The meaning of the word "stabilize" isn't clear from the article, despite being used 12 times in the body and once in the title.
It would have been easy to make the article more clear. Simply explain what aspect of Bitcoin is supposed to stabilize.
Given the unending fascination with the USD/BTC exchange rate, it can be assumed that the author is referring to this metric. The inclusion of the heading "Does the price of Bitcoin have a Nash equilibrium?" also supports this idea.
However, if this is the case, why does the author include the following quote the middle of the article:
Why has Amazon stabilized, and will bitcoin do the same? When Amazon shares debuted back in 1997, earnings were non-existent. […]
As you can see, it's a concave-upward curve, punctuated by various declines, all the way back to 2003.
This may sound like hair-splitting, but I think there's a real possibility the author is actually talking about USD/BTC exchange rate volatility. This is an animal of a completely different stripe.
I would say that stability refers to purchasing power, and doesn't need to be a flat line. It can also be a simple math function (liner, logarithmic, exponential) which means that it is somewhat predictable. (Edit: I think a better word than "stable" may be "dependable", which is probably what the article meant).
For example, the US Dollar loses purchasing power over time, but that is OK, since it is mostly at a predictable rate. But when something has wild swings up and down, and random times, then it is less suitable to either use as a currency (the stock person with the price gun will be working overtime correcting prices on everything several times a day), and it isn't that good of a store of value if there isn't any reason for it to not lose all of its value over a given period of time.
The Amazon graph you linked to does look fairly stable, a nice exponential function that has very good reasons to remain so for a good period of time (not saying this or anything else is guaranteed, but at least there is something tangible behind that price).
So the article concludes that Bitcoin can gain stability by being anchored to the price of gold. However isn't gold a "Keynesian Beauty Contest"? That is, gold is valuable because other people believe other people believe it is a store of value.
Gold has a 3000+ year track record of being a store of value. Yes, people worldwide could decide that gold was just a fad that we've moved past. But I'd regard it as a pretty safe bet that they won't, at least not in my lifetime. Gold may be a Keynesian Beauty Contest, but it's been winning for long enough that it's almost in a different category by now.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, is still firmly in KBC territory.
Bitcoin doesn't need to stabilize to be successful. In the same way that the exchange rate of the hyperinflating German Mark and gold didn't need to stabilize. All bitcoin needs to do is continue to operate with it's programmed monetary policy such that its value can't be inflated away through coercion.
Money is a commodity whose goal is to transport value through space and time. We are living through -- in human-species scale -- a brief 90-year experiment in the artificial elimination of a free market of monies by violence of the state (until bitcoin was invented).
Artificially increasing and decreasing the supply of money in an economy has about just as much utility as artificially increasing and decreasing the supply of any other good -- which is none.
Bitcoin's success narrative doesn't depend on the amount of non-scarce dollars the market is willing to trade for it ceasing to change ('stabilize'). The success narrative is: an increasing set of people understanding that the hardest money always wins. Bitcoin is one halvening away from being harder than gold and is _the_ hardest money ever in existance. Those who have taken exposure to bitcoin will have more wealth preserved than those who denominate their value in inflatable dollars. As more people see bitcoin improving the quality of life of individuals they also take exposure to bitcoin. This process doesn't need a planner nor intelligent agents, it just needs bricolage.
Thank you for posting this. Not surprising to see you getting downvoted to oblivion here, but this is something that people really need to keep an open mind about.
The data in that "model" appears to stop before the end of 2014. The last year of Bitcoin price breaks that "model". I'm also using scare quotes because those kind of "models" should be scary because they're misleading at best.
This comparision is empty because anything exchange into the same results with the same. in other words: nobody exachange dollar into dollar unless they are not sound-minded.
Fiat currency is at its best second degree KBC because other countries decide on accepting or rejecting US economical indicators by temporarily betting on their short term future and set currency exchange point for the next 24 hours or so. Nobody buys US dollar because american flag is pretty or english is second broadest language in the world or some other “pretty face” indicator, as currency exhange dollar versus everything for the last 25 years clearly shows USD strenghtening +500% and weakening even 50% all the time.
