After twelve years of writing about bitcoin, here's how my thinking has changed

What follows is an essay on how my thinking on bitcoin has changed since I began to write on the topic starting with my first post in October 2012. Since then I've written 109 posts on the Moneyness Blog that reference bitcoin, along with a few dozen articles at venues like CoinDesk, Breakermag, and elsewhere.

An early bitcoin optimist

I was excited by Bitcoin in the early days of my blog. The idea of a decentralized electronic payment system fascinated me. Here's an excerpt from my second post on the topic, Bitcoin (for monetary economists) - why bitcoin is great and why it's doomed, dated November 2012:

"Bitcoin is a revolutionary record-keeping system. It is incredibly fast, efficient, cheap, and safe. I can send my Bitcoin from Canada to someone in Africa, have the transaction verified and cleared in 10 minutes, and only pay a fee of a few cents. Doing the same through the SWIFT system would take days and require a $35 fee. If I were a banker, I'd be afraid." [link]

I was relatively open to Bitcoin for two reasons. First, I like to think in terms of moneyness, which means that everything is to some degree money-like, and so I welcome strange and alternative monies. "If you think of money as an adjective, then moneyness becomes the lens by which you view the problem. From this perspective, one might say that Bitcoin always was a money," I wrote in my very first post on bitcoin. Second, prior to 2012 I had read a fair amount of free banking literature—the study of private money—so I was already primed to be receptive to a stateless payments system, which is what Bitcoin's founder, Satoshi Nakamoto, originally meant his (or her) creation to be. 

A lot of bitcoin-curious, bitcoin-critics and bitcoin-converts were attracted to the comments section of my blog, and we had some great conversations over the years. My bitcoin posts invariably attracted more traffic than my non-bitcoin ones, all of us scrambling to understand what seemed to be a newly emerging monetary organism.

My early thoughts on the topic were informed by having bought a few bitcoins in 2012 for the sake of experimentation, some of my earlier blog posts describing how I had played around with them. In 2013 I wrote about the first crop of bitcoin-denominated securities market (which I dabbled in)—predecessors to the ICO market of 2017. I also used my bitcoins to buy altcoins, including Litecoin, and in late 2013 wrote about my disastrous experience with Litecoin-denominated stock market speculation. In Long Chains of Monetary Barter I described using bitcoin as an exotic bridging currency for selling XRP, a new cryptocurrency that had just been airdropped into the world. I didn't notice it at the time, but in hindsight most of these were instances of bitcoin facilitating illegal activity, i.e. unregistered securities sales, which was an early use case for bitcoin.

Although Bitcoin excited me, I was also critical from the outset, and in later years my critical side would only grow, earning me a reputation among crypto fans as being a salty no-coiner. In a 2013 blog post I grumbled that playing around with my stash of bitcoins hadn't been "as exciting as I had anticipated." Unlike regular money, there just wasn't much to do with the stuff, my coins sitting there in my wallet "gathering electronic dust."

 "...the best speculative vehicles to hit the market since 1999 Internet stocks."

What my experimentation with bitcoin had taught me was that the main reason to hold "isn't because they make great exchange media—it's because they're the best speculative vehicles to hit the market since 1999 Internet stocks." But that wasn't what I was there for. What had tantalized me was Satoshi's vision of electronic cash, a revolutionary digital payments system. Not boring old speculation.

In addition to my practical complaints about bitcoin, I also had theoretical gripes with it. The "lethal" problem as I saw it back in my second post in 2012 is that "bitcoin has no intrinsic value." Over the next decade this lack of intrinsic value, or fundamental value, would underly most of my criticisms of the orange coin. Back in 2012, though, the main implication of bitcoin's lack of intrinsic value was the ease by which it might fall back to $0. As I put it in a 2013 article:

"Bitcoin is 100% moneyness. Whenever a liquidity crisis hits, the only way for the bitcoin market to accommodate everyone's demand to sell is for the price of bitcoin to hit zero—all out implosion" [link]

But if the price of bitcoin were to fall to zero then it would cease to operate as a monetary system, which would be a huge disappointment to those of us who were fascinated with Satoshi's electronic cash experiment. Adding to the danger was the influx of bitcoin lookalikes, or altcoins, like litecoin, namecoin, and sexcoin. In theory, the prices of bitcoin and its competitors could "quickly collapse in price" as arbitrageurs create new coins ad infinitum, I worried in 2012, eating away at bitcoin's premium. The alternative view, which I explored in a 2013 post entitled Milton Friedman and the mania in copy-paste cryptocoins,  was that "the earliest mover has superior features compared to late moving clones," including name brand and liquidity, and so its dominance was locked-in via network effects. Over time the latter view proved to be the correct one.

The "zero problem"

Despite my worries, I was optimistic about bitcoin, even helpful. One way to stop bitcoin from falling to zero might be a "plunge protection team," I offered in 2013, a group of avid bitcoin collectors that could anchor bitcoin's price and provide a degree of automatic stabilization. In a 2015 post entitled The zero problem, I suggested that bitcoin believers like Marc Andreessen should consider donating $21 million to a bitcoin stabilization fund, thus securing a price floor of $1 in perpetuity. 

No fan of credit cards, in a 2016 post Bitcoin, drowning in a sea of credit card rewards, I suggested that bitcoin activists encourage retailers that accept bitcoin payments to offer price discounts. This carrot would put bitcoin on an even playing field with credit card networks, which use incentives like reward points and cashback to block out competing payment systems.

My growing disillusionment

By 2014 or 2015, I no longer saw much hope for bitcoin as a mainstream payments system or generally-accepted medium-of-exchange. "For any medium of exchange to displace another as a means for buying stuff, users need come out ahead. And this isn't happening with bitcoin," I wrote in a 2015 post entitled Why bitcoin has failed to achieve liftoff as a medium of exchange, pointing to the many costs of making bitcoin payments, including commissions, setup costs, and the inconveniences of volatility.

In another 2015 post I focused specifically on the volatility problem, which stems from bitcoin's lack of intrinsic value. If an item has an unstable price, that militates against it becoming a widely used money. After all, the whole reason that people stockpile buffers of liquid instruments, or money, is that these buffers serve as a form of insurance against uncertainty. If an item's price isn't stable—which bitcoin isn't—it can't perform that role. 

Mind you, I did allow in another 2015 post, The dollarization of bitcoin, that bitcoin might continue as "an arcane niche payments system for a community of like minded consumers and retailers." I even tracked some of these arcane payments use cases, such a 2020 blog post on retailers of salvia divinorium (a legal drug in many U.S. states) falling back on bitcoin for payments after the credit card networks kicked them off, followed by a 2021 post on kratom sellers (a mostly-legal substance) doing the same. But let's face it, a niche payments system just wasn't as impressive as Satoshi's much broader vision of electronic cash that had beguiled me in 2012, when I had warned that "if I was a banker, I'd be afraid." 

The dollarization of bitcoin

By 2015 a lot of my pro-bitcoin blog commenters began to see me as a traitor. But I was just changing my thinking with the arrival of new data.

Searching for Bitcoin-inspired alternatives: Fedcoin and stablecoins

Bitcoin's deficiencies got me thinking very early on about how to create bitcoin-inspired alternatives. By late 2012 I was already thinking about stablecoins:

"What the bitcoin record-keeping mechanism needs is an already-valuable underlying asset to which it can be tethered. Rather than tracking, verifying, and recording the movement of intrinsically worthless 1s and 0s, it will track the movement of something valuable." [link]

Later, in 2013, I speculated about the emergence of "stable-value crypto-currency, not the sort that dangles and has a null value." These alternatives would "copy the best aspects" of bitcoin, like its speed and safety, but would be linked to "some intrinsically valuable item." A few months later I predicted that "Cryptocoin 2.0, or stable-value cryptocoins, is probably not too far away." This would eventually happen, but not for another few years.

