Central African Republic Adopts Bitcoin as Legal Tender(coindesk.com)
coindesk.com
Central African Republic Adopts Bitcoin as Legal Tender
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/27/central-african-republic-adopts-bitcoin-as-legal-tender/
154 comments
[deleted]
divs1210(1)
An entire country and you have not one good thing to say?
I can't help but notice you haven't volunteered anything good to say about the country either.
I went looking and there isn't much to find, on wikipedia anyway. They have some substantial mineral resources, but diamonds are the only resource being developed. They get much of their power from hydroelectric, but that's because they import all their petroleum on truck and barge; the CAR is one of the least electrified countries in the world. They have substantial arable land, but most of the population survives on subsistence farming and bush meat; 45% of the population experiences high acute food insecurity. Efforts to raise livestock are hampered by tropical parasites. Most of their economy is "off the books" (smuggling, untaxed, unreported) trade of diamonds, ivory, bushmeat and alcohol.
I went looking and there isn't much to find, on wikipedia anyway. They have some substantial mineral resources, but diamonds are the only resource being developed. They get much of their power from hydroelectric, but that's because they import all their petroleum on truck and barge; the CAR is one of the least electrified countries in the world. They have substantial arable land, but most of the population survives on subsistence farming and bush meat; 45% of the population experiences high acute food insecurity. Efforts to raise livestock are hampered by tropical parasites. Most of their economy is "off the books" (smuggling, untaxed, unreported) trade of diamonds, ivory, bushmeat and alcohol.
>I can't help but notice you haven't volunteered anything good to say about the country either.
Not saying anything about a country isn't anything like putting a bunch of bullet points to explain a country while saying nothing positive about it whatsoever.
I can't even begin on the stupidity of comparing not saying anything at all about the CAR (me) with putting a big list of "factoids" and omitting any positive thing at all about the country (such as they are incredibly ethnically rich with ~80+ ethnicities and languages).
It's the stereotypical English speaker on the internet shitting on another nation with a laundry list of facts about a country while offering absolutely 0, ZERO, point of positive element about another nation.
Of course few in the CAR speak English and the majority likely do not even have regular internet access, so one can easily take the cowardly position of shitting on the negatives while simultaneously espousing none of the positives with little fear of any push-back from those in the CAR with something positive to say.
Not saying anything about a country isn't anything like putting a bunch of bullet points to explain a country while saying nothing positive about it whatsoever.
I can't even begin on the stupidity of comparing not saying anything at all about the CAR (me) with putting a big list of "factoids" and omitting any positive thing at all about the country (such as they are incredibly ethnically rich with ~80+ ethnicities and languages).
It's the stereotypical English speaker on the internet shitting on another nation with a laundry list of facts about a country while offering absolutely 0, ZERO, point of positive element about another nation.
Of course few in the CAR speak English and the majority likely do not even have regular internet access, so one can easily take the cowardly position of shitting on the negatives while simultaneously espousing none of the positives with little fear of any push-back from those in the CAR with something positive to say.
> they are incredibly ethnically rich with ~80+ ethnicities and languages.
Okay, that's something at least. What are the economic, political and civil implications of this?
Okay, that's something at least. What are the economic, political and civil implications of this?
Given that there are 80+ ethnicities and languages in the USA, I'd say having a variety of ethnicities is compatible with a wide variety of economical, political, and civil structures. The question as it stands is a multivariate problem that is nearly intractable to answer factually.
So the best you can say about the CAR is their ethnic diversity is not fundamentally incompatible with prosperity, but nevertheless the problem of prosperity in the CAR is nearly intractable? That's grim.
>problem of prosperity in the CAR is nearly intractable?
That's not the question you asked, nor the question I answered, and you know it.
>best you can say about the CAR is their ethnic diversity is not fundamentally incompatible with prosperity,
I never said it was the 'best' thing about CAR. My statement about diversity in CAR also did not include any statement saying it helped or harmed its 'prosperity.' You berated me for saying nothing so I provided something, which you then out of bad faith reinterpreted into something else.
It's perverted, and sick, that rich ethnic diversity has to be viewed through the lenses of how it's going to make people economically 'prosperous', rather than appreciated and respected for cultural, artistic, and other non-commercial reasons. I don't understand your angle here; other cultures aren't there for you to squeeze dry to get rich.
That's not the question you asked, nor the question I answered, and you know it.
>best you can say about the CAR is their ethnic diversity is not fundamentally incompatible with prosperity,
I never said it was the 'best' thing about CAR. My statement about diversity in CAR also did not include any statement saying it helped or harmed its 'prosperity.' You berated me for saying nothing so I provided something, which you then out of bad faith reinterpreted into something else.
It's perverted, and sick, that rich ethnic diversity has to be viewed through the lenses of how it's going to make people economically 'prosperous', rather than appreciated and respected for cultural, artistic, and other non-commercial reasons. I don't understand your angle here; other cultures aren't there for you to squeeze dry to get rich.
Well I'm genuinely curious about this so I continued to do more reading. I figured maybe economic prosperity is not the same as being happy, but alas, the CAR is very near the bottom of the UN's World Happiness Report; 149 out of 153.... BUT they rank quite well in perceived generosity! In the top third in fact, sandwiched between Austria and Germany. That people in the CAR are so generous despite being dirt poor and gravely unhappy is an ember of hope at least.
The political and economic elite are highly effective and stripping the people and land of their value and dignity?
Given the headline, that almost seems redundant to say.
Because there's nothing of value left to use as backing for fiat, and they must now rely on digital cash to move on with life?
On one hand this move makes no sense. Poor countries have every motivation to print fiat currencies to fund operations. Heck, even "stable" currencies like the US dollar and euro are currently inflating to prop up spending in the issuer economies. Bitcoin can't be controlled in this way by the countries that adopt it as legal tender.
On the other, it could make sense. If a country is interested in accumulating bitcoin as a reserve asset, accepting bitcoin tax payments would be a way to do that. This hasn't been discussed much in the articles on this topic, though.
Also, both El Salvador and CAR effectively don't use their own currencies anyway. El Salvador uses the US dollar after a disastrous bout of inflation. CAR's currency is pegged to the euro. So adding another currency not controlled by the country doesn't exactly change the ability of the government to inflate its debts away.
On the other, it could make sense. If a country is interested in accumulating bitcoin as a reserve asset, accepting bitcoin tax payments would be a way to do that. This hasn't been discussed much in the articles on this topic, though.
Also, both El Salvador and CAR effectively don't use their own currencies anyway. El Salvador uses the US dollar after a disastrous bout of inflation. CAR's currency is pegged to the euro. So adding another currency not controlled by the country doesn't exactly change the ability of the government to inflate its debts away.
Poorer countries have every motivation to move away from colonial currencies that are inherently inflationary and out of their control, into a deflationary currency like bitcoin that has a well-known limited supply and is controlled by no one.
They have everything to gain and nothing to lose from such an asymmetric bet.
They have everything to gain and nothing to lose from such an asymmetric bet.
Why on earth would any country, rich or poor, want a deflationary currency outside its control? "Controlled by no one" is not a feature for governments (or mature financial systems), it's a bug.
This being CAR (and this being bitcoin), it's more likely a story of using a high tech tool to hide proceeds of low-tech plundering of a poor African nation's abundant natural resources.
This being CAR (and this being bitcoin), it's more likely a story of using a high tech tool to hide proceeds of low-tech plundering of a poor African nation's abundant natural resources.
> Why on earth would any country, rich or poor, want a deflationary currency outside its control?
No government would want such a thing if given a choice. However, when a country's fiat currency becomes worthless, the choice is a different one.
> "Controlled by no one" is not a feature for governments (or mature financial systems), it's a bug.
As far as governments are concerned, that is absolutely correct. However, given the choice between a currency nobody controls and one controlled by another government, the former is clearly less onerous.
No government would want such a thing if given a choice. However, when a country's fiat currency becomes worthless, the choice is a different one.
> "Controlled by no one" is not a feature for governments (or mature financial systems), it's a bug.
As far as governments are concerned, that is absolutely correct. However, given the choice between a currency nobody controls and one controlled by another government, the former is clearly less onerous.
They controlled their own currency before. It’s their choice to peg it’s value or not.
To eliminate the ability to print money or do any other kind of intervention is like cutting off your legs for no reason. It seems to me that they’re simply doing this a) as a stunt, and b) as a way to get around remittance fees. Except accepting bitcoin means you have a current with no stability, no recourse when anything goes wrong, and one that thru deflation will only make everything more expensive over time but favor the initially rich.
To eliminate the ability to print money or do any other kind of intervention is like cutting off your legs for no reason. It seems to me that they’re simply doing this a) as a stunt, and b) as a way to get around remittance fees. Except accepting bitcoin means you have a current with no stability, no recourse when anything goes wrong, and one that thru deflation will only make everything more expensive over time but favor the initially rich.
