homeviews NewsThe history of money and are rumours of Bitcoin’s coming demise greatly exaggerated?

The history of money and are rumours of Bitcoin’s coming demise greatly exaggerated?

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoins are a result of centuries of evolution of the modern monetary system that began centuries ago as a barter system and later evolved into what we see today through an evolution process that spanned centuries.

Profile image

By Nazim Khan  Jun 30, 2021 6:47:49 PM IST (Updated)

Listen to the Article(6 Minutes)
The history of money and are rumours of Bitcoin’s coming demise greatly exaggerated?
‘Bitcoin barrels into ‘death cross’ as backdrop darkens’ screamed a headline a few weeks ago, in what would have sounded to the casual observer as a terrible precursor of doom for the cryptocurrency. Around the same time, famed author Nassim Nicholas Taleb -- who once praised Bitcoin as “the beginning of something great: a currency without a government, something necessary and imperative” – claimed the cryptocurrency was worth zero. 

The Bitcoin story has caught nearly everyone’s imagination. Proposed in a whitepaper by the pseudonymous ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ in 2009, it promised to be the next step in the evolution of the modern monetary system. But has it, and will it be? Or is it, as some of its critics say, a Ponzi scheme? 
Before we get to that, here’s a quick recap of how we got here.  
The evolution of currencies
 
  • Barter system: For a large part of human history, goods were exchanged for goods. The only system available at the time, it faced significant problems such as the failure to establish the standard value of goods as well as a liquid market. If I wanted to buy a parcel of land, how should I determine whether I should give up 10 goats or two cattle? What if the person selling the land was not interested in either goats or cattle and that is all I had? 
  • Precious metals: Metals such as gold and silver then became the first form of standardized currencies. A gold coin helped establish the value of all goods and products against itself. But governments and kingdoms need to mine precious metals in vast quantities and were not easily available everywhere across the world. This meant that their own value fluctuated vastly. In this currency system, users also faced problems of storage and assurance of quality (of the metals themselves).
  • Gold-backed paper currency: The problem of storage and transportation meant traders with vast amounts of gold started depositing them with newfangled institutions called banks, who would store them and against them issue a note. These notes started taking the form of currency and began to be exchangeable, meaning anyone producing it at the bank would be entitled to get the same amount. But the gold standard suffered from its own problems. If a country did not have enough reserves of gold within its own borders, the only way to procure more of it would be to export more goods than it imported. If the opposite happened, more gold going out of the country meant there would not be enough money in the country and the economy would collapse. 
  • Bretton Woods: Countries began keeping the pound and the dollar as reserves instead of gold, knowing that the strength of the UK and US economies would mean the value of their currencies would remain stable. At the end of World War 2, the US dollar was formalized as the reserve currency of the world in what was termed the Bretton Woods Agreement. 
  • Fiat currency: Faced with rising debt following the Vietnam war and other spending initiatives, the US found it was not able to keep enough gold in its own reserves. In 1971, President Richard Nixon severed the link between gold and the US dollar, establishing the greenback as well as all other currencies as ‘fiat currencies, or currencies not backed by anything. 
  • Establishment of payment systems: Alongside, developments such as cheques and Internet-based banking meant virtual transactions even within a country’s own borders flourished, meaning transfer of money increasingly became merely addition and subtraction of zeroes on a computer. 
  • The above summary of centuries of evolution of the modern monetary system may be oversimplified but there’s a common link to each development. Which is to function effectively as ‘money,' currencies should demonstrate three values. First, and most importantly, they must serve as a ‘store of value’. The last thing the user of a currency wants is to have to buy a packet of food at double the price that he or she paid last week. Two, they must be widely accepted as currencies. Three, such transactions should ideally be executable quickly and without too much transaction costs. 
    Fiat currencies solve the first two problems to a great extent. When governments (or central banks) print currency with the promise that it will be treated as money and not just a piece of paper, that promise is successfully concluded with nearly every transaction you or anyone else makes in their lifetimes (with the rare exception of economies that printed too much money and ran the value of their currencies into the ground). 
    Cryptocurrencies promise to improve the experience for all users on all three counts though that promise is far from achieved. The current volatility in their prices means that they are not yet a ‘store of value’. Since central banks and the government would look to keep control over the supply of currencies, the day cryptocurrencies will start getting accepted as currencies will be when enough people see their value and start believing in them. (To that extent, all currencies -- gold, fiat and crypto – meet the first condition of what defines a Ponzi scheme. They derive their value because people believe in them. Gold has also met the second condition, by crumbling under its own weight several times in history. Fiat currencies very rarely do so.) 
    And three, while bitcoin does make it easy for a person based in, say, Salem, Tamil Nadu, to send money to his relative in Robertsdale, Alabama, the settlement of the transaction, through the mining process, has transaction costs – just not to the user. 
    And then there is the anonymity that Bitcoin offers, by virtue of not having a central authority overseeing transactions -- though it is far from clear if that’s a good or a bad thing. 
    Whatever price you see of Bitcoin on the ticker is comprised of two parts: the promise to change the monetary system, as well as people who want to profit off the promise’s hype. If you’re in Camp Two, remember that the price could turn against you as quickly as it has gone up over the past few years. But if you’re in Camp One, as argued in a previous piece, you need to have a solid view on whether that promise will prove to be a dud or a revolution. Otherwise, you‘re in Camp Two and don’t know it. 
    Oh, and the ominous-sounding ‘death cross’? It’s not really a reliable signal of anything.
    Nazim Khan keeps an eagle eye on developing trends in financial markets and in the technology space. On economic ideology, he recently switched allegiance from Ayn Rand to Thomas Piketty after failing to spot the invisible hand despite looking hard

    Most Read

    Share Market Live

    View All
    Top GainersTop Losers
    CurrencyCommodities
    CurrencyPriceChange%Change