My dissatisfaction with bitcoin led me to the idea of decentralized exchanges, or DEXs, in 2013, whereby equity markets would "adopt a bitcoin-style distributed ledger." That same year I imagined central banks adapting "bitcoin technology" to run its wholesale payments system in my post Why the Fed is more likely to adopt bitcoin technology than kill it off. In 2014 I developed this thought into the idea of Fedcoin, an early central bank digital currency, or CBDC, for retail users.

If not money, then what is bitcoin?

By 2017 or so, even the most ardent bitcoin advocates were being forced to acknowledge that Satoshi's electronic cash system was not panning out: the orange coin was nowhere near to becoming a popular medium-of-exchange. This was especially apparent thanks to a growing body of payments surveys (which I began to report on in 2020) showing that bitcoin users almost never used their bitcoins to make payments or transfers, preferring instead to hoard them. So the true believers pivoted and began to describe bitcoin as a store-of-value, or digital gold. It was a new narrative that glossed over Satoshi's dream of electronic cash while trying to salvage some monetary-ish parts of the story.

I thought this whole salvage operation was disingenuous. In 2017 I wrote about my dissatisfaction with the new store-of-value narrative, and followed that up with a criticism of the digital gold concept in Bitcoin Isn’t Digital Gold; It’s Digital Uselesstainium. (The idea that store-of-value is a unique property of money is silly, I wrote in 2020, and we should just chuck the concept altogether.)

But if bitcoin was never going to become a generally-accepted form of money, and it wasn't a store-of-value or digital gold, then what exactly was it? 

I didn't nail this down till a 2018 post entitled A Case for Bitcoin. We all thought at the outset that bitcoin was a monetary thingamajig. But we were wrong. Of the types of assets already in existence, bitcoin was not akin to gold, cash, or bank deposits. Rather, it was most similar to an age-old category of financial games and zero-sum bets that includes poker, lotteries, and roulette. The particular sub-branch of the financial game family that bitcoin belonged to was early-bird games, which contains pyramids, ponzis, and chain letters. Here is a taxonomy:

A taxonomy showing bitcoin as a member of the early-bird game family

Early-bird games like pyramids, ponzis, and chain letters are a type of zero-sum game in which early players win at the expense of latecomers, the bet being sustained over time by a constant stream of new entrants and ending when no additional players join. Pyramids and ponzis are almost always administered by thieves who abscond with the pot. Bitcoin, by contrast, was not a scheme nor a scam. And it was not run by a scammer. It was leaderless and spontaneous, an "honest" early-bird game that hewed to pre-set rules. Here is how I described it in a later post, Bitcoin as a Novel Financial Game:

"Bitcoin introduces some neat features to the financial-game space. Firstly, everyone in the world can play it (i.e., it is censorship-resistant). Secondly, the task of managing the game has been decentralized. Lastly, Bitcoin’s rules are automated by code and fully auditable." [link] 

This ponziness of bitcoin was actually a source of its strength, I suggested in 2023, because "it's tough to shut down a million imaginations." By contrast, if bitcoin had an underlying real anchor, like gold, then that would give authorities a toe hold for decommissioning it.

Bitcoin-as-game gave me more insight into why most bitcoin owners weren't using bitcoin as a medium-of-exchange. Its value as a zero-sum bet was overriding any functionality it had for making payments. In a 2018 post entitled Can Lottery Tickets Become Money?, I worked this out more clearly:

"Like Jane's lottery ticket, a bitcoin owner's bitcoins aren't just bitcoins, they are a dream, a lambo, a ticket out of drudgery. Spending them at a retailer at mere market value would be a waste given their 'destiny' is to hit the moon." [link]

If bitcoins weren't like bank deposits or cash, how should we treat them from a personal finance perspective? Feel free to play bitcoin, I wrote in late 2018, but do so in moderation, just like you would if you went to Vegas. "Remember, it's just a game."

Bitcoin is innocuous, don't ban it

By 2020 or 2021, the commentary surrounding bitcoin seemed to be getting more polarized. As always there was a set of hardcore bitcoin zealots who thought bitcoin's destiny was to change the world, of which I had been a member for a brief time in 2012. But arrayed against them was a new group of strident opponents who though bitcoin was incredibly dangerous and were pushing to ban it.

A vandalized 'Bitcoin accepted' sign in my neighborhood

I was at odds with both sides. Each saw Bitcoin as transformative, one side for the good, the other for the bad. But I conceived of it as an innocuous gambling device, one that only seemed novel because it had been transplanted into a new kind of database technology, blockchains. We shouldn't ban bitcoin for the same reason that we've generally become more comfortable over the decades removing prohibitions on online gambling and sports betting. Better to bring these activities into the open and regulate them than leave them to exist in the shadows.

Thus began a series of relax-don't-ban-bitcoin posts. In 2022, I wrote that central bankers shouldn't be afraid that bitcoin might render them powerless. For the same reason that casinos and lotteries will ever be a credible threat to dollar's issued by the Fed or the Bank of Canada, neither will bitcoin.

Illicit usage of bitcoin was becoming an increasingly controversial subject. Just like casinos are used by money launderers, bitcoin had long become a popular tool for criminals, the most notorious of which were ransomware operators. My view was that we could use existing tools to deal with these bad actors. Instead of banning bitcoin to end the ransomware plague, for instance, I suggested in a 2021 article that we might embargo the payment of ransoms instead, thus choking off fuel to the ransomware fire. Alternatively, I argued in a later post that the U.S. could fight ransomware using an existing tool: Section 311 of the Patriot Act. Which is what eventually happened with Bitzlato and PM2BTC, two Russian exchanges popular with ransomware operators that were put on the Section 311 list.    

Nor should national security experts be afraid of enemy actors using bitcoin to evade sanctions, I wrote in 2019, since existing tools, in particular secondary sanctions, are capable of dealing with the threat. The failure of bitcoin to serve as an effective tool for funding the illegal Ottawa protests, which I documented in a March 2022 article, only underlined its low threat potential:

"Governments, whether they be democracies or dictatorships, are often fearful of crypto's censorship-resistance, leading to calls for bans. The lesson from the Ottawa trucker convoy and Russian ransomware gangs is that as long as the on-ramping and off-ramping process are regulated, these fears are overblown." [link]

Other calls to ban bitcoin were inspired by its voracious energy usage. In a 2021 blog post entitled The overconsumption theory of bitcoin, I attributed bitcoin's terrible energy footprint to market failure: end users of bitcoin don't directly pay for the huge amounts of electricity required to power their bets, so they overuse it. No need to ban bitcoin, though. The way to fix this particular market failure is to introduce a Pigouvian tax on buying and/or holding bitcoins, which I described more clearly in a 2021 blog post entitled A tax on proof of work and a 2022 article called Make bitcoin cheap again for cypherpunks! 