Money is trust. For a government to print money, he need people and worldwild financial institutions to trust the government. I don't think anyone trust the CAR government, so they can't print money.
There are in fact poor countries with competent central bankers, so the task of making a stable fiat currency is not as insurmountable as "become rich first".
So what money do they use?
>No government would want such a thing if given a choice. However, when a country's fiat currency becomes worthless, the choice is a different one.
That's true. They then peg their currency to a stable fiat currency, or simply adopt one (usually unilaterally). They don't go for a "perpetual novelty" technology that has fundamental technical issues making it largely unsuitable for use as actual currency (as opposed to speculative store of value, or a money transfer mechanism).
>As far as governments are concerned, that is absolutely correct. However, given the choice between a currency nobody controls and one controlled by another government, the former is clearly less onerous.
Undoing most laws is likewise going to be "clearly less onerous" for a lot of folks. That in itself does not make it a good idea.
That's true. They then peg their currency to a stable fiat currency, or simply adopt one (usually unilaterally). They don't go for a "perpetual novelty" technology that has fundamental technical issues making it largely unsuitable for use as actual currency (as opposed to speculative store of value, or a money transfer mechanism).
>As far as governments are concerned, that is absolutely correct. However, given the choice between a currency nobody controls and one controlled by another government, the former is clearly less onerous.
Undoing most laws is likewise going to be "clearly less onerous" for a lot of folks. That in itself does not make it a good idea.
> tool to hide proceeds of low-tech plundering
Maybe, but since it's an open ledger wouldn't it be more likely to bring transparency to the country's operations?
If you pay taxes in bitcoin to the country, then you can track where that goes overtime unless the country exchanges it to another currency or moves it through a whirlpool or similar. Both operations of which have a cost.
I could see a website being setup to collect tax payment transactions such that tracking the government's expenditure would actually become quite simple. Obviously, the citizens of CAR may not be up to the task, but it's completely possible technically.
Maybe, but since it's an open ledger wouldn't it be more likely to bring transparency to the country's operations?
If you pay taxes in bitcoin to the country, then you can track where that goes overtime unless the country exchanges it to another currency or moves it through a whirlpool or similar. Both operations of which have a cost.
I could see a website being setup to collect tax payment transactions such that tracking the government's expenditure would actually become quite simple. Obviously, the citizens of CAR may not be up to the task, but it's completely possible technically.
CAR is partly run by an incompetent dictatorship, partly by a Russian private military firm that's really into massacres and diamond mining. That should tell you all you need to know about the likelihood of open ledgers bringing transparency to the country's operations.
“Controlled by another country” is a worse bug than “Controlled by no one”.
I'd say it's a feature. Particularly if you think the government of CAR to be corrupt.
I personally think governments are all based on the fallacy that a group of people can have rights that individuals can't. So, for me it's 100% feature.
I personally think governments are all based on the fallacy that a group of people can have rights that individuals can't. So, for me it's 100% feature.
It is in fact not a bug but a critical, show-stopping feature. I will never denominate a contract in units of a speculative virtual scheme with no one at the (very technologically deficient) wheel.
Why on earth would any citizen want an inflationary currency outside their control that actively devalues their savings as intended?
Because deflation kills economies while controlled inflation is necessary to have an economy.
A deflationary currency means you are better off keeping your money under a mattress than using it (either as an investment or an expense).
Which means that people wanting to acquire machinery to improve their farm output, someone wanting to setup a store, or someone else wanting to do something productive with their labor will find it harder to get the funding they need.
A deflationary currency means you are better off keeping your money under a mattress than using it (either as an investment or an expense).
Which means that people wanting to acquire machinery to improve their farm output, someone wanting to setup a store, or someone else wanting to do something productive with their labor will find it harder to get the funding they need.
> A deflationary currency means you are better off keeping your money under a mattress than using it (either as an investment or an expense).
People still need to eat and will spend to eat. You can observe this even with people who wholly live their lives on BTC and will go out of their way to avoid any other currency. The Amnish farmer will continue to plow their fields.
I am not a crypto-maxi but I do believe there is a grain of truth to the supposition that inflationary economies produce vast waste as we spend ourselves away on empty desires that make us sick.
We are spellbound to a system that wrings from us all life day by day as we toil on bullshit to sustain bullshit.
People still need to eat and will spend to eat. You can observe this even with people who wholly live their lives on BTC and will go out of their way to avoid any other currency. The Amnish farmer will continue to plow their fields.
I am not a crypto-maxi but I do believe there is a grain of truth to the supposition that inflationary economies produce vast waste as we spend ourselves away on empty desires that make us sick.
We are spellbound to a system that wrings from us all life day by day as we toil on bullshit to sustain bullshit.
> I am not a crypto-maxi but I do believe there is a grain of truth to the supposition that inflationary economies produce vast waste as we spend ourselves away on empty desires that make us sick.
I'm no ecofascist, but this seems very evident when you juxtapose economic arguments for the necessity of keeping population growth and consumption trends positive, with ecological arguments about the harm our rampant consumption and population growth does to the environment. The economic arguments for continued growth seem paperclip maximizey.
I'm no ecofascist, but this seems very evident when you juxtapose economic arguments for the necessity of keeping population growth and consumption trends positive, with ecological arguments about the harm our rampant consumption and population growth does to the environment. The economic arguments for continued growth seem paperclip maximizey.
Deflation makes saving straightforward - hold the currency. Inflation forces everyone to be investors/speculators to attempt to keep pace with decline in purchasing power.
Because slow inflation maximizes the utility of having a financial system. You have a stable currency which allows for long-term planning, its slow inflation enables that growth (by forcing resources to be productively used), while also working to lessen inequalities over generations rather than exacerbate them (your wealth slowly erodes unless you do something with it).
Foreign exchange doesn't work like that.
If you have a small economy, and you want to boost local production, you intentionally want to print more of the local currency, have higher inflation, and thus make your currency cheaper compared to foreign currency. This makes your exports cheaper for other countries to buy, thus boosting demand and exports, making the country wealthier.
Literally the biggest economic problem the US had with China is that China kept its currency devalued for so long, thus making Chinese products cheaper for export markets, specifically for China to overcome the effects of Japanese and Western imperialism and build a large, developed domestic market. And they succeeded.
If you have a small economy, and you want to boost local production, you intentionally want to print more of the local currency, have higher inflation, and thus make your currency cheaper compared to foreign currency. This makes your exports cheaper for other countries to buy, thus boosting demand and exports, making the country wealthier.
Literally the biggest economic problem the US had with China is that China kept its currency devalued for so long, thus making Chinese products cheaper for export markets, specifically for China to overcome the effects of Japanese and Western imperialism and build a large, developed domestic market. And they succeeded.
> controlled by no one
What about market manipulations?
> They have everything to gain and nothing to lose from such an asymmetric bet.
Not sure how you pass the volatility under the rug to conclude that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
What about market manipulations?
> They have everything to gain and nothing to lose from such an asymmetric bet.
Not sure how you pass the volatility under the rug to conclude that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
> and is controlled by no one
If China or the US really wanted to control Bitcoin, how long do you think it would really take them to do so just by investing in Bitcoin mining?
The US has literally spent trillions of dollars making and keeping the US dollar the reserve currency of the world. If Bitcoin ever rose to the level where it was a serious threat for US control, I have no doubt that they could easily crash Bitcoin as a viable currency.
If China or the US really wanted to control Bitcoin, how long do you think it would really take them to do so just by investing in Bitcoin mining?
The US has literally spent trillions of dollars making and keeping the US dollar the reserve currency of the world. If Bitcoin ever rose to the level where it was a serious threat for US control, I have no doubt that they could easily crash Bitcoin as a viable currency.
Your proposed threat to Bitcoin only makes it stronger. If more resources are invested into mining, the network gets stronger. Meanwhile, other countries will increase their investment as well. It’s an arms race that doesn’t lead to people dying.
> Your proposed threat to Bitcoin only makes it stronger.
Until the Fed are 51% strong, then it gets weak again.
Until the Fed are 51% strong, then it gets weak again.
They have nothing to lose by betting their economy on one of the most volatile currencies on earth?
Bitcoins not under anyone's control? Good one!
> El Salvador uses the US dollar after a disastrous bout of inflation.
I don't recall El Salvador having a disastrous inflation. I believe Ecuador was the country that dollarized after a currency collapse, but not El Salvador.
The USD/Salvadoran Colón exchange rate was 2.50 from 1934 up to 1980. There was some devaluation during the civil war. And then it stabilized at around 8.75 since the mid 1990s. Then we got dollarized in 2001. '
The exchange rate is still pegged at 8.75 since then. As the Colón is still used in some older laws and banks still exchange old Colón banknotes in some branches.
I don't recall El Salvador having a disastrous inflation. I believe Ecuador was the country that dollarized after a currency collapse, but not El Salvador.
