drastically in the future.  Governmental policies like those in Cyprus, or in the Eurozone in general, or even here in the States, may leave us no choice.


4 comments on “In Bitcoin We Trust

  1. Sam says:

    I find Bitcoins to be a great idea but is held back because most people who are under educated or do not understand how currency works are afraid of it. For that reason I think Bitcoins will not be a relevant currency used around the world for a while. (I wish more people cared and knew about it.)

    • Josh says:

      Agreed. Right now it’s way too complicated to become mainstream. I think widespread success will come when people design user-friendly programs, especially for mobile devices, that can be used to buy, sell, and trade bitcoin. Or maybe a more user-friendly currency will replace bitcoin. But the idea is a great one and I hope it’s widely adopted soon.

  2. Richard says:

    I’m wary of a massive shift in currency to wards unregulated virtual Bitcoin. Although regulatory policies are often made with the influence of and for the benefit of the financially strong, if the financially strong begin to show interests in having their purchasing power stored in unregulated currencies, then if currency in general begins to move toward Bitcoin, governments may lose much of their purchasing power and so a threat to democracy ensues. Some sort of regulation may be needed to protect the majority from the effects of monopolies on virtual currencies, but such regulation could make Bitcoin unrecognizable. Incidentally, it is not entirely anonymous, though an untraceable version of Bitcoin, called Zerocoin, was invented at Johns Hopkins University.

    • Ben says:

      Agreed. It seems like a classic libertarian mistake to extol the benefits of freedom from government while forgetting that certain uniform restrictions on freedom can be universally beneficial. In particular, the existence of a stable currency which permits taxation is necessary for the maintenance of a democratic society.

      Individually, we’d each like to be exempt from these requirements. But we simultaneously have reason to condone laws which restrict defection from these obligations on a collective level. This allows us to rise to a cooperative state. It’s misleading to suppose that these rules — which help us, by prohibiting defections — constitute some kind of government “invasion” of our freedom.

      You rightly suggest that the government alternative isn’t always better. I’ve sometimes felt that there’s an inherent “catch 22” here. Situations lacking a “sovereign” invite destructive competition and defection. Sovereign power itself, though, is liable to be abused. I’ve sometimes felt this to be “the fundamental problem” of politics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s