Lastly, whereas bitcoin's harshest critics have been advocating a "let it burn" policy approach to bitcoin and crypto more generally, which involved leaving gateways unregulated and thus toxic, I began to recommend regulating crypto exchanges under the same standards as equities exchanges in a 2021 article entitled Gary Gensler, You Should be Watching How Canada is Regulating Coinbase. Yes, regulation legitimizes a culture of gambling. But even Las Vegas has stringent regulations. A set of basic protections would reduce the odds of the betting public being hurt by fraudulent exchanges. FTX was a good test case. After the exchange collapsed, almost all FTX customers were stuck in limbo for years, but FTX Japan customers walked out unscathed thanks to Japan's regulatory framework, which I wrote about in a 2022 post Six reasons why FTX Japan survived while the rest of FTX burned.  

So when does bitcoin get dangerous?

What I've learnt after many years of writing about bitcoin is that it's a relatively innocuous phenomena, even pedestrian. When it does lead to bad outcomes, I've outlined how those can be handled with our existing tools. But here's what does have me worried. 

If you want to buy some bitcoins, go right ahead. We can even help by regulating the trading venues to make it safe. But don't force others to play.

Whoops, You Just Got Bitcoin’d! by Daniel Krawisz

Alas, that seems to be where we are headed. There is a growing effort to arm-twist the rest of society into joining in by having governments acquire bitcoins, in the U.S.'s case a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The U.S. government has never entered the World Series of Poker. Nor has it gone to Vegas to bet billions to tax payer funds on roulette or built a strategic Powerball ticket reserve, but it appears to be genuinely entertaining the idea of rolling the dice on Bitcoin.  

Bitcoin is an incredibly infectious early-bird game, one that after sixteen years continues to find a constant stream of new recruits. How contagious? I originally estimated in a 2022 post, Three potential paths for the price of bitcoin, that adoption wouldn't rise above 10%-15% of the global population, but I may have been underestimating its transmissibility. My worry is that calls for government support will only accelerate as more voters, government officials, and bureaucrats catch the orange coin mind virus and act on it. It begins with a small strategic reserve of a few billion dollars. It ends with the Department of Bitcoin Price Appreciation being allocated 50% of yearly tax revenues to make the number go up, to the detriment of infrastructure like roads, hospitals, and law enforcement. At that point we've entered a dystopia in which society rapidly deteriorates because we've all become obsessed on a bet.

Although I never wanted to ban Bitcoin, I can't help but wonder whether a prohibition wouldn't have been the better policy back in 2013 or 2014 given the new bitcoin-by-force path that advocates are pushing it towards. But it's probably too late for that; the coin is already out of the bag. All I can hope is that my long history of writing on the topic might persuade a few readers that forcing others to play the game you love is not fair game.

It's time to trash the "store of value" function of money

When we first learn about money and banking in high school or university, we are all taught that money has three functions: medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value. Maybe it’s time for educators to throw out this triumvirate. It’s not very accurate. 

We need a simple and teachable device to take the triumvirate’s place. I propose the money Venn diagram.

Before I explain the money Venn diagram, let’s revisit the textbook triumvirate.

When something is a medium of exchange, what is meant is that it is generally acceptable in trade. You can use it to buy stuff at the grocery store, or purchase stocks on the stock market, or get things online. 

The quality of being a medium of exchange is really more of a gradient than a matter of either/or. Banknotes, for instance, are good at brick and mortar shops, but useless online. Your debit card works great at shops, but forget trying to buy shares with it. But both are sufficiently widely accepted to qualify as a medium of exchange.

Because cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Litecoin aren’t widely accepted, they don’t make it across the line to qualify as a medium of exchange. Neither do Walmart or Target gift cards. Cigarettes don’t qualify either, but that wasn’t the case in 1950 when Milton Friedman used them to buy gas:

Milton Friedman describes the time he used cigarettes as money. (I get this from his book "Money Mischief".) pic.twitter.com/1NSjY9vZNX

— John Paul Koning (@jp_koning) November 6, 2020

The unit of account function of money refers to the fact that our economic conversations and calculations are couched in terms of a given monetary unit, whether that be the $, ¥, or £. In Canada and the US, prices are expressed in grocery aisles with dollars, our salaries use dollar units, and our debts are denominated in dollars. We don’t express prices in terms of government bonds, or Microsoft shares, or cigarettes or bitcoins. These things don’t function as a unit of account.

Thirdly, when money acts as a store of value we mean that it preserves value over time and space. Whereas the first two functions are quite useful, the store of value isn’t. Every asset functions as a store of value: houses, diamonds, banknotes, deposits, bitcoins, LSD tabs, lentils, cars, spices. And so it is meaningless to cast store of value as a unique function of money. Monetary economists such as Nick Rowe and George Selgin have proposed, and I concur, that we just chuck store of value from the definition of money.

But we are still left with two useful definitions for money, unit of account and medium of exchange. Which gets us to the money circle.

Note that the two circles in the diagram, medium of exchange and unit of account, don’t perfectly overlap. About 99% of the time the things we use as media of exchange are also the things we use as a unit of account. So the contents of our wallets or our bank accounts, dollar banknotes and dollar deposits are functionally equivalent to the $ units displayed in signs in grocery aisles.

But for the remaining 1% of the time, the unit of account and medium of exchange are separated. The idea of a separation is tough to get one’s head around. Luckily we’ve got a nice example. In Chile the prices of many things, particularly real estate, are expressed in terms of the Unidad de Fomento. But no Unidad de Fomento notes or coins circulate in Chile. It is a purely abstract unit of account.

Apartments for sale in Chile, priced in Unidad de Fomento

If a Chilean wants to buy an apartment that is priced at 840 Unidad de Fomento, she must use a separate medium of exchange, the Chilean peso, to make the payment. The peso is issued by Chile’s central bank, the Banco Central de Chile, in both paper and account form.

How many pesos must she pay? Every day the Banco Central de Chile publishes the exchange rate between the Unidad de Fomento and the peso. Right now one Unidad de Fomento is equal to 28,969 pesos. If an apartment were priced at 840 Unidad de Fomento, a Chilean would have to hand over 24 million Chilean pesos today.

Why has Chile separated its unit of account from its medium of exchange? I have discussed the issue at length. But the short answer is that it was a trick the government used to help cope with high inflation in the 1960s. Chilean inflation has been well under control for decades now. The practice of using the Unidad de Fomento as a unit-of-account has continued nonetheless.

You can see why it’s rare for these two functions to be separated. It’s awkward to do conversions every time one wants to pay for something. For the sake of ease, we tend to evolve towards systems where the medium of exchange and unit of account are united. But these exceptions are still important enough that we need a Venn diagram.

To sum up, money isn’t best thought of as a medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value. Let’s just think of it as just a medium of exchange and a unit of account. For the most part these circles overlap, and the two functions are united. But this isn’t always the case. 

[My article was originally published at AIER's Sound Money Project in 2020 under the title A Simpler and More Accurate Way to Teach Money to Students]

Kyle Bass's big nickel bet

In 2011, hedge fund manager Kyle Bass reportedly bought $1 million worth of nickels. Why on earth would anyone want to own 20 million nickels? Let's work out the underlying logic of this trade.

A nickel weighs five grams, 75% of which is copper and the rest is nickel. At the time that Bass bought his nickels, the actual metal content of each coin was worth around 6.8 cents. So Bass was buying 6.8 cents for 5 cents, or $1.36 million worth of base metals for just $1 million.

To realize this 6.8 cents, Bass would have to sell the copper and nickel as metal, not coin. But liberating the actual metal from each token isn't so easy. Since 2006 it's been illegal to melt pennies and nickels down. As a regulated hedge fund manager, Bass probably isn't willing to break the law. Which means he'd only be able to realize the metal content of nickels indirectly, by on-selling them to a buyer who is willing take on the risks of melting nickels. That wouldn't be me, mind you. Five years in jail sounds like a long time.