The USD/Salvadoran Colón exchange rate was 2.50 from 1934 up to 1980. There was some devaluation during the civil war. And then it stabilized at around 8.75 since the mid 1990s. Then we got dollarized in 2001. '
The exchange rate is still pegged at 8.75 since then. As the Colón is still used in some older laws and banks still exchange old Colón banknotes in some branches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity
According to this framework, giving up that ability to have an independent monetary policy affords some other opportunities.
According to this framework, giving up that ability to have an independent monetary policy affords some other opportunities.
if any entity - private or government - was interested in accumulating an asset, which sane and rational person would accumulate something as volatile as a cryptocurrency? As a store of value, it is pathetically bad and its vulnerabilities are very easy to exploit.
Store of value depends on the time frame. Bitcoin has a four year halving cycle (the supply issuance halves every four years). If you look at the 200WMA (weekly moving average), which is roughly 4 years, it's a steady march upward. So as long as your time horizon is 4+ years, it's the best savings technology you could ask for.
In terms of the USD, the price of Bitcoin is volatile in the short term. But that volatility is due to its relatively small size compared to its total addressable market. The total addressable market of Bitcoin is all monetary value on earth, so in the hundreds of trillions, probably.
Bitcoin's network effects have already likely reached "runaway" status, so Bitcoin will continue to grow as the network effect speeds up exponentially. Its volatility will continue decreasing as it grows to address more of the T.A.M. of global monetary value.
In terms of the USD, the price of Bitcoin is volatile in the short term. But that volatility is due to its relatively small size compared to its total addressable market. The total addressable market of Bitcoin is all monetary value on earth, so in the hundreds of trillions, probably.
Bitcoin's network effects have already likely reached "runaway" status, so Bitcoin will continue to grow as the network effect speeds up exponentially. Its volatility will continue decreasing as it grows to address more of the T.A.M. of global monetary value.
> Bitcoin has a four year halving cycle
This misses the whole picture which is about both supply and demand, and mining is only one side of the equation.
You do mention demand afterwards, but
> Bitcoin's network effects have already likely reached "runaway" status, so Bitcoin will continue to grow as the network effect speeds up exponentially.
is debatable to say the least. Is there any legal niche group that would use it for at least 50% of their transactions? News articles about the experiment in El Salvador seem to indicate that people still prefer to use cash (USD).
> The total addressable market of Bitcoin is all monetary value on earth, so in the hundreds of trillions, probably.
Not sure how this is relevant, in practice 99% of the world can use the USD one way or another, but that doesn't mean it'll ever reach this point.
> Its volatility will continue decreasing as it grows to address more of the T.A.M. of global monetary value.
Has it even begun? I haven't computed anything myself, but whenever I look for sources I end up with figures that contradict this claim, e.g.: https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/volatility-index/
If you look at the past 7 years, it doesn't look like it has gone down. I had seen tables with yearly volatility averages (or whatever the measure was) claiming the same. Do you have a better source than this?
This misses the whole picture which is about both supply and demand, and mining is only one side of the equation.
You do mention demand afterwards, but
> Bitcoin's network effects have already likely reached "runaway" status, so Bitcoin will continue to grow as the network effect speeds up exponentially.
is debatable to say the least. Is there any legal niche group that would use it for at least 50% of their transactions? News articles about the experiment in El Salvador seem to indicate that people still prefer to use cash (USD).
> The total addressable market of Bitcoin is all monetary value on earth, so in the hundreds of trillions, probably.
Not sure how this is relevant, in practice 99% of the world can use the USD one way or another, but that doesn't mean it'll ever reach this point.
> Its volatility will continue decreasing as it grows to address more of the T.A.M. of global monetary value.
Has it even begun? I haven't computed anything myself, but whenever I look for sources I end up with figures that contradict this claim, e.g.: https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/volatility-index/
If you look at the past 7 years, it doesn't look like it has gone down. I had seen tables with yearly volatility averages (or whatever the measure was) claiming the same. Do you have a better source than this?
> This misses the whole picture which is about both supply and demand, and mining is only one side of the equation.
Of course, I just pointed out that price action has historically gone in four-years waves driven by halving cycles. This is clear in the charts. That's why the 200WMA is particularly meaningful in the Bitcoin world.
> is debatable to say the least. Is there any legal niche group that would use it for at least 50% of their transactions? News articles about the experiment in El Salvador seem to indicate that people still prefer to use cash (USD).
No question, I would be surprised if anyone is using Bitcoin for much of anything but remittences in El Salvador (right now). It will probably be a while yet before we shift into the medium of exchange phase.
> Not sure how this is relevant
I think it's relevant because network effects generally means money wants to be a monopoly good. Money is more useful if more people use it. Gold, guilder, pound, dollar; the world trends toward one monetary standard, one unit of account. Unlike the fiat reserve currencies since gold, Bitcoin has no counter party risk. Unless something BREAKS the network effects of Bitcoin somehow, I don't see anything stopping it from becoming the dominant monetary good at some point in the future.
What do you think will break the network effects of Bitcoin?
> If you look at the past 7 years, it doesn't look like it has gone down
No, I will admit I'm operating on my gut here. Bitcoin is like the reserve asset of the cryptocurrency world. The crypto market is very much the Wild West still. Crypto trading happens on insane leverage, and is highly correlated with tech stocks and such. But small countries and institutions are just finally starting to get involved. They're not going to be degenerate traders, they're going to be holders. As the institutions and sovereign wealth funds start to pile into crypto, they're going to want to choose the most secure and stable good in the space to hold for the long term, which is Bitcoin.
It only makes sense to me that volatility will decrease with time.
Of course, I just pointed out that price action has historically gone in four-years waves driven by halving cycles. This is clear in the charts. That's why the 200WMA is particularly meaningful in the Bitcoin world.
> is debatable to say the least. Is there any legal niche group that would use it for at least 50% of their transactions? News articles about the experiment in El Salvador seem to indicate that people still prefer to use cash (USD).
No question, I would be surprised if anyone is using Bitcoin for much of anything but remittences in El Salvador (right now). It will probably be a while yet before we shift into the medium of exchange phase.
> Not sure how this is relevant
I think it's relevant because network effects generally means money wants to be a monopoly good. Money is more useful if more people use it. Gold, guilder, pound, dollar; the world trends toward one monetary standard, one unit of account. Unlike the fiat reserve currencies since gold, Bitcoin has no counter party risk. Unless something BREAKS the network effects of Bitcoin somehow, I don't see anything stopping it from becoming the dominant monetary good at some point in the future.
What do you think will break the network effects of Bitcoin?
> If you look at the past 7 years, it doesn't look like it has gone down
No, I will admit I'm operating on my gut here. Bitcoin is like the reserve asset of the cryptocurrency world. The crypto market is very much the Wild West still. Crypto trading happens on insane leverage, and is highly correlated with tech stocks and such. But small countries and institutions are just finally starting to get involved. They're not going to be degenerate traders, they're going to be holders. As the institutions and sovereign wealth funds start to pile into crypto, they're going to want to choose the most secure and stable good in the space to hold for the long term, which is Bitcoin.
It only makes sense to me that volatility will decrease with time.
> What do you think will break the network effects of Bitcoin?
Which network effects are you referring to exactly? What does BTC have that the RMB or USD don't have? Or do you mean that having no counter party risk is a network effect in itself? I'm not sure I follow.
Why would country A supplying country B with something it really wants accept a contract denominated in a currency other than the one of their choosing? Why would they choose a volatile currency they don't even control?
I feel that the network effects are playing in favor of the dominant currencies. By definition, network effects only exist once there's an actual network, and it seems we agree that BTC doesn't have one comparable to e.g. USD yet.
> It only makes sense to me that volatility will decrease with time.
So you think it will start decreasing this year?
1. as I pointed out, numbers still don't show a decrease 2. lack of regulation means it's prone to market manipulation, with some parties playing simultaneous roles to an extent which would be forbidden in a regulated market. These manipulations tend to increase volatility (you don't make much money if the price remains the price, but you can make a lot if you have an idea of where you'll send the prices)
In turn, that means that:
> As the institutions and sovereign wealth funds start to pile into crypto, they're going to want to choose the most secure and stable good in the space to hold for the long term
is not necessarily true. Elon Musk can send BTC either way with a simple tweet. Why would big players buy and hold when they can benefit from the volatility they themselves generate and make a quick buck instead?
3. BTC hasn't gone through a crisis yet. As you wrote, it seems to be correlated with tech (risky) stocks, with higher swings, either way. I'd be surprised if that changes during a crisis.
Which network effects are you referring to exactly? What does BTC have that the RMB or USD don't have? Or do you mean that having no counter party risk is a network effect in itself? I'm not sure I follow.
Why would country A supplying country B with something it really wants accept a contract denominated in a currency other than the one of their choosing? Why would they choose a volatile currency they don't even control?
I feel that the network effects are playing in favor of the dominant currencies. By definition, network effects only exist once there's an actual network, and it seems we agree that BTC doesn't have one comparable to e.g. USD yet.