No, Feds do not decide on this beauty contest. May be suprise to you but only 20% of printed dollar remains in usa. 80% is being shipped out for all sorts of purposes such as balancing countries oil wallets (aka petrodolar) to aiding other countries ending on fact that many countries prefer intra-use of greenbacks to its own currency. So Feds at its best control pretty face of dollar on its local playground aka USA, but in reality they dont because again dollar strength comes from evonomical indicators, not from how much feds prints.
apo|7 years ago
It would have been easy to make the article more clear. Simply explain what aspect of Bitcoin is supposed to stabilize.
Given the unending fascination with the USD/BTC exchange rate, it can be assumed that the author is referring to this metric. The inclusion of the heading "Does the price of Bitcoin have a Nash equilibrium?" also supports this idea.
However, if this is the case, why does the author include the following quote the middle of the article:
Why has Amazon stabilized, and will bitcoin do the same? When Amazon shares debuted back in 1997, earnings were non-existent. […]
The USD price of AMZN has in no way stabilized:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?s...
As you can see, it's a concave-upward curve, punctuated by various declines, all the way back to 2003.
This may sound like hair-splitting, but I think there's a real possibility the author is actually talking about USD/BTC exchange rate volatility. This is an animal of a completely different stripe.
derekp7|7 years ago
For example, the US Dollar loses purchasing power over time, but that is OK, since it is mostly at a predictable rate. But when something has wild swings up and down, and random times, then it is less suitable to either use as a currency (the stock person with the price gun will be working overtime correcting prices on everything several times a day), and it isn't that good of a store of value if there isn't any reason for it to not lose all of its value over a given period of time.
The Amazon graph you linked to does look fairly stable, a nice exponential function that has very good reasons to remain so for a good period of time (not saying this or anything else is guaranteed, but at least there is something tangible behind that price).
mastermojo|7 years ago
posixplz|7 years ago
AnimalMuppet|7 years ago
Bitcoin, on the other hand, is still firmly in KBC territory.
DINKDINK|7 years ago
Money is a commodity whose goal is to transport value through space and time. We are living through -- in human-species scale -- a brief 90-year experiment in the artificial elimination of a free market of monies by violence of the state (until bitcoin was invented).
Artificially increasing and decreasing the supply of money in an economy has about just as much utility as artificially increasing and decreasing the supply of any other good -- which is none.
Bitcoin's success narrative doesn't depend on the amount of non-scarce dollars the market is willing to trade for it ceasing to change ('stabilize'). The success narrative is: an increasing set of people understanding that the hardest money always wins. Bitcoin is one halvening away from being harder than gold and is _the_ hardest money ever in existance. Those who have taken exposure to bitcoin will have more wealth preserved than those who denominate their value in inflatable dollars. As more people see bitcoin improving the quality of life of individuals they also take exposure to bitcoin. This process doesn't need a planner nor intelligent agents, it just needs bricolage.
craigc|7 years ago
darawk|7 years ago
mrb|7 years ago
https://twitter.com/lsukernik/status/864920873718951937
https://news.bitcoin.com/volatility-decreasing/
wilg|7 years ago
andreygrehov|7 years ago
[0] https://1nodld1ltmqu3jimmy2xsgcu-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
P.S. Dear downvoters, this is not a financial advice!
soraki_soladead|7 years ago
matthewbauer|7 years ago
brokensegue|7 years ago
adrianscott|7 years ago
ummonk|7 years ago
threeseed|7 years ago
Bitcoin isn't.
joering2|7 years ago
Fiat currency is at its best second degree KBC because other countries decide on accepting or rejecting US economical indicators by temporarily betting on their short term future and set currency exchange point for the next 24 hours or so. Nobody buys US dollar because american flag is pretty or english is second broadest language in the world or some other “pretty face” indicator, as currency exhange dollar versus everything for the last 25 years clearly shows USD strenghtening +500% and weakening even 50% all the time.
No, Feds do not decide on this beauty contest. May be suprise to you but only 20% of printed dollar remains in usa. 80% is being shipped out for all sorts of purposes such as balancing countries oil wallets (aka petrodolar) to aiding other countries ending on fact that many countries prefer intra-use of greenbacks to its own currency. So Feds at its best control pretty face of dollar on its local playground aka USA, but in reality they dont because again dollar strength comes from evonomical indicators, not from how much feds prints.
AnimalMuppet|7 years ago
"When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise." - 2 Corinthians 10:12 (NIV)
sdmadf2834|7 years ago
[deleted]