At the right price, would-be smelterers will surely emerge out of the woodwork to buy Bass's stash. Say the prices of nickel and copper explode such that a nickel now contains 20 cents worth of metal. Bass should have no problems finding someone who'd pay him 12-15 cents for each of his nickels. Bass wouldn't be doing anything illegal, he'd just be selling nickels on to a stranger at a premium. And given that he only paid face value for each nickel, he'd be more than doubling his bet. 

So Bass has upside exposure to the next bull market in copper and nickel prices. The neat part of this trade is that he has no downside exposure. That's because a nickel can never be worth less than its face value of five cents. For example, consider that the price of base metals has fallen by quite a bit since Bass bought his stash of nickels. And so the melt value of a nickel has tumbled too, currently registering at around 4 cents, or 41% less than when he bought them. But Bass needn't worry. His nickels can still be taken to the Federal Reserve where they can be exchanged for twenty to the dollar, or five cents each.

Huge upside and no downside—why isn't everyone doing this trade? There's a catch. Carrying costs. Bass's trade has yet to pay off. A bull market in commodities hasn't developed. Which means that Bass has had to store 20 million nickels for eight years. But storing stuff isn't free. What follows is an estimate of the cost of doing so.

-------

The first big cost that Bass faces is storage. His nickels take up a lot of space. Stacked one on top of the other, would twenty million nickels fit into a standard 20 foot freight container? Given that a container measures 8 x 8.5 x 20 ft, it has enough space to fit around 32,700 nickels per layer, 1,328 nickels high. That's room for 43,480,000 nickels—more than enough for Bass's hoard.

Stacking individual coins on top of each other isn't a realistic storage technique. Imagine the amount of time this would take. The industry standard for storing and handling large amounts of coins is using certified bags. According to the Fed, the standard bag size for nickels is $200, or 4,000 nickels per bag. In addition to bags, it also typical for banks to sell customers boxes filled with $100 worth of rolled-up nickels. Either bagged or boxed, there will be plenty of 'honeycombing,' or gaps between coins and packaging material.

Bass's hoard would be extremely heavy, far exceeding the capacity of a lone shipping container. Twenty million nickels weighs 100,000 kg, or 220,462 pounds. But a 20' container is only rated to hold 25,000 kg (55,120 lbs). Both the weight of the coins and the honeycombing effect mean that it could take as much as four freight containers to handle $1 million worth of nickels.

Bass could find a farmer who would be willing to store four freight containers in his field for a few hundred bucks a year. But he probably wants something more formal than that. One option is a warehouse. Warehouses charge by the pallet. A pallet can hold up to 4,600 lbs worth of goods, which works out to around 417,000 nickels, or 104 bags per pallet. Which means Bass will have to store 48 pallets of nickels. 

I searched around a bit and found that warehouses generally charge a monthly fee of anywhere from $5 to $20 per pallet. There are a lot of variables that can affect this amount. If the pallets are stackable, and thus take up less floor area, then the monthly fee will be less. Location of the warehouse is another factor. Securing space in the vicinity of New York costs more than Des Moines.

Coins on a pallet at the Federal Reserve (source)

Given that Bass has the flexibility to choose an out-of-the way warehouse (he doesn't need to access his inventory every few days), he should be able to get a cheap deal. Let's assume $5/month per pallet. With 48 pallets of nickels, that works out to around $2875 per year, or 0.29% of the total value of his $1 million stash.

Over eight years, that works out to $23,000. So after storage costs, Bass's $1 million in nickels has dwindled to just $977,000.

Bass probably wants to insure his nickels for theft and damage as well. Commercial property insurance seems to cost around $750 per year for each million dollars insured. Over eight years, that's $6000, which brings Bass's stash of nickels down to $971,000.

The last major cost is foregone interest. Instead of investing his $1 million in Treasury bills, Bass is keeping his wealth inert in warehoused nickels. Interest rates have been pretty low for the last decade, which means that Bass has only given up around 0.1 to 0.15% per year in interest income, or $1500. So for the period between 2011 and 2016, he would have given up about $9,000 in interest. That brings the value of his nickles down to $962,000.

But in 2017, Treasury bill rates began to rise, hitting 1%. At today's t-bill rate of around 2%, Bass is giving up $20,000 per year to invest in 0%-yielding nickels. Ouch. Interest costs from 2017 and 2018 mean that Bass's nickel stash has effectively dwindled to around $930,000.

So as you can see, even though Bass doesn't have to worry about taking a capital loss on his stash of nickels, the ongoing grind of carrying costs means that it's been a pricey trade. In eight years he's down by around $70,000, or 7%. In the end it could still all be worth it. If base metal prices triple, he'll still be able to make a lot of money on his initial investment. And I'm sure they will triple... at some point.

----- 

I've described the nickel trade from Kyle Bass's perspective. But let's view it from the perspective of the taxpayer. The U.S. Mint and the Federal Reserve (and therefore the taxpayer) are providing Bass with the opportunity to win big while offering him protection him from capital losses. In options lingo, they've sold him a put option. Is this a smart thing to do? Bass's isn't an isolated trade. For every Kyle Bass there are probably dozens of others trying the same thing. So the stakes aren't small.

The taxpayer is not providing this put option for free. There is at least some quid pro quo. In choosing to hold $1 million in nickles, Bass is effectively loaning money to the government at an interest rate of zero. If Bass had chosen to hold $1 million in Treasury bills instead of coins, the government would have to pay him 2% a year in interest, or $20,000. Coins don't yield interest, so the government needn't pay Bass a cent for his loan. We can think of the $20,000 in interest as the fee or compensation that tax payers get for providing Bass with downside protection on his speculative bet on metals prices.

But is the government extracting enough out of Bass for the trade? When interest rates were still at 0.1% a few years back, and Bass's yearly interest costs were a mere $1,000, Bass was probably getting the better end of the deal. But with rates at 2%, it's not so obvious who is coming out ahead. Whatever the case, should the government even be in the business of providing principle-protected commodity bets to citizens? Aren't exotic financial bets more Goldman Sach's game? 

One way for the government to extract itself from these bets would be to reduce the commodity value of the nickel. Put differently, it can debase the coinage. The last time the U.S. debased the nickel was in 1965 when it stopped minting them with silver.

The U.S. Mint could carry out a debasement by switching to steel, which is cheaper than copper/nickel. With a lower metal value, the nickel would be much less inviting for Bass and other speculators. He'd need a much bigger bull market in metals prices before he'd be able to break even.

Or maybe the U.S. could adopt plastic nickels, like Transnistria.

Neat. The world's only plastic coins (1, 3, 5, 10 rubles) are issued by the unrecognized state of Transnistria: https://t.co/DmUDmzloun pic.twitter.com/hoEGraG8wz

— JP Koning (@jp_koning) August 11, 2017

Whether steel or plastic, the key is to avoid an possibility of being Bass's dupe.

An even better way to avoid being the dupe? The nickel is monetary pollution. Let's just get rid of it. It made sense to have a five-cent coin back in the 1950s. A five cent coin back in the 1950s would have been worth about as much as a fifty cents, and fifty cents is a meaningful amount of money. You can buy stuff for fifty cents, say a cheap drink. But go to a grocery store today and try to see what you can buy for a nickel. Nothing.

