Toggle light / dark theme

Bitcoin Adoption: Series of reactions

What is Bitcoin?

Sure—You know the history. As it spread from the geeky crypto community, Bitcoin sparked investor frenzy. Its “value” was driven by the confidence of early adopters that they hitched a ride on an early train, rather than commercial adoption. But, just like those zealous investors, you realize that it may ultimately reduce the costs of online commerce, if and when if it becomes widely accepted.

But what is Bitcoin, really? To what class of instruments does it belong?

• Ardent detractors see a sham: A pyramid scheme with no durable value; a house of cards waiting to tumble. This is the position of J.D, an IRS auditor who consults to The Cryptocurrency Standards Association. As devil’s advocate, he keeps us grounded.

• This week, MasterCard was only slightly less dour. They claim that the distributed nature of Bitcoin will ultimately cause it to unravel. They want us to believe in the necessity of a trusted authority as broker/guarantor/arbiter. I get it! After all, the block chain is a serious threat to the legacy model for moving money

• Many people recognize that it can be a useful transaction medium—similar to a prepaid gift card, but with a few added kicks: Decentralized, low cost and private.

• Or is it an equity asset, traded by a community of speculative investors, and subject to bubble psychology? If so, do the wild swings in its exchange rate diminish its potential to be used as a payment mechanism?

• Full-fledged ehthusiasts say that Bitcoin has the potential to be a full-fledged currency with a “real value” that floats based on supply and demand. Can something that lacks intrinsic value or the backing of a bank or government replace national currency?

Regardless of your opinion about Bitcoin, it does one thing that few pundits dispute: Sure, the exchange value fluctuates—but for those who don’t plan to retain holdings as an asset, it reduces transaction costs to —nearly zero. This characteristic, alone, is a dramatic breakthrough.

Peering Into the Future?

Removing friction is certainly what it is all about. As a transaction medium, Bitcoin achieves this, but so does any debit instrument, or any account in which a buyer has retained house “credit”.

Bitcoin_pullback-sCurrently, there is a high bar to get money exchanged into and out of Bitcoin. It’s a mess: costly, time consuming and a big hassle. Seriously! Have you tried using an exchange? Even the most trusted one (Coinbase of San Francisco) makes it incredibly difficult to get money in and out of BTC, prior to establishing your account, identity and banking history. Fortunately, this situation is gradually improving.

Where Bitcoin really shines (or more accurately, when it will shine), occurs at the time when more vendors choose to leave revenues in BTC, pending their own purchases from suppliers, shareholder payouts, or simply as retained savings.

When this happens, all sorts of good things will follow…

• A growing fraction of sellers leave their bitcoin in their wallets, realizing that they will need to spend it for their own labor and materials.

• Gradually, wild exchange-rate gyrations diminish—not because fewer people are exchanging money, but because the Bitcoin supply/demand value is driven more by actual commerce than it is by speculation.

• Sellers begin pricing merchandise in Bitcoin rather than national currencies—because they are less anxious to exchange out of BTC immediately after each sale.

When sellers begin letting a fraction of bitcoin revenues ride—and as they begin pricing goods and services in BTC—a phenomenon will follow. I call it the tipping point…

• If goods and services are priced in BTC, then everyone involved saves money and engages in transactions more efficiently.

• If goods and services are priced in BTC, then the public will begin to perceive exchange rate volatility as a changing dollar rather than a changing bitcoin.*

• If buyers also begin to save their BTC (i.e. they do not worry about immediately moving it back to national currency), it means that Bitcoin is being perceived as a stored value—not just an exchange chit. That may seem to be a subtle footnote, but the ramifications are earth shaking. That earthquake is the world gradually moving away from centralized treasury-issued bank notes and toward a unified and currency that we can all trust.

People, everywhere, will one day place their trust in a far more robust and trustworthy mechanism than paper promissory notes printed by regional governments. A brilliantly crafted mechanism that is fully distributed, p2p, transaction verified (yet private), has a capped supply and is secure.

What Then?

O.K. So we believe that Bitcoin is the future of money and not just a replacement for credit cards. But what does this really mean? Can the series of cause-and-effect be extrapolated beyond widespread user adoption? Absolutely! …

Adoption of Bitcoin as a stored value (that means as a currency) leads to the gradual realization among governments that Bitcoin is not a threat to sovereignty nor even to tax policy. Instead it presents unbounded opportunity: The opportunity to stabilize markets, eliminate inflation, reduce costs and restore public trust. In short, Bitcoin will ultimately level the playing field, revive entire economies, transform the role of government, and save consumers and businesses billions of dollars each year.

Did I mention that Bitcoin is the future of commerce and a very possible successor to legacy currencies? Aristotle must be smiling.

* We tend to think of the dollar as more ‘real’ than Bitcoin. It is not! It has only one advantage. At the end of the day, taxpayers must settle their debts in the currency demanded of their nation. But as Bitcoin adoption gains traction—even if only as a transmitting medium—fiat currencies will gradually become marginalized as play money. That’s because they are susceptible to inflation, politics and manipulation. Bitcoin is held to a higher standard. It is governed by pure math. Despite high-profile news of the day, Bitcoin will even become more resistant to loss and theft than dollars, once tools and practices become well established.