> It only makes sense to me that volatility will decrease with time.
So you think it will start decreasing this year?
1. as I pointed out, numbers still don't show a decrease 2. lack of regulation means it's prone to market manipulation, with some parties playing simultaneous roles to an extent which would be forbidden in a regulated market. These manipulations tend to increase volatility (you don't make much money if the price remains the price, but you can make a lot if you have an idea of where you'll send the prices)
In turn, that means that:
> As the institutions and sovereign wealth funds start to pile into crypto, they're going to want to choose the most secure and stable good in the space to hold for the long term
is not necessarily true. Elon Musk can send BTC either way with a simple tweet. Why would big players buy and hold when they can benefit from the volatility they themselves generate and make a quick buck instead?
3. BTC hasn't gone through a crisis yet. As you wrote, it seems to be correlated with tech (risky) stocks, with higher swings, either way. I'd be surprised if that changes during a crisis.
> Which network effects are you referring to exactly?
The network effects of people owning and becoming more comfortable with it. This drives the value, which drives companies to build on it, which further drives value, etc.
This will either: A) Level off at some point. B) Reverse and go to zero. C) Continue growing forever.
Because there's no counter party risk, there's no company that can go out of business and take it out. There's no revenue projections that Bitcoin can miss. No founder to attack. No foundation to sanction.
In order to reverse Bitcoin's progress, someone would need to somehow do something to break the network. It must be something really dramatic, like breaking SHA256, governments unanimously banning it, or creating some new monetary technology which is overwhelmingly superior to Bitcoin.
I agree BTC is not USD yet. My view is that USD is eroding, however, and Bitcoin is growing, and I see nothing on the horizon that can reverse this. Many other currencies are eroding faster, though, and most will collapse into the USD in the meantime.
> So you think it will start decreasing this year?
I would be comfortable saying this year. Major nations are adopting formal regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies, including the United States. Fidelity just announced that they will start letting customers buy Bitcoin with their 401k. I would expect other asset managers will be following suit, shortly. I know pension funds (big bit money) are looking at buying in. We will be seeing a major sea change in Bitcoin this year and next year.
By the way, I would expect Bitcoin to remain relatively volatile for quite a while, even if overall volatility decreases. Deleveraging the crypto markets will help a lot, but there's still much growth left to be done.
> 3. BTC hasn't gone through a crisis yet.
I think the network has gone through several crises. Do you mean internal crises, or major economic crises? If you mean the second thing, I would agree. We're about to see what Bitcoin is really made of in the next couple of years, since we're probably going to see huge global deleveraging event and a lot of economic/currency collapses.
The network effects of people owning and becoming more comfortable with it. This drives the value, which drives companies to build on it, which further drives value, etc.
This will either: A) Level off at some point. B) Reverse and go to zero. C) Continue growing forever.
Because there's no counter party risk, there's no company that can go out of business and take it out. There's no revenue projections that Bitcoin can miss. No founder to attack. No foundation to sanction.
In order to reverse Bitcoin's progress, someone would need to somehow do something to break the network. It must be something really dramatic, like breaking SHA256, governments unanimously banning it, or creating some new monetary technology which is overwhelmingly superior to Bitcoin.
I agree BTC is not USD yet. My view is that USD is eroding, however, and Bitcoin is growing, and I see nothing on the horizon that can reverse this. Many other currencies are eroding faster, though, and most will collapse into the USD in the meantime.
> So you think it will start decreasing this year?
I would be comfortable saying this year. Major nations are adopting formal regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies, including the United States. Fidelity just announced that they will start letting customers buy Bitcoin with their 401k. I would expect other asset managers will be following suit, shortly. I know pension funds (big bit money) are looking at buying in. We will be seeing a major sea change in Bitcoin this year and next year.
By the way, I would expect Bitcoin to remain relatively volatile for quite a while, even if overall volatility decreases. Deleveraging the crypto markets will help a lot, but there's still much growth left to be done.
> 3. BTC hasn't gone through a crisis yet.
I think the network has gone through several crises. Do you mean internal crises, or major economic crises? If you mean the second thing, I would agree. We're about to see what Bitcoin is really made of in the next couple of years, since we're probably going to see huge global deleveraging event and a lot of economic/currency collapses.
> The network effects of people owning and becoming more comfortable with it.
People already own fiat currencies, and are mostly comfortable with them, more than they will ever be with cryptocurrencies where losing a private key can mean losing your funds irremediably. And even then, at best you'd get the same network effect as the fiat currency, no more than that. So how would this effect lead to the cryptocurrency prevailing over fiat currencies?
I guess I still don't understand your reasoning about Bitcoin's inevitable fate as a dominant currency, or even as a mainstream one. There's nothing stopping Bitcoin as a blockchain, but there's not much pushing for it either in terms of use. I still don't know anyone who actually uses cryptocurrencies as currencies rather than as speculative assets.
Currencies are used because states want people and other countries (in the case of international currencies such as the USD) to use them, and they have the power to enforce this through various means. The same can't be said about BTC. There could be some advantages for countries adopting it as a legal tender that we're not seeing, but I somehow doubt it'll become apparent in CAR of all countries, and it doesn't seem to be going so well in El Salvador either.
People already own fiat currencies, and are mostly comfortable with them, more than they will ever be with cryptocurrencies where losing a private key can mean losing your funds irremediably. And even then, at best you'd get the same network effect as the fiat currency, no more than that. So how would this effect lead to the cryptocurrency prevailing over fiat currencies?
I guess I still don't understand your reasoning about Bitcoin's inevitable fate as a dominant currency, or even as a mainstream one. There's nothing stopping Bitcoin as a blockchain, but there's not much pushing for it either in terms of use. I still don't know anyone who actually uses cryptocurrencies as currencies rather than as speculative assets.
Currencies are used because states want people and other countries (in the case of international currencies such as the USD) to use them, and they have the power to enforce this through various means. The same can't be said about BTC. There could be some advantages for countries adopting it as a legal tender that we're not seeing, but I somehow doubt it'll become apparent in CAR of all countries, and it doesn't seem to be going so well in El Salvador either.
I think your time horizon is just too short.
Fiat currencies weaken and die because of counter party risk. Governments can't help but abuse their powers and eventually kill their currency. Bitcoin has an entirely new and unique value proposition: A monetary network with no counter party risk without the need to physically transport a good (like gold). The implications of this are mind bending.
We're seeing something we've never seen before: the bootstrapping of an entirely new monetary system from the ground up with an asset and network that didn't previously exist. The path is laid out:
1) Store of value: We're still working our way through this phase. There is still a lot of monetary value left to gobble up.
2) Medium of exchange: People will horde this asset until other monies become so weak in comparison that merchants will prefer/demand payment in this one.
3) Unit of account: People become so used to transacting in a money they start to think in terms of that money. At this point, volatility gets measured in terms of this asset, not the other way around.
Some goods are stores of value but will never reach the second stage, because they're not good monetary assets. Real estate, for example, or stocks. Not divisible, fungible, neutral, etc.
Bitcoin has all of the ingredients, we just need to wait for the stew to cook. There are only a few things that can stop it, and none of them seem particularly likely to me.
edit: I don't want to be dismissive. Private key management and things like that are certainly challenges, but it's just a matter of time, experimentation and UX improvements. It's not existential.
Fiat currencies weaken and die because of counter party risk. Governments can't help but abuse their powers and eventually kill their currency. Bitcoin has an entirely new and unique value proposition: A monetary network with no counter party risk without the need to physically transport a good (like gold). The implications of this are mind bending.
We're seeing something we've never seen before: the bootstrapping of an entirely new monetary system from the ground up with an asset and network that didn't previously exist. The path is laid out:
1) Store of value: We're still working our way through this phase. There is still a lot of monetary value left to gobble up.
2) Medium of exchange: People will horde this asset until other monies become so weak in comparison that merchants will prefer/demand payment in this one.
3) Unit of account: People become so used to transacting in a money they start to think in terms of that money. At this point, volatility gets measured in terms of this asset, not the other way around.
Some goods are stores of value but will never reach the second stage, because they're not good monetary assets. Real estate, for example, or stocks. Not divisible, fungible, neutral, etc.
Bitcoin has all of the ingredients, we just need to wait for the stew to cook. There are only a few things that can stop it, and none of them seem particularly likely to me.
edit: I don't want to be dismissive. Private key management and things like that are certainly challenges, but it's just a matter of time, experimentation and UX improvements. It's not existential.
> Governments can't help but abuse their powers and eventually kill their currency.
This is an argument against USD as some kind of eternal international currency, not against RMB / EUR or another fiat currency replacing it (instead of BTC).
It's debatable whether your 1) is happening at all, depending on definitions; most BTC transactions seem to boil down to speculation. Some users do "store value", as in, they buy and hold thinking it can still go way higher (or at least won't go lower) than it currently is with a reasoning similar to yours. But given the correlation with tech stocks as we wrote before, it remains to be seen if these users can go through a financial crisis with this mentality.