Most nickels are used just once. Cashiers pays them out as change to customers, and from there they go straight into people's cupboards where they are forgotten. Or they get thrown in the trash. Or they're hoovered up by speculators like Kyle Bass. All of this is socially wasteful behaviour. Bass's speculation is no exception: the resources he consumes storing nickels could be put to far better use. Let's put an end to all this waste by ceasing to produce five-cent coins.

Swedish betrayal

I recently wrote two posts for the Sound Money Project about Swedish monetary innovation. The first is about an effort by the Swedish central bank—the Riksbank—to force retailers to accept cash, and the other is about the e-Krona, a potential Riksbank-issued digital currency.

This post covers a third topic. For many years now those of us who are interested in cash, privacy, and payments have had our eye on Swedish banknote demand. The amount of paper kronor in circulation has been declining at a rapid pace. Many commentators are convinced that this is due to the rise of digital payments. Since Sweden is at the vanguard of this trend, it is believed that other nation's will eventually experience similar declines in cash demand too.

But I disagree. While digital payments share some of the blame for the obsolescence of paper kronor, the Riksbank is also responsible. The Riksbank betrayed the Swedish cash-using public this decade by embarking on an aggressive note switch.  Had it chosen a more customer friendly approach, Swedes would be holding a much larger stock of banknotes than they are now. As long as other countries don't enact the same policies as Sweden, they needn't worry about precipitous declines in cash demand.

Banknotes are dead, long live banknotes

Across the globe, an odd pattern has played out over the last decade. The proportion of payments that are being made with cash has been rapidly declining thanks to the popularity of card payments. Sweden is no different in this respect, although it may be further along than most:

Source: Reserve Bank of Australia

Oddly, even as developed countries are seeing fewer transactions completed using cash, the quantity of banknotes outstanding has jumped. This increase in cash outstanding, which generally exceeds GDP growth, is mostly due to an increase in demand for large-value denominations, as the chart below illustrates:

Source: Bank for International Settlements

The BIS has a good explanation for this seemingly contradictory pattern. The demand for cash can be split into two buckets: means-of-payment and store-of-value. Banknotes earmarked as a means of payment are generally spent over the next few days. Demand for this type of cash is stagnating thanks to increased card usage. Not so the former. The demand to store $100 bills under mattresses and in safety deposit boxes in anticipation of some sort of disaster is booming. According to the BIS, this is due in part to low interest rates, which makes banknotes more attractive relative to a bank deposit or government bond.

The number of banknotes held as a store-of-value demand accounts for quite a large proportion of total cash in circulation. In a recent paper, Reserve Bank of Australia researchers estimated that 50% to 75% of Australian banknotes are hoarded as a store of value. Keep in mind that these sorts of calculations are subject to all sorts of assumptions. Australia's experience with cash probably applies to most other developed nations.

Sweden, a sign of what's to come?

Which gets us back to Sweden. Sweden differs from all other nations because of what is happening with its banknote count. The quantity of paper kronor outstanding has been consistently plummeting for a decade now, and currently clocks in at just half its 2008 tally:

Surprising, but for the first time in years, the number of Swedish krona banknotes in circulation is growing.

Has Sweden's push to become a cashless society come to an end? pic.twitter.com/T6l1q40Ssu

— JP Koning (@jp_koning) November 6, 2018

Even Norway, which has probably proceeded further along the path of digital payments than Sweden, has experienced only a small decline in notes outstanding, nothing akin to Sweden's white-knuckled collapse. The key question is this: why have most developed nations experienced digital payments renaissances along with stability in cash demand, whereas Sweden's own renaissance has been twinned with a seismic drop in cash demand?

The answer to the question is important. Many commentators (including Ken Rogoff) are convinced that the rest of the world's nations will eventually find themselves in the same situation as Sweden. The allure of digital payments will inevitably lead to an all-out Swedish-style desertion of cash.

I'm not convinced. As I mentioned at the outset of this post, the Riksbank shot itself in the foot by carrying out an aggressive currency swap between 2012-2017. This swap did incredible damage to the paper kronor "user experience", or UX. In response, discouraged Swedes fled from cash and substituted into less awkward alternatives like bank deposits. Let's take a closer look at Sweden's 'great note switch'.

The 'great' note switch

Every decade or two central banks will roll out new banknotes with updated designs and anti-counterfeiting measures. This is good policy since it cuts down on fake notes. These switches are generally carried out in a way that ensures that the public's user experience with cash remains a good one throughout. The best way to maintain cash's UX during a changeover period is to allow for long, or indefinite periods of concurrent circulation between old and new notes. Concurrent circulation cuts down on confusion and hassle endured by note users.

Let me explain with an example. Up here in Canada, the Bank of Canada introduced polymer banknotes between 2011 and 2013. But no time frame was placed on the demonetization, or cancellation, of previous paper $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 notes. Since we all knew from the get-go that we would be free to spend or deposit old Canadian banknotes whenever we got around to it, we didn't have to go through the hassle of rounding up old notes stored under our mattresses and bringing them in for new ones. Apart from the novelty of polymer notes, we hardly noticed the switch to polymer.

Not so with Sweden's rollout of new banknotes. Rather than allowing for a long period of concurrent circulation between old and new notes, the Riksbank announced a shot-gun one-year conversion window for legacy notes. After that point, all old notes would be declared invalid.

For instance, the new 20, 50, and 1000-krona notes were all introduced on October 1, 2015. Swedes had until June 30, 2016—a mere 273 days later—to spend the old notes at retail outlets, after which it was prohibited for retailers accept old notes. If they had missed that window, the Swedish public then had another 62 days—till August 31—to deposit them in banks. After that, all old 20, 50, and 1000 notes would invalid. Owners of invalid banknotes could bring them to the Riksbank, fill out a form explaining why the due date had been ignored, and for a fee get valid ones.

The same shot-gun approach characterized the rollout of the new 100 and 500 the following year. Swedes had 273-days to spend old 100 and 500-krona notes, and another 365 days to deposit them at banks.

I've pasted the time frame for the entire conversion below:

Source: Riksbank

The October 2015 and 2016 switches were preceded by a preparatory demonetization in 2012. At the time, Sweden had two types of 1000-krona note in circulation. The version that had been introduced in 2006 had a special foil strip to combat counterfeiters, but the 1989 version did not. In November 2012 the Riksbank announced that Swedes would have 418 days—till Dec 31, 2013—to use old 1000 notes without foil strips. After that date the notes would be invalid.  

That outlines Sweden's hectic changeover timeline. Now, let's go back to 2012 and put ourselves in the shoes of Hakan, a Swede who has stashed a few 1000-krona banknotes in anticipation of emergencies or other exigencies. In 2012, Hakan would have learnt that all of his 1000-krona notes without foil strips would have to be replaced or declared invalid.

How to deal with this annoyance? Hakan could have replaced them with 1000-krona notes with foil strips, but the Riksbank had also communicated that notes with strips were to be invalidated by 2016. Replacing them with 500 notes would be equally inconvenient, since these were scheduled to be replaced in 2017. Rather than committing himself to a string of inconvenient switches, Hakan may have simply given up and deposited his notes in a bank.

Below I've charted the evolution of Sweden's notes-in-circulation by denomination:

Note the massive 50% decline in 1000-krona notes outstanding between the end of 2012 and 2013. Granted, the 1000-krona was already in decline prior to then. But without the aggressive 2012-13 demonetization, this decline would have been much less precipitous.

