Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,359
Thanks to @tecate I have a new Twitter hero, Nouriel Roubini. Here he is on the latest bitcoin madness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Re-PzNEMvc

Yahoo Finance said:
Famed economist Nouriel Roubini says that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which he’s dubbed as “sh-tcoins,” have no place in retail or institutional investor portfolios.

Roubini, a professor of economics at NYU’s Stern School of Business, slammed Bitcoin (BTC-USD) as it has hit recent highs