Regarding 2), what do you mean by weak? The absolute value of a currency doesn't matter as long as it doesn't change too rapidly. If you need to pay $100 in a month and have some confidence about what this will represent by then, you don't need to know more, buyers and sellers can agree on a price. As long as merchants need to pay their taxes and other things in a fiat currency, you still have a bootstrapping problem with BTC.
> Some goods are stores of value but will never reach the second stage, because they're not good monetary assets.
Why is BTC a "good monetary asset"? I can buy ETFs representing commodities in liquid markets, why is that strictly worse? E.g. for whom is the "neutral" aspect of BTC a selling point?
> There are only a few things that can stop it, and none of them seem particularly likely to me.
I don't think BTC will ever go away, but I also don't see it becoming much more widespread outside of speculative circles.
> Bitcoin has all of the ingredients, we just need to wait for the stew to cook. There are only a few things that can stop it, and none of them seem particularly likely to me.
One problem in this space is how discussions remain both static and hopeful. I had the exact same discussions in 2017, it's been 5 years. The 10000 BTC pizza was bought in 2010, and yet 12 years after there's almost nothing I buy that I could have spent BTC on.
If you ask me to do something, and I tell you I'm working on it whenever you ask me for a status update, how long do you keep believing? We can't prove that BTC will never be $SOMETHING. But until I actually find someone using BTC for something other than speculation or bypassing regulations, I'll have to remain skeptical.
This is an argument against USD as some kind of eternal international currency, not against RMB / EUR or another fiat currency replacing it (instead of BTC).
It's debatable whether your 1) is happening at all, depending on definitions; most BTC transactions seem to boil down to speculation. Some users do "store value", as in, they buy and hold thinking it can still go way higher (or at least won't go lower) than it currently is with a reasoning similar to yours. But given the correlation with tech stocks as we wrote before, it remains to be seen if these users can go through a financial crisis with this mentality.
Regarding 2), what do you mean by weak? The absolute value of a currency doesn't matter as long as it doesn't change too rapidly. If you need to pay $100 in a month and have some confidence about what this will represent by then, you don't need to know more, buyers and sellers can agree on a price. As long as merchants need to pay their taxes and other things in a fiat currency, you still have a bootstrapping problem with BTC.
> Some goods are stores of value but will never reach the second stage, because they're not good monetary assets.
Why is BTC a "good monetary asset"? I can buy ETFs representing commodities in liquid markets, why is that strictly worse? E.g. for whom is the "neutral" aspect of BTC a selling point?
> There are only a few things that can stop it, and none of them seem particularly likely to me.
I don't think BTC will ever go away, but I also don't see it becoming much more widespread outside of speculative circles.
> Bitcoin has all of the ingredients, we just need to wait for the stew to cook. There are only a few things that can stop it, and none of them seem particularly likely to me.
One problem in this space is how discussions remain both static and hopeful. I had the exact same discussions in 2017, it's been 5 years. The 10000 BTC pizza was bought in 2010, and yet 12 years after there's almost nothing I buy that I could have spent BTC on.
If you ask me to do something, and I tell you I'm working on it whenever you ask me for a status update, how long do you keep believing? We can't prove that BTC will never be $SOMETHING. But until I actually find someone using BTC for something other than speculation or bypassing regulations, I'll have to remain skeptical.
> Governments can't help but abuse their powers and eventually kill their currency.
That seems pretty nonfalsifiable.
That seems pretty nonfalsifiable.
>So as long as your time horizon is 4+ years, it's the best savings technology you could ask for.
My US Hay, Confederated Slaveholdings, and buggy whip stocks were shooting up for a long time, they must still be great investments.
My US Hay, Confederated Slaveholdings, and buggy whip stocks were shooting up for a long time, they must still be great investments.
Bitcoin isn't a stock. It has no counter party risk and doesn't offer returns. It is a monetary good. It's akin to holding a commodity metal like gold or silver, but it has comparative advantage in that it has no competing utility, it is only useful as a money.
It's not a monetary good. It's a virtual scrip with mathematical basis.
The volatility in price seems okay as far as diversification, there was some low probability of crypto prices being this high and it happened. The private key hygiene is really worrying though. You can have private key multisig but at some basic level the funds can just disappear once someone accumulates enough keys (e.g. corrupt persons sell them on black market). Or be lost if enough keys are lost etc. It requires pretty diligent process, especially during changes of power
[deleted]
How is bitcoin diversification when it correlates so strongly with the stock market?
Not trying to make a strong statement but obviously correlation in moves doesn't mean it's been pegged to SPY. If they could have a digital asset pegged to SPY, maybe it'd be attractive, as well
Volatile by what measure over what time period? If a country, for example, is looking at price-versus-USD on a rolling average over five years and measuring volatility in terms of (positive and negative) variance of price, then the trend line is up-right* and volatility is very low.
[Edit: * was up-left, mistakenly.]
[Edit: * was up-left, mistakenly.]
Volatility of bitcoin is low relative to USD?
You want volatile value trending up, or or value going to shit with certainty?
For a currency you're better off with more certainty, e.g. a 2% constant yearly inflation is ideal and allows people to use it as a currency.
BTC is also currently down from its peak, no one knows if it's currently "trending up".
BTC is also currently down from its peak, no one knows if it's currently "trending up".
> BTC is also currently down from its peak…
At any given time almost every asset is "down from its peak". It's impossible to be "up from the peak". The best-case scenario is to be at the peak, but that doesn't last.
If you bought in at the peak, when it was trading at double the all-time high as of just a month or two prior, then you lost of bunch of money when the price returned to normal. That's a fairly predictable outcome. But before it started shooting up in December of 2020 it had never been above $30k for more than a day or so (if ever), and since then it hasn't gone below $30k, and for the most part has remained above $38k or so despite some rather chaotic market conditions. Over the last two years it's up over 320%. (The S&P 500 is up about 80% over roughly the same time period, measured from its lowest point in March 2020.)
IMHO the recent volatility is mostly due to political factors rather than the market. Regulators can't seem to collectively decide whether they want to adopt it themselves, ban it outright, take the hands-off approach, or just impose one unreasonable regulation after another with the goal of forcing it into the mold of the broken systems it was designed to replace. You'd see the same in any other asset class subjected to a similar political environment.
At any given time almost every asset is "down from its peak". It's impossible to be "up from the peak". The best-case scenario is to be at the peak, but that doesn't last.
If you bought in at the peak, when it was trading at double the all-time high as of just a month or two prior, then you lost of bunch of money when the price returned to normal. That's a fairly predictable outcome. But before it started shooting up in December of 2020 it had never been above $30k for more than a day or so (if ever), and since then it hasn't gone below $30k, and for the most part has remained above $38k or so despite some rather chaotic market conditions. Over the last two years it's up over 320%. (The S&P 500 is up about 80% over roughly the same time period, measured from its lowest point in March 2020.)
IMHO the recent volatility is mostly due to political factors rather than the market. Regulators can't seem to collectively decide whether they want to adopt it themselves, ban it outright, take the hands-off approach, or just impose one unreasonable regulation after another with the goal of forcing it into the mold of the broken systems it was designed to replace. You'd see the same in any other asset class subjected to a similar political environment.
I was just questioning the "trending up" comment that was given without much of a justification. You can add "by 33% (20kUSD) to the "down from its peak" if you prefer.
> IMHO the recent volatility is mostly due to political factors rather than the market.
If that's accurate, that would indicate that this volatility is not bound to disappear anytime soon.
Still, given the incentives to manipulate the market for a profit and the presence of actors such as Tether, I wouldn't discount manipulation as a big part of this volatility.
> IMHO the recent volatility is mostly due to political factors rather than the market.
If that's accurate, that would indicate that this volatility is not bound to disappear anytime soon.
Still, given the incentives to manipulate the market for a profit and the presence of actors such as Tether, I wouldn't discount manipulation as a big part of this volatility.
That's way off the mark with regard to purchasing power vs money supply. Check your M2 chart. And your time frame on BTC is too short. Yes, it's trending up, and also becoming less volatile over time.
> That's way off the mark with regard to purchasing power vs money supply. Check your M2 chart.
Not sure what you're disagreeing with. Point is, if I can't predict reasonably well what I'll be able to buy in a few months with the currency I'm using, maybe what I'm using is not meant to be a currency.
> And your time frame on BTC is too short. Yes, it's trending up, and also becoming less volatile over time.
I'm sure I can find a time frame over which BTC is up. Not sure that helps much. It's "trending down" since August 2021. It's "trending up" over the last 10 years. What comes next is anyone's guess.
Regarding volatility, whenever I look at it, all the sources I can find point to some volatility being at least constant over the past few years (I linked a source in another comment which indicates sustained volatility over the last 7 years). I've seen 3 different ones so far. Do you have one that would indicate otherwise?