Even more glaring is the drop in the number of 500-krona notes beginning in 2015 as the conversion period approached. Rather than swapping old 500-krona notes for new ones, or 1000-krona notes, Swedes instead choose to deposit them in the bank. After enduring a stream of inconvenient note exchanges, were cash users like Hakan simply sick of their product expiring on them? 

A natural experiment: Norway v Sweden

Neighbouring Norway serves as a good control or benchmark for studying Sweden. Both nations have similar tastes for digital payments and cash, identical banknote denomination structures, and their currencies trade close to par. But unlike Sweden, Norway did not implement a massive note replacement effort. This gives us some clues into how Sweden's switch may have affected demand for the paper kronor.

Below I've separately charted the evolution in the value of each nation's stock of 500 and 1000 notes, and the combined large denomination note stock (1000s + 500s).

During the 2015-2017 changeover period, demand for Sweden's 500-krona note plummeted, but uptake of the Norway's 500-krone note continued to grow nicely (first chart). The aggressive demonetization of 2012-13 coincided with a big drop in the quantity of Swedish 1000-krona notes. Meanwhile, the rate of decline in the quantity of Norwegian 1000-krone notes continued as before (second chart). What message do I take from these two charts? Given two otherwise equal nations, the one that subjects its citizens to an aggressive note swap will experience a large decline in the popularity of the targeted note.

As for the last chart, the total value of Swedish high denomination banknotes was once twice that of Norway's count. But it is now equal to that of Norway, despite the fact that Sweden has twice the population. My guess is that if the Riksbank hadn't inflicted a series of aggressive demonetizations on Swedes, folks like Hakan could have blissfully ignored the entire changeover, and Sweden would still have a much bigger note count than Norway. The black dotted line gives a hint of where Sweden might be now if the pre-changeover trend in kronor banknote demand had continued.

Why did the Riksbank betray the Swedish public?

Why didn't the Riksbank adopt the same policy as the Bank of Canada during its own massive note switch? In the charts above its quite easy to point out when the 500-krona and 1000-krona notes were replaced. But try spotting when Canada switched from paper to polymer banknotes:

You can't, because it was a gentle switch, one that didn't hurt cash's UX.

Patriotic Swedes might counter that Sweden isn't Canada, it has its own way of doing things. But during previous Swedish note introductions, long windows of concurrent circulation were the standard. For instance, when the 1000-krona note that was printed from 1952-1973 was replaced by a new 1000 note in 1976, the legacy note remained valid for more than ten years after that, until Dec 31, 1987. And when the next series of 1000-krona notes was rolled out in 1989, the legacy note was accepted until December 1998. Long windows, not short ones, is the Swedish tradition.

A March 2018 report from the Riksbank entitled Banknote and coin changeover in Sweden: Summary and evaluation gives some insights into why a shot-gun switch was chosen instead of a user-friendly approach. Very early on the process, the Riksbank began to consult with firms involved in the movement of cash including the BDB Bankernas Depå AB (a bank-owned cash depot operator), the Swedish Bankers’ Association, the larger banks, ATM operators, and others. One of the questions that was discussed was how long the old banknotes should remain valid. In April 2012, these market participants submitted their preferred timetable for the changeover. One of their preferences was for:

"...the old banknotes and coins to become invalid after a relatively short period so that they could avoid having to manage double versions of the banknotes and coins for an extended period."

These same market participants also requested that the Riksbank demonetize the old 1000-krona notes without foil strips. Removal of this older series meant one less version to manage once the new 1000-krona note was debuted in 2015. Market participants also hoped that the old banknotes wouldn't be exchanged for new ones, thus reducing the total amount in circulation. If you are wondering why bankers might want fewer banknotes outstanding, go read my 'conflict of interest' section a few paragraphs below. 

The timetable that ended up being adopted by the Riksbank in May 2012 was basically the same one proposed by industry. So there you go. The Riksbank introduced a shot-gun approach because that's what Swedish bankers wanted. But in designing the changeover to be convenient for banks, the Riksbank threw the Swedish public under the bus. Nor was it unaware of the inconvenience it was imposing on Swedes. According to the March 2018 report:

"The Riksbank was aware that the timetable would lead to complications for the general public in that there would be a number of different dates to keep track of. The need for information activities would be increased. However, the Riksbank considered that the interests of the cash market were more important..."

Now, if the Riksbank had justified the shot-gun switch as a way to flush tax cheats out, I might be more sympathetic. At least an argument could be made that the public's welfare was being served by imposing a series of inconveniences on them. But as the above quote indicates, the motivations for quickly invalidating old notes was much less nuanced than this. The Riksbank deemed that the 'complications' that the general public had to endure simply weren't as important as the 'interests' of the banks. Full stop.

There is a huge conflict of interest involved in consulting with banks about cash's future. Sweden's bankers would have been quite pleased to provide the most awkward timetable imaginable. After all, they would have been the main beneficiaries. The more Swedes who forsake cash to pay with cards, the more fees banks earn. Furthermore, each kronor that is held in the form of cash is a kronor that isn't held at a bank in the form of a deposit. Banks lust after consumer deposits because they are a low-cost source of funding. One wonders if the Riksbank fully understood this conflict of interest.

Notes for the future

The decline in the kronor count has finally been reversed. In the tweet I embedded above, the amount of paper kronor in circulation rose in 2018, the first increase in many years. The impositions on the the kronor's UX over the last five years are finally drawing to a close. Now that they no longer have to worry about timetables and expiry dates, are Swedes like Hakan finally returning to the market?

The great irony is that the Riksbank, having caused a big chunk of the decline in 1000 and 500-krona note usage, is suddenly getting quite worried about this trend. Earlier this year, Riksbank governor Stefan Ingves lamented that

"There are those who think we have nothing to fear in a world where public means of payment have been replaced completely by private alternatives. They are wrong, in my opinion. In times of crisis, the general public has always sought refuge in risk-free assets, such as cash, that are guaranteed by the state. The idea of commercial agents shouldering the responsibility to satisfy public demand for safe payments at all times is unlikely."

The Riksbank may even roll out an e-Krona, a digital currency designed to meet Swede's desire for "continued access to a means of payment that is risk-free and guaranteed by the state." Odd that Ingves is now so concerned about Swedish access to a risk-free payments medium when he was so willing to ignore the interests of Swedish cash owners just a few years before.

Sweden will probably have to go through another note switch sometime in the late 2020s. I hope that when it comes, Swedish bankers will get a little bit less representation at the table and the Swedish public a bit more.

As for concerned citizens and central bankers in other countries that are planning to introduce new notes, we can all learn some lessons from Sweden's 2012-2017 changeover. Aggressive note switches may be good for private bankers, but they hurt cash-using citizens.  The long-window approach to note switches, not Sweden's shot-gun method, is the customer-friendly approach.

---

Dedicated to my favorite Swedish hockey player:

Christmas and cash

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my readers. And to everyone who left a comment this year, thank you. It's always fun to debate things over in the comments section and I feel it makes the blogs themselves stronger. Don't forget to check out the discussion board where we had a number of interesting discussions in 2018.

The last time I published my Christmas cash usage chart was in 2015. I figured it was high time to update it:

The annual Christmas spike in U.S. banknote demand is getting harder and harder to pick out in the chart. So are the monthly upticks coinciding with payrolls. Most people are getting pretty comfortable buying stuff with cards. And so they are less likely to take cash out of an ATM before the holiday chaos or withdraw grocery money after a paycheck has been deposited.