Uncle Sam can lease the US Treasury building to pay off debt brought about by inflation
Uncle Sam can lease the US Treasury building to pay off debt brought about by inflation

Philip Raymond is Co-Chair of The Cryptocurrency Standards Association. He advises banks on new
age currency. Raymond was master of ceremonies and 1st speaker at The Bitcoin Event in New York.

Related:

Meet the New Generation of Robots for Manufacturing — James Hagerty | Wall Street Journal

“Another big trend at work: The Renault robots are ‘collaborative,’ designed to work in proximity to people. Older types of factory robots swing their steel arms with such force that they can bludgeon anyone who strays too close. Using sonar, cameras or other technologies, collaborative robots can sense where people are and slow down or stop to avoid hurting them.” Read more

Exponential Finance: Financial Advice In the Age of AI and Long Life — By Jason Dorrier SingularityHub

Ric Edelman is one the top financial advisors in the US. His firm, Edelman Financial Services, has 41 offices across the country. And he thinks, all things constant, most financial advisors as we’ve known them won’t be around much longer.

At Exponential Finance, Edelman said, “I firmly believe that in the next ten years, half of all the financial advisors in this country will be gone.” Read more

A New York State of Megabits — Susan Crawford | Backchannel

So it was great to get back to New York and be able to report on what is called the“New NY Broadband Program.” It involves a $500 million expenditure to help ensure that New Yorkers across the state have access to current-generation Internet capacity. There’s lots of potential in the plan, targeted at providing every New Yorker with access to 100 megabit per second (Mbps) service (10 Mbps uploads) by the end of 2018. Because New York expects a 1:1 match from the private sector for each grant or loan it makes, that means the state hopes to be deploying at least $1 billion on high-speed Internet access infrastructure.

Read more

The Arctic’s Internet Is So Expensive That People Mail the Web on USB Drives — Via Motherboard

“Canada’s domestic digital divide, with the North as its epicenter, has been a point of growing concern over the last several years. Much of the internet in the northernmost regions of the country is still beamed down by satellites, but a plan to link Europe and Asia with fiber optic cable via Nunavut is currently being negotiated by a Toronto-based company called Arctic Fibre.”

Read more

New York State Governor Cuomo Announces Living Breakwaters Project Launch via bfi.org

https://vimeo.com/91648619

“Living Breakwaters is a comprehensive design for coastal resiliency along the Northeastern Seaboard of the United States and beyond. This approach to climate change adaptation and flood mitigation includes the deployment of innovative, layered ecologically-engineered breakwaters, the strengthening of biodiversity and coastal habitats through “reef streets”, the nurturing and resuscitation of fisheries and historic livelihoods, and deep community engagement through diverse partnerships and innovative educational programs. The transformative educational dimension amplifies impact to the next generation of shoreline stewards while leveraging the expertise of the members of the SCAPE Architecture team, who are making groundbreaking inroads into state and federal agencies, setting new precedents for multi-layered and systemic approaches to infrastructure planning.”

LINK: Governor Cuomo Announces Living Breakwaters Project Launch

Increase Gas Tax as Cartel Price Rises

It’s been awhile since the cost of gasoline topped $4 in the U.S. The national average hit $4.11 on July 11, 2008 and came close in May 2011 at $3.96. On New Years Day 2015, I drove through the night from Chicago to Boston. Despite the cold weather, the economics of fuel made it the best day for a road trip in years. I bought gas at a Pilot service station just off the Ohio Turnpike at $1.92/gallon. For me, it seemed like a bargain. Yet, 23 states charge less for gasoline than Ohio.

Now, at the end of May 2015, gas is rebounding from that low. Drivers on Memorial Day weekend faced the highest cost for gasoline of the year so far.

It’s tempting for politicians to advocate using tax breaks to smooth price spikes. With energy often surpassing the expense of food and rent and with so many individuals using fuel to make a living, reducing user fees or taxes during periods of very high fuel cost seems like the humane thing to do.

It seems humane, but it has the opposite effect. In fact, it is deeply punitive! That’s because the cost of gas is not an act of nature, nor even of free market economics. It is a product of cartels, special interests, conflict and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Offering relief during price spikes sustains demand while doing absolutely nothing to increase supply. This, in turn, exacerbates the spike, creates shortages for critical services and transfers enormous sums of money from consumers to producers. In effect, it is a free gift for producer nations.

In fact, consumers and consuming nations are best served by a raising taxes in lockstep with fuel price increases.

In May 2011, as gas prices were spiking to an all time high, a group calling itself National Taxpayers Union or NTU launched a $1.25 million campaign to fight energy taxes, like the fuel tax added to the cost of gasoline at the pump in most countries.* One of the group’s less controversial public service announcements (or more accurately, a lobbying effort) consist of magazine ads and videos that encourage Americans to write their legislators and demand a roll back of gas taxes whenever market prices spike.