I could find one[0] but it's pretty bad, it starts with the yearly chart showing that the volatility is not declining, then shows a daily one over 7 days and shows a decline over this period.
[0]: https://medium.com/@silvestrimichela.s/is-btc-volatility-goi...
Not sure what you're disagreeing with. Point is, if I can't predict reasonably well what I'll be able to buy in a few months with the currency I'm using, maybe what I'm using is not meant to be a currency.
> And your time frame on BTC is too short. Yes, it's trending up, and also becoming less volatile over time.
I'm sure I can find a time frame over which BTC is up. Not sure that helps much. It's "trending down" since August 2021. It's "trending up" over the last 10 years. What comes next is anyone's guess.
Regarding volatility, whenever I look at it, all the sources I can find point to some volatility being at least constant over the past few years (I linked a source in another comment which indicates sustained volatility over the last 7 years). I've seen 3 different ones so far. Do you have one that would indicate otherwise?
I could find one[0] but it's pretty bad, it starts with the yearly chart showing that the volatility is not declining, then shows a daily one over 7 days and shows a decline over this period.
[0]: https://medium.com/@silvestrimichela.s/is-btc-volatility-goi...
I’m not the person you asked, but your previous post mentioned constant, predictable inflation and threw out 2% as an example. I understand that was just a number for illustrative purposes, but the US performances large amounts of quantitative easing twice in the last 20 years. I could probably find a 4 year window in the last 20 years when it didn’t, but the Covid and 2009 QE events increased the m2 money supply so much that it would be silly to ignore.
> that was just a number for illustrative purposes
It's more of an ideal, e.g. the ECB targets this. In practice there's a margin of error, the question is how big it is. Once this error (for the currency you use, e.g. USD I assume, given your comment) and the volatility of BTC are close enough, we can consider BTC as competitive as a currency. Until then it's not.
It's more of an ideal, e.g. the ECB targets this. In practice there's a margin of error, the question is how big it is. Once this error (for the currency you use, e.g. USD I assume, given your comment) and the volatility of BTC are close enough, we can consider BTC as competitive as a currency. Until then it's not.
While I’m bullish on BTC, my personal spending choices fully agree with you as I don’t perform any spending transactions with it. That said, I’m watching these developments closely because the M2 growth from QE does alarm me, as someone whose life savings were earned in USD. Even hedging inflation with investment in the U.S. and global stock markets seems to share the same risk of poor USD monetary policy.
This is bogus. there is no historical correlation between M2 money supply and inflation.
That makes no sense. I ask a question and you just answer with a non sequitur that doesn't address anything.
I agree. It'd be necessary to assign prices and balances as probability distributions.
I'm really excited about these moves. Countries moving from a currency that can be printed by another to a currency with a cap is a major move for independence in those nations.
If your currency can be printed by another, you're a tributary nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_CFA_franc
> The currency was pegged to the French franc at 1 XOF = 2 French francs from 1948, becoming 1 XOF = 0.02 FRF after introduction of the new franc at 1 FRF = 100 old francs. In 1994 the currency was devalued by half to 1 XOF = 0.01 FRF. From 1999 it has since been pegged to the euro at €1 = 6.55957 FRF = 655.957 XOF.
Also, I miss when monetary inflation literally meant removing precious or even more expensive commodity metals from coinage. Was a bit more obvious when money printer go brrrr then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_franc
> Following the war, rapid inflation caused denominations below 1 franc to be withdrawn from circulation while 10 francs in copper nickel were introduced, followed by reduced size 10-franc coins in aluminium-bronze in 1950, along with 20 and 50-franc coins of the same composition. In 1954, copper-nickel 100 francs were introduced.[citation needed]
> In the 1960s, 1 and 2 (old) franc aluminium coins were still circulating, used as "centimes".[citation needed] New franc
> In 1960, the new franc (nouveau franc) was introduced,[29] worth 100 old francs. Stainless steel 1 and 5 centimes, aluminium-bronze 10, 20, and 50 centimes, nickel 1 franc and silver 5 francs were introduced. Silver 10-franc coins were introduced in 1965, followed by a new, smaller aluminium-bronze 5-centime and a smaller nickel 1⁄2-franc coin in 1966.[citation needed]
If your currency can be printed by another, you're a tributary nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_CFA_franc
> The currency was pegged to the French franc at 1 XOF = 2 French francs from 1948, becoming 1 XOF = 0.02 FRF after introduction of the new franc at 1 FRF = 100 old francs. In 1994 the currency was devalued by half to 1 XOF = 0.01 FRF. From 1999 it has since been pegged to the euro at €1 = 6.55957 FRF = 655.957 XOF.
Also, I miss when monetary inflation literally meant removing precious or even more expensive commodity metals from coinage. Was a bit more obvious when money printer go brrrr then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_franc
> Following the war, rapid inflation caused denominations below 1 franc to be withdrawn from circulation while 10 francs in copper nickel were introduced, followed by reduced size 10-franc coins in aluminium-bronze in 1950, along with 20 and 50-franc coins of the same composition. In 1954, copper-nickel 100 francs were introduced.[citation needed]
> In the 1960s, 1 and 2 (old) franc aluminium coins were still circulating, used as "centimes".[citation needed] New franc
> In 1960, the new franc (nouveau franc) was introduced,[29] worth 100 old francs. Stainless steel 1 and 5 centimes, aluminium-bronze 10, 20, and 50 centimes, nickel 1 franc and silver 5 francs were introduced. Silver 10-franc coins were introduced in 1965, followed by a new, smaller aluminium-bronze 5-centime and a smaller nickel 1⁄2-franc coin in 1966.[citation needed]
In this case they are pegged to the Euro. Since the Euro is almost certainly stronger than the CAR economy, we see it relegated to a cheap export country and making imports expensive for them. Also, making modernization more difficult.
The CAR seems to have far more challenges, but at least their 11% of citizens with internet access will have more freedom of choice of currencies.
The CAR seems to have far more challenges, but at least their 11% of citizens with internet access will have more freedom of choice of currencies.
See how well that went for El Salvador:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29968
(not well)
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29968
(not well)
But it made a chosen few people richer, what more could you possibly want?
IDK maybe paying government workers, but I guess that's really just icing on the cake
Obv way too early to make any conclusions.
Reminds me of people saying Bitcoin failed as an inflation hedge over the past 1-2 years while ignoring the success of the hedge over a 10 year period.
Reminds me of people saying Bitcoin failed as an inflation hedge over the past 1-2 years while ignoring the success of the hedge over a 10 year period.
You have no idea what the word "hedge" means do you
Not true. I read the report and it is going well - extremely well for a period this short.
Unless your definition of "well" is that everyone would just up and stop using fiat overnight.
Unless your definition of "well" is that everyone would just up and stop using fiat overnight.
Went? It's a 6 month old project. It hasn't even started.
Does ycomb actually think these nations would be better off with colonial currencies that have maintained poverty and exploitation for centuries? Probably yes.
Does ycomb actually think these nations would be better off with colonial currencies that have maintained poverty and exploitation for centuries? Probably yes.
Whole lot of people here who don't seem to realize that CAR is one of the poorest countries in the world locked in a perpetual civil war that is currently being used as a weapons showroom for Russia. I have absolutely no idea what this change will possibly do, but I guess it'll make it a bit easier for Wagner mercenaries to move the money they receive from their kidnapping and extortion schemes.
You believe the government is making bitcoin legal tender because russian mercenaries use bitcoin somehow?
Crypto is attractive to repressive governments that want to avoid international scrutiny or procure arms or what have you with less oversight. Russia itself is trying to pass regulation for similar reasons. North Korea and Iran both have used ransomware to steal crypto and fund military programs. Venezuela attempted to introduce its own cryptocurrency as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/business/russia-sanctions...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/business/russia-sanctions...
They’re saying it’s a side benefit to mercenaries who happen to be operating in-country, not the cause.
It's a country being ravaged by locals and foreigners alike at every single level, I'm saying that any decision made is more likely to be for looting the country than helping it.
Central African's Republic largest export (40%) [1] are diamonds. Perhaps there is a market for the exchange between crypto and diamonds?
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/central-african-republic/export...
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/central-african-republic/export...
Certainly, there is room for corruption.
Wikipedia tells me:
> Legal tender is a form of money that courts of law are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary debt.
Not sure if I understand the actual implications of this in the CAR.
> Legal tender is a form of money that courts of law are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary debt.
Not sure if I understand the actual implications of this in the CAR.
Not sure if CAR understands the implications. With 11% of the people having access to the internet, what could go wrong with crypto as a legal tender.
But like the very specifics... is there any creditor in CAR who is going to be forced to take bitcoin as payment, who wouldn't have done it voluntarily before? Or is there something about this other than the most basic definition of what "legal tender" means? Or is this just 100% PR? Like does this actually change a single thing for anyone, even rich people, in CAR?