Even though transactional demand for dollars is on the downswing, the stock of Federal Reserve banknotes continues to grow at a healthy pace. The slope of the black line (i.e. its growth rate) may not be as steep as it was in the 1970s, 80s, or 90s, but it is certainly steeper than it was in the 2000s. It is typical to divide cash demand into two buckets. Cash held for transactional purposes gets folded into a wallet. Cash held for store-of-value purposes gets buried in back yards or hidden under mattresses. Continued growth in the demand for U.S. dollars is mostly due to the latter, not only in the U.S. but all over the world. 

Here is the same chart for Canada:

Both the Christmas bump and the sawtooth pattern arising from monthly payrolls are less noticeable than previous years. But these patterns remain more apparent for Canadian dollars than U.S. dollars. Not because Canadians like cash more than Americans. We don't, and are probably further along the path towards digital payments then they are. Rather, the percentage of U.S. dollars held overseas is much larger than Canadian dollars, so domestic usage of U.S. cash for transactions purposes gets blurred by all its other uses.

Like the demand for U.S. dollars, the demand for Canadian dollars is growing at a healthy rate. So far the slope of the black line (2016-2018) is a bit steeper (i.e. its growth rate is higherr) than all other periods except for the earliest one, 1987-1987. Paper Canadian dollars aren't going away anytime soon.

These were my top posts of 2018 by order of popularity:

Two notions of fungibility
Did Brexit break the banknote?
The €300 million cash withdrawal
"The Narrow Bank"
Bitcoin and the bubble theory of money

Two older posts got a lot of visitors too.

Ghost Money: Chile's Unidad de Fomento (2013)
Fedcoin (2014)

Who knew that Chile's strange indexed unit of account, the Unidad de Fomento, would be a draw?

My favorite post of the year was Paying interest on cash. I like this policy. It helps the lower-income and unbanked earn interest. It also provides a means for central bankers to promote cash usage, which in turn helps keep financial privacy alive. And economists should like it, since it fulfills the Friedman rule.  

For those of you who don't know, I've also been doing much more paid writing in 2018. Prior to that, blogging was more of a hobby. Here are the venues I've been writing for: Breaker, Bullionstar, and the Sound Money project. If you don't have much time to check out my articles, here are my favorites from each:

Bitcoin Is Perfect for Cross Border Payments (Except for One Big Problem) - Why I don't use bitcoin for getting paid.
The future of cash: Iceland vs Sweden - We always assume that Scandinavians are moving away from cash, but Iceland shows that this isn't the case.
Pricing the anonymity of banknotes - Should financial anonymity be provided in abundance, banned, or should we pay for it?

Lastly, R3 just published my paper on a central bank digital currency for Brazil.

My paper for @inside_r3 exploring the idea of a Brazilian central bank digital currency is up: https://t.co/2oHwE5AYNt pic.twitter.com/4jOp7Q3vQb

— JP Koning (@jp_koning) December 9, 2018

Many of the points I make apply just as well to any other country.

Bitcoin and the bubble theory of money

A few months ago Vijay Boyapati asked me to "steel-man" the bubble theory of money. The bubble theory of money, which can originally be found in a few old Moldbug posts, has been used by Vijay and others to explain the emergence of bitcoin and make predictions about its future.

So here is my attempt. I am using not only an article by Vijay as my source text, but also one by Koen Swinkels, a regular commenter on this blog. Both are interesting and smart posts, it's worth checking them out if you have the time.

Steel-manning the bubble theory of money and bitcoin

1. Unlike a stock or a bond, which is backed by productive assets, bitcoin cannot be valued using standard discounted cash flow analysis. And since it has no intrinsic uses, it can't be valued for its contribution to various manufacturing processes, nor for its consumption value. Rather, bitcoin is a bubble. Its price is driven by a speculative process whereby people buy bitcoins because they think that other people can be found who will pay an even higher price.

2. There is no reason why bitcoin must pop. At first, bitcoin will be bought by those on the fringe. As more people get in, the price of bitcoin will rise further. It will continue to be incredibly volatile along the way. But once bitcoin is widely held (and very valuable), the flow rate of incoming buyers will fall, and so will its volatility. At this point it has become a stable low-risk store of value. The eventual stabilization of bitcoin's price is a commonly held view among the bitcoin cognoscenti. For instance, bitcoin encyclopedia Andreas Antonopoulos has often said the same thing (i.e. "volatility really is an expression of size").

3. Once its price has stabilized, bitcoin can transition into being a widely used money, since people prefer stable money, not volatile money.

So having steel-manned the bubble theory of money as applied to bitcoin, where do I stand?

I agree with points 1 and 3. My beef is with the middle point.

Will a Keynesian beauty contest ever stabilize?

First off, let me point out that there are elements of the second argument that I agree with. Yes, bitcoin needn't pop, although my reasons for believing so are probably different from Koen and Vijay.  In the past, I used to think that a popping of the bitcoin bubble was inevitable. After all, as a faithful Warren Buffett disciple, I believed that the price of any asset eventually returns to its fundamental value, and bitcoin's is 0.

But the eternal popularity of zero-sum financial games, or gambles, has disabused me of this view. People are lured by the promise of winning big and changing their lives without having to do any work. Heck, even though a Las Vegas slot machine will take on average 8 cents from every $1 wager, people still flock to insert $1 bills into slots. And so they will play bitcoin too, which like a slot machine is also a zero-sum game.

But I digress. The key point I want to push back on is Vijay and Koen's assumption that bitcoin volatility will inevitably decline as it gets more mature. I'm going to accuse them of making a logical leap here.

If bitcoin is fundamentally a bubble, or—as Vijay describes it—if bitcoin's price is determined game-theoretically, then why would its price dynamics change if more people are playing? Almost a century ago, John Maynard Keynes described this sort of game as a beauty contest. Presented with a row of faces, a competitor has to choose the prettiest face as estimated by all other participants in the contest:

"...each competitor has to pick, not those faces which he himself finds prettiest, but those which he thinks likeliest to catch the fancy of the other competitors, all of whom are looking at the problem from the same point of view. It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practise the fourth, fifth and higher degrees."

Whether 100 people are participating in Keynes's beauty contest, or 10,000, the nature of the game has not changed—it is still an nth degree mind-game with no single solution. Since the game's underlying nature remains constant as the number of participants grows, its pricing dynamics—in particular its volatility—should not be affected.

The stabilization of Amazon

We can think about this differently by using actual examples. I know of an asset that has become less volatile as it has gotten bigger: Amazon. See a chart below of its share price and volatility over time:

Why has Amazon stabilized, and will bitcoin do the same? When Amazon shares debuted back in 1997, earnings were non-existent. Jeff Bezos had little more than a hazy business plan. Since then the stock price has steadily moved higher while median volatility has declined. Amazon shareholders used to experience day-to-day price changes on the order of 2.5-4.5% in the early 2000s. By the early 2010s, this had fallen to 1-2% or so. Over the past several years, volatility has typically registered between 0.5-1%.

I'd argue that the stabilization of Amazon hasn't been driven by a larger market cap and/or growing trading volumes. Under the hood, something fundamental has changed. The company's business has matured and earnings have become much more stable and predictable. And so has its stock price, which is just a reflection of these fundamentals.

I've just told a reasonable story about why a particular asset has become less volatile over time. But it involves earnings and fundamentals, two things that bitcoin doesn't have. I'm not aware why a Keynesian beauty contest, which lacks these features, necessarily gets less volatile as more people join the guessing game.