In supplier controlled markets, consumers can contain costs by magnifying spikes.
In supplier controlled markets, consumers can contain costs by magnifying spikes.

I hate consumption taxes, especially the ones that target individual commodities or categories, such as alcohol, cigarettes, luxury purchases, or any system of import tariffs. They are a form of social engineering and they bastardize free markets. But when an energy consumer nation gives consumers breaks during periods of price spikes, the result counters the social intent. In fact, each time that oil prices rise, the best thing our government can do is to force them higher still! This may sound crazy, but when the supply of a commodity is controlled a few foreign cartels, it is no longer a commodity. Artificially lowering the consumer price by subsidizing the price simply stimulates consumption. It does not expand supply, and so the subsidy goes directly into suppliers’ pockets.

Apparently, I am not the only one who thinks that lower gas prices is a bad idea. Folling the 2011 gas spike (the highest cost gas spike in U.S. history), Motley Fool columnist, Travis Hoium filed an Op-Ed entitled, 3 Reasons the US Should Want Higher Oil Prices. (At the same time, I cautioned against tax relief tied to gasoline price hikes). His analysis and opinion is articulate and adequately supported, but none of his reasons point to the fundamental economic reason that for a country that aspires to energy independence, oil should be taxed higher whenever the market cost of externally sourced oil rises. Let me spell it out…

What happens if we lower the cost of a commodity to consumers in an effort to counteract a higher supply price? It doesn’t take an Economist to analyze. Since the supply is not increased, throwing a subsidy to the buyers “fuels” an even faster rise in prices and hands all that money to the supplier.

Let’s say that C = Amount of fuel needed for critical purposes
…getting to work, heating our home, manufacturing
Let’s say that D = Amount of fuel needed for discretionary purposes
…vacation travel, backyard BBQ, mowing the lawn, etc

Of course, with a limited personal budget, high fuel prices influence a consumer’s decision to classify an activity as ‘critical’ or ‘discretionary’. Additionally, the use of fuel is greatly affected by how efficiently you perform a task (taking a train to work instead of driving, vacationing nearby instead of far away, etc).

Foreign cartels wish to maintain high prices and high revenue, so they limit the foreign supply of oil. For them, it makes more sense to charge a lot of money for less product than to charge less money for a lot of product. If we consider again our classification of consumption into two categories, Critical and Discretionary, the supplier limits leave us with only enough fuel to support this much activity:

100%C + 80%(D)

Now if we counteract their production limits and insulate consumers from the higher cost, the formula doesn’t change. We continue to use just as much fuel.

In a free market, limited supply causes prices to rise and this forces consumers to cut back on discretionary use. Some consumers with less money must cut back on critical needs. That’s because some people can afford the keep buying and of course the cost of fuel rises.

In a free market — at least on our side of the ocean, this normally leads to several things — all of them very good:

• Increase exploration and domestic production (Motley Fool covers this one)
• Develop alternative fuels, especially domestic and environmentally friendly
• Increase conservation:

  • Reduce travel
  • Turn off unnecessary appliances
  • Turn down heat, insulating home or office

• Change modalities:

  • Carpool or use public transportation
  • Reclassify some “Critical” uses as “Discretionary”
  • Buy local (reduces wholesale transportation)
  • Switch electric providers to avoid foreign sources

If consumers are suddenly subsidized when the cost of fuel rises, something terrible happens. Instead of producing more domestic energy, we are not at all affecting the supply. We are simply handing the foreign seller more cash — directly from the taxpayer to their pockets. And they didn’t even ask for it! They raise the cost by $1 per gallon and we give them $2 extra. Heck, why not? It makes us feel good.

What happens if we increase taxes when suppliers raise prices? First, we benefit by all the good things listed above.

Second, since some foreign suppliers are not truly constrained in their production (that is, they have plenty of oil), they will keep costs low in order to sustain revenue. There are plenty of places this “cost reduction” tax can be inserted: at point-of-sale, at import, or in the distribution chain.

What do we do with the money that is raised by taxes? That’s easy too. Give it back to consumers or use it to fund the development of energy sources that are domestic, inexpensive and environmentally safe.

This is how supply and demand should work. Of course, the government can still subsidize those in need. But do it in a way that doesn’t bastardize market dynamics. As a society, we provide assistance to the consumers who cannot afford energy for critical needs, and not by handing money to the supplier (effectively, a reward for cutting production). In this way, we reduce consumption, increase domestic production and provide direct assistance to those who are less fortunate. The effect of subsidizing some buyers will force some other buyers to reduce discretionary use. For example, if some of the higher cost went to taxes, it could be used to help ease the consumers who can no longer afford the “critical” fraction of their use.
_____________
* Americans are taxed for automotive fuel at the pump: A federal tax of 18.4¢ plus a state tax that varies between 12~35¢. The average state tax is about 23¢/gal, so the typical American pays about 41½¢ tax on each gallon, or approximately 10%.

Philip Raymond is Co-Chair of The Cryptocurrency Standards Association and CEO of Vanquish Labs.
An earlier draft of this article was published in his Blog.