Since it is at number 154 of the corruption index: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
What most likely will happen: enforcers will take stuff, tell you they pay with crypto, since you cannot receive it you have to pay a fine on top.
and only 14% of the people have electricity even though things may rapidly improve in near future, this society is far from ready to accept digital currency.
> and only 14% of the people have electricity
That number is probably for electricity at home, considering that 33% of the people have mobile phone subscriptions. Mobile payment solutions are very successful in Africa, in part because the infrastructure is lacking. One house/shop with electricity can easily power many phones.
That number is probably for electricity at home, considering that 33% of the people have mobile phone subscriptions. Mobile payment solutions are very successful in Africa, in part because the infrastructure is lacking. One house/shop with electricity can easily power many phones.
I recall One Laptop Per Child didn't shake out, but I'd *gladly* move my Kiva dollars over to buying solar panels and OLPC-ish setups, if(?) it wouldn't get eaten by the corruption quagmire
OT1H, it's entirely possible the Kiva dollars are doing more material good, what with the "you spend on what you need" mental model. OTOH, investing in infrastructure sure does feel more productive
OT1H, it's entirely possible the Kiva dollars are doing more material good, what with the "you spend on what you need" mental model. OTOH, investing in infrastructure sure does feel more productive
things may improve but in a country that is not just poor, but piss poor and with a declining GDP, things are unlikely to improve.
Besides, there is one hydro power station in the country. Other than the hydro, there is one diesel plant. That's it.
This article is nothing but clickbait.
Besides, there is one hydro power station in the country. Other than the hydro, there is one diesel plant. That's it.
This article is nothing but clickbait.
Less than 1% of the people there even have a bank account.
This makes perfect sense to me, in a world where oligarchs are having their assets seized without due process. This de-risks any largesse the elites may accumulate through legitimate means or otherwise.
I doubt that the health of the country's economy was top of mind for this decision.
I doubt that the health of the country's economy was top of mind for this decision.
People really need to learn and use the best practices of the crypto asset economy, or none of that will matter!
What are those practices? Offline wallet? Buy&Hold? Diversify?
Primarily on how to gain privacy benefits. When and where to use a temporarily trusted environment. When a sanction can still result in your asset being seized (or become illiquid) without due process, or with due process, and when you can circumvent it entirely.
This stuff was detailed 10 years ago before it was tested by governments. But the user experience improvements simple have neglected those directions.
This stuff was detailed 10 years ago before it was tested by governments. But the user experience improvements simple have neglected those directions.
Yeah I'll be more impressed (concerned?) when one of these nations declares Monero or some other explicitly privacy-oriented coin as their new currency.
It would be more interesting for sure but dedicated privacy tokens have too low of a marketcap, for now. Bitcoin is decent with Taproot+Schnorr and Lightning and bridges but you really need your own nodes and Tor. Ethereum with Tornado Cash is okay, you still need Tor OR your own locally hosted node there, as unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum nodes don't know which node saw a transaction first which means privacy. But if you send your transaction to a datacenter then lots of people in between know you did. The bridges let you access the Ethereum and EVM ecosystem.
Is this actually legal tender as in every merchant in the country is legally required to transact in bitcoin? Or is this a marketing play where most merchants continue to not transact in bitcoin and the country calls bitcoin legal tender?
That's not what legal tender means. Legal tender is something which must be accepted for settlement of _debts_. For instance, in the UK, any coin with a face value of one pound or more is legal tender in unlimited amount, but no-one is going to allow you to buy a car with a big bag of pound coins.
Well, they might, as like a PR stunt or something, but yes. It is crucial to understand that legal tender exists in law only to handle the case where a creditor demands payment but is unwilling to accept what the debtor sees as a suitable payment, and it's just not very good even for that purpose.
Lots of places do not have a legal tender law, so, in those places if you try to pay a debt and the creditor won't accept your payment, that's a dispute in law, just like it would have been if somebody unexpectedly claims you owe them money and you say you don't. So, why have a special "legal tender" law anyway?
"No weird money" is a good rule to live by. Scottish bank notes for example. It doesn't matter that they aren't legal tender anywhere (including Scotland), nor does it matter that they are in some sense worth "the same" as Bank of England notes (since the issuing banks are required to hold on deposit the same quantity). To buy tourist stuff in Edinburgh Airport they'll work just fine. To buy a fish supper in the Highlands, they'll work just fine. If you show one to the guy running the Chinese in my port city on the South Coast of England, he won't know what it is, and so understandably he doesn't want to exchange your weird money for his delicious food. No Weird Money.
Lots of places do not have a legal tender law, so, in those places if you try to pay a debt and the creditor won't accept your payment, that's a dispute in law, just like it would have been if somebody unexpectedly claims you owe them money and you say you don't. So, why have a special "legal tender" law anyway?
"No weird money" is a good rule to live by. Scottish bank notes for example. It doesn't matter that they aren't legal tender anywhere (including Scotland), nor does it matter that they are in some sense worth "the same" as Bank of England notes (since the issuing banks are required to hold on deposit the same quantity). To buy tourist stuff in Edinburgh Airport they'll work just fine. To buy a fish supper in the Highlands, they'll work just fine. If you show one to the guy running the Chinese in my port city on the South Coast of England, he won't know what it is, and so understandably he doesn't want to exchange your weird money for his delicious food. No Weird Money.
It's even more complicated and nuanced than simply using locally acquired notes either unfortunately. To my own shock Northern Irish pounds and Scottish pounds aren't even accepted in England as legal tender.
Scottish notes are not even legal tender in Scotland. This isn't as bad as it sounds, in fact, as many things (credit cards, for example) are not legal tender but are widely accepted in shops etc.
More at https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-legal-...
More at https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-legal-...
They are, they are just treated with suspicion.
They aren't legal tender. It's true that for practical purposes the fact that (particularly in the South) people are suspicious and won't accept them as payment for goods you want to purchase is much more important, but the topic was legal tender and they are not legal tender. Go look it up.
But you can pay off your taxes with a big bag of coins. Pay off the car loan with a big bag of coins etc.
It depends on the country. In Canada, there is a limit on the quantity of coins, above which they are not legal tender.
(2) A tender of payment in coins referred to in subsection (1) is a legal tender for no more than the following amounts for the following denominations of coins:
(2) A tender of payment in coins referred to in subsection (1) is a legal tender for no more than the following amounts for the following denominations of coins:
(a) forty dollars if the denomination is two dollars or greater but does not exceed ten dollars;
(b) twenty-five dollars if the denomination is one dollar;
(c) ten dollars if the denomination is ten cents or greater but less than one dollar;
(d) five dollars if the denomination is five cents; and
(e) twenty-five cents if the denomination is one cent.*
Hah, that is really interesting. I suspect this is to stop people from paying with a large quantity of coins to be an ass. Any idea how that plays out when trying to change bags of coins at a bank?
coin-op vendor: I would like to deposit all of my bags of coins.
bank: Sorry sir, your money is no good here unless you break it into smaller quantities.
I knew a contract security guard that worked for a laundromat. They paid him in bags of quarters.
coin-op vendor: I would like to deposit all of my bags of coins.
bank: Sorry sir, your money is no good here unless you break it into smaller quantities.
I knew a contract security guard that worked for a laundromat. They paid him in bags of quarters.
> Any idea how that plays out when trying to change bags of coins at a bank?
I am not sure. I know they accept rolled coins for deposit at least from business customers. But I don't know what is the minimum legally required service level vis-à-vis coins and what is the customary service level banks actual offer right now. I remember TD having coin deposit machines that were free for TD customers to use but deducted a fee from non-customers, but they discontinued the service a couple of years ago. These days most people use third-party machines like this, which deduct a fee: https://www.coinstar.ca/
I am not sure. I know they accept rolled coins for deposit at least from business customers. But I don't know what is the minimum legally required service level vis-à-vis coins and what is the customary service level banks actual offer right now. I remember TD having coin deposit machines that were free for TD customers to use but deducted a fee from non-customers, but they discontinued the service a couple of years ago. These days most people use third-party machines like this, which deduct a fee: https://www.coinstar.ca/
[deleted]
I'm not following crypto too closely, but I'm interested. Reading this, I wondered whether this would increase demand of BTC, in turn raising its price. El Salvador adopted BTC as legal tender in September 2021, which is also the start of a big rise in BTC price from around 40k to almost 60k, but this then dropped back again to pre-September 2021 levels.
Does anyone know whether this rise was related to El Salvador adopted BTC, and can we expect to see the same thing happening here?
Does anyone know whether this rise was related to El Salvador adopted BTC, and can we expect to see the same thing happening here?
>>Reading this, I wondered whether this would increase demand of BTC [...]
Very unlikely, given that CAR's population is less than 5M, and only a small (read: negligible) portion of the population will even attempt to use bitcoin more than they were already were due to this legislation.