Vijay and Koen draw an analogy between gold and bitcoin. Their claim is that if gold once transitioned from being a volatile collectible into a low-risk store of value, then so can bitcoin. But we really don't have a good dataset for the price of the yellow metal, so we really have no idea how its volatility changed over time. Going back to 1969—admittedly far too short a time-frame—gold has certainly increased in size (i.e. the total market value of above-ground gold has increased), but unlike Amazon there is no evidence of a general decline in price volatility:

I'd argue that in gold's case a lack of a correlation between size and volatility makes sense. A large portion of gold's daily price changes can be explained by speculators engaging in a Keynesian beauty contest, not changes in industrial demand or earnings (unlike Amazon shares, gold doesn't generate income). There's no good reason to expect that the volatility generated by gold speculators' beliefs should level off as participation in the "gold game" grows. Any game in which speculators base their bets on what they expect tomorrow's speculator to do, who in turn are guessing about potential bets made by next week's speculators, who in turn form expectations about the choices made by next month's players, is unlikely to converge to a stable answer for very long.

Will Proof of Weak Hands 3D tokens ever become money?

As a third example, let's take Proof of Weak Hands 3D (PoWH3D), an Ethereum dapp that I've blogged about a few times. PoWH3D is a self-proclaimed ponzi game. Basically, a player purchases game tokens, or P3D tokens, with ether. Each player's ether contribution goes into the pot, or the PoWH3D smart contract, less a 10% entrance fee which is distributed pro-rata to all existing P3D token holders. When a player wants to exit the game, their tokens are sold for an appropriate amount of ether held in the pot, less another 10% that is distributed to all remaining players.

So if a new player spends one ether (ETH) on some P3D tokens only to sell those tokens an instant later, they'll end up with just 0.81 ETH, the first 0.1 ETH having been paid to everyone else upon the new player's entrance, the other 0.09 being deducted upon their exit. Why would a new player take such a bad bet? Only if they believe that a sufficient number of latecomers will join the game such that they'll get enough entrance and exit income to compensate them for the 0.19 ETH they have already given up.

PoWH3D is a pure Keynesian beauty contest. A new entrant's expectations are a function of whether they believe latecomers will join, but latecomers' expectations are in turn a function of whether they believe yet another wave of even greater fools will pile in, etc, etc.

Applying Koen and Vijay's assumption that volatility decreases with adoption, then the return on P3D tokens should become less volatile as more people join. It might even transition into a stable investment, say like a blue chip utility stock. Who knows, it could even become a medium of exchange to rival the dollar. But surely Koen and Vijay don't want to walk out on a limb and argue that a pure ponzi game like PoWH3D will ever stabilize. Or that it might become a form of money. I think the most reasonable thing we can say about PoWH3D is that once a ponzi game, always a ponzi game. The volatility of its returns will not decline as the game grows, and that's because the game's fundamentals, its ponzi nature, doesn't vary with size. (If you are interested in PoWH3D, here are some great charts and stats).

At this point, it may be useful to map out a chart of bitcoin's 200-day median volatility. As in the case of Amazon and gold, I use the median rather than the average to screen for outliers:

new Bitcoin volatility chart from @jp_koning

based on the 200-day rolling median daily price change: pic.twitter.com/U3zfHPQsVd

— Tim Swanson (@ofnumbers) August 20, 2018

I haven't updated the chart for two months, but volatility has declined since then. Vijay and Koen will probably say that as of October 2018 bitcoin is less volatile than it was in 2011. That's certainly true. But eyeballing the chart, we certainly don't get the same clean relationship between size and volatility as we do with the Amazon chart.

Here's the biggest oddity. By December 2017 bitcoin had reached a market cap of $300 billion, its highest value to date. If Vijay and Koen are right, peak size should have corresponded with trough volatility. But this wasn't the case. In late 2017, bitcoin volatility was actually quite high. In fact, it exceeded levels set in late 2013, back when bitcoin was still a tiny $3 billion pup! The lesson here is that with bitcoin, bigger is just as likely to correspond with more volatility as it is with less volatility. More broadly, when it comes to Keynesian beauty contests there seems to be no fixed relationship between volatility and size. It's chaos all the way down.

This leads into Koen and Vijay's final point, that once bitcoin's price has stabilized, it can transition into a widely used money. I agree with the underlying premise that only stable instruments will become accepted by the public as media of exchange. But since I don't see any reason for bitcoin to stabilize, I don't see how it will make the leap from a speculative instrument to a popular means of paying people.

Bitcoin isn't on the verge of going mainstream. It's already there.

Vijay's message (Koen's not so much) can be taken as investment advice. Because if he is right, and bitcoin has yet to progress to a popular store of value and finally a medium of exchange, then we are still in the first innings of bitcoin's development. Vijay points to what he thinks are the features that will make bitcoin win out against other popular stable assets, including portability, verifiability, and divisibility.  Given that only the “early majority” has adopted bitcoin (the late majority and laggards still being far behind), Vijay thinks it would be reasonable for the price of bitcoin to hit $20,000 to $50,000 on its next cycle, and hints at an eventual price of $380,000, the same market value of all gold ever mined. So buying bitcoin now at $6,000 could provide incredible returns.

I have different views. Whereas Vijay thinks bitcoin has yet to go mainstream, I think that bitcoin went mainstream a long time ago, probably by late 2013. Bitcoin is often portrayed (wrongly) as a payments system-in-the-waiting, and thus gets unfairly compared to Visa and other successful payments systems. Given this setup, cryptocurrencies seems to be perpetually on the cusp of breaking out as a mainstream payments option. But bitcoin's true role has already emerged. Bitcoin is a successful decentralized gambling machine, an incredibly fun censorship-resistant Keynesian beauty contest.

Viewed this way, bitcoin's main competitors were never the credit card networks, Citigroup, Western Union, or Federal Reserve banknotes, but online gambling sites like Poker Stars, sports betting venues like Betfair, bricks & mortar casinos in Vegas, and lotteries like Powerball. By late 2013, bitcoin was at least as popular as some of the most popular casino games, say baccarat or roulette. It had hit the big leagues.

Whereas Vijay hints at a much higher price, where do I see the price of bitcoin going? I haven't a clue. But if I had to give some advice to readers, I suppose it would be this. Like poker or slots, remember that bitcoin is a zero-sum financial game (For more, see my Breaker article here). You wouldn't bet a large part of your wealth in a slot machine, would you? You probably shouldn't bet too much with bitcoin either. Vijay could be right about bitcoin hitting $380,000. It could hit $3.80 too. But if it does go to the moon, it will do so for the same reason that a slot machine pays off big.

It's worth keeping in mind that when it comes to gambling, the house always wins. Searching around for the lowest gambling fees probably makes sense. As I said earlier, Las Vegas slots will extract as much as 8 cents per dollar. Lotteries are even worse.

In bitcoin's case, the "house" is made up of the collection of miners that maintain the bitcoin system. All bitcoin owners must collectively pay these miners 12.5 bitcoins every 10 minutes to keep things up and running. So if you hold one bitcoin and its market value is $6000, you will be paying around 62 cents per day in fees, or $230 per year. That works out to a yearly management expense ratio of 3.8%. Beware, this number doesn't include the commissions that the exchanges charge you for buying and selling.

So before you start gambling, consider first whether the benefits of decentralization are worth 3.8% per year. If not, find a centralized gambling alternative. If the costs of decentralization are worth it, then buy some bitcoin, and good luck! But play responsibly, please.