The more interesting question is how the other independent African states that use the CFA franc[1] and the Bank of Central African States[2] will respond over time, especially with regards to the development and adoption of the Eco[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_CFA_franc
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Central_African_States
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco_(currency)
Very unlikely, given that CAR's population is less than 5M, and only a small (read: negligible) portion of the population will even attempt to use bitcoin more than they were already were due to this legislation.
The more interesting question is how the other independent African states that use the CFA franc[1] and the Bank of Central African States[2] will respond over time, especially with regards to the development and adoption of the Eco[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_CFA_franc
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Central_African_States
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco_(currency)
The Central African Republic is 5th from the bottom on GDP lists. Out of ~210 countries and territories.
Its GDP per day is about $1.3.
Its citizens care more about not starving, than Bitcoin.
And they can barely afford 0.0001% of a Bitcoin, if they would even have easy access to tech allowing them to use it.
Its GDP per day is about $1.3.
Its citizens care more about not starving, than Bitcoin.
And they can barely afford 0.0001% of a Bitcoin, if they would even have easy access to tech allowing them to use it.
It's GDP per person per day is $1.3. For reference the US GDP per person per day is $174.
No one in El Salvador is using BTC for transactions, so there was not increased use of the currency that caused the spike in prices. Most likely the spike to 60k was just speculation.
> No one in El Salvador is using BTC for transactions
lolwut. Of the entire population of El Salvador, not one person is trading bitcoin?
lolwut. Of the entire population of El Salvador, not one person is trading bitcoin?
Cryptocurrencies won't help the average person in cash economies where most citizens are unbanked and ATMs don't have any cash in them for years if their country restricts internet or electricity access or the average person is far too poor to afford a way to store and transact cryptocurrencies.
I hope this type of thing eventually reaches less desperate countries.
And maybe also includes more practical cryptocurrencies like Algorand.
And maybe also includes more practical cryptocurrencies like Algorand.
Sad that Africa is going to effectively get exploited again by westerners. Let’s be honest those who got in early, that is, westerners, are those who win the most, not Africa.
They will learn, like the USA, why you don’t back your currency on things like gold, and coming soon, Bitcoin. This is a completely unnecessary move.
If the concerns are inflation they simply could write into their constitution that they cannot print additional money.
They will learn, like the USA, why you don’t back your currency on things like gold, and coming soon, Bitcoin. This is a completely unnecessary move.
If the concerns are inflation they simply could write into their constitution that they cannot print additional money.
> why you don’t back your currency on things like gold
How did the West learn this lesson?
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/nixon-shock
> We must create more and better jobs; we must stop the rise in the cost of living; we must protect the dollar from the attacks of international money speculators.” To achieve the first two goals, he proposed tax cuts and a 90-day freeze on prices and wages; to achieve the third, Nixon directed the suspension of the dollar’s convertibility into gold.
Particularly
> we must protect the dollar from the attacks of international money speculators
In this case the "speculators" speculated that the US didn't have the gold it said it did to back the dollars it had been printing.
Protecting the dollar meant we will no longer trade the dollar for gold to protect it, but why would it need protecting if we had the gold to exchange?
Sounds to me like gold as a standard wasn't the issue, but printing of dollars without backing.
How did the West learn this lesson?
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/nixon-shock
> We must create more and better jobs; we must stop the rise in the cost of living; we must protect the dollar from the attacks of international money speculators.” To achieve the first two goals, he proposed tax cuts and a 90-day freeze on prices and wages; to achieve the third, Nixon directed the suspension of the dollar’s convertibility into gold.
Particularly
> we must protect the dollar from the attacks of international money speculators
In this case the "speculators" speculated that the US didn't have the gold it said it did to back the dollars it had been printing.
Protecting the dollar meant we will no longer trade the dollar for gold to protect it, but why would it need protecting if we had the gold to exchange?
Sounds to me like gold as a standard wasn't the issue, but printing of dollars without backing.
I can think of a single case in history where policymakers decided to reverse (as you put it) "printing of dollars without backing" in favor of maintaining a peg to the gold standard (or equivalent), and probably over a dozen cases where it was the gold standard that was lost.
While I can understand why something like the gold standard serving as a fiscal straitjacket could find appeal, I can't understand why people ignore the repeated demonstrations of its ineffectiveness in that role.
While I can understand why something like the gold standard serving as a fiscal straitjacket could find appeal, I can't understand why people ignore the repeated demonstrations of its ineffectiveness in that role.
Gold standard serving as a fiscal straitjacket is precisely why it has be removed by governments time and time again. Removing a gold standard benefits the government and those in power and is a detriment to the people and the value of their labor. Not having a gold standard removes the physical requirement for government to behave with fiscal responsibility.
The number of times that gold standards have been ended isn't proof that gold standards don't work. It is proof that people in power will remove obstacles in the way of achieving their agenda.
People in power are still people. People cannot be trusted to be responsible with massive amounts of money when there is no personal penalty for being fiscally irresponsible.
The number of times that gold standards have been ended isn't proof that gold standards don't work. It is proof that people in power will remove obstacles in the way of achieving their agenda.
People in power are still people. People cannot be trusted to be responsible with massive amounts of money when there is no personal penalty for being fiscally irresponsible.
I visited the Statue of Liberty a few weeks ago and noticed a quaint bit of history. The Liberty Bond. Bonds issued with the Statue of Liberty on them in an attempt to get funding to enter war! Talk about a straitjacket!
Now we (Americans) don't have such a silly constraint and launch all the wars we want. No need to even call them a war or to ask for permission. Or even notify the public that one is being launched. Funding is already secured.
Now we (Americans) don't have such a silly constraint and launch all the wars we want. No need to even call them a war or to ask for permission. Or even notify the public that one is being launched. Funding is already secured.
Your last paragraph is so simple and plainly correct, and yet people will argue endlessly against it.
> and probably over a dozen cases where it was the gold standard that was lost.
This doesn't prove that the gold standard was bad for the people.
Governments grow until they collapse. That growth eventually is constrained by the inability to print gold.
This is particularly obvious if you consider that dropping gold and silver from currency is near the first thing to happen when war starts. Inflation is a hidden tax. Governments use it to continue their largess beyond what would be possible with direct taxation.
> I can think of a single case in history where policymakers decided to reverse
Everyone knows politicians are liars and cheats. Why would the actions of politicians or those appointed by them be a signal of virtue or correctness?
This doesn't prove that the gold standard was bad for the people.
Governments grow until they collapse. That growth eventually is constrained by the inability to print gold.
This is particularly obvious if you consider that dropping gold and silver from currency is near the first thing to happen when war starts. Inflation is a hidden tax. Governments use it to continue their largess beyond what would be possible with direct taxation.
> I can think of a single case in history where policymakers decided to reverse
Everyone knows politicians are liars and cheats. Why would the actions of politicians or those appointed by them be a signal of virtue or correctness?
> Sounds to me like gold as a standard wasn't the issue, but printing of dollars without backing.
True, that’s why the United States basically declined economically after going off gold and printing as much as they’d like.
True, that’s why the United States basically declined economically after going off gold and printing as much as they’d like.
I'm personally convinced (by no evidence other than game theory, which is what trust in block validators to be honest as a group is based on as well) in cases like these, that there must be people with a huge stake in btc who are essentially bribing legislators to adopt crypto. Why else would they accept as legal tender a currency their government and people don't hold except if the people who do hold it convinced them in some way? Looking forward to the documovies in 15 years of these crypto "investors" flying to CAF and El Salvador and bribing their government officials.
I highly doubt they were bribed by Bitcoin miners. What's more likely is that BTC is emerging as a global store of value asset, and with the additional advantage that the supply of BTC is not entirely controlled by exploitative global central banking apparatus. Do some googling on what the IMF has done to small countries with their loans, and what happens to small countries when their currency is manipulated.
[deleted]
You can't deny though that there is an incentive for some, especially hedge funds with massive crypto positions (who are known for not being above doing nefarious things with foreign government officials), to bribe legislators of countries open to the idea to adopt it, to improve their financial asset. Whether or not that is indeed something they're doing, as I mentioned, is pure speculation.
Convinced eh? Sounds like baseless supposition to me.
> Sad that Africa is going to effectively get exploited again by westerners
Robert Mugabe, your publicist needs a raise, again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe
Robert Mugabe, your publicist needs a raise, again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe
[deleted]
Not only westerners even China is interested this time. Central Africa has so many minerals that they don't have any hope of being left alone in the coming future.
They are being exploited by the current tie to France and requirements for keeping reserves in French Treasury. In two words: ongoing colonialism.
Bitcoin allows for choice.
Bitcoin allows for choice.
The article isn't about controlling inflation or floating currencies, but access to new technology.
> Civil war since 2012. The civil war perpetuated the country's poor human rights record.
> Among the ten poorest countries in the world, with the lowest GDP per capita at purchasing power parity in the world as of 2017.
> The second-lowest level of human development (only ahead of Niger), ranking 188 out of 189 countries.
> The lowest inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), ranking 150th out of 150 countries.
> The unhealthiest country as well as the worst country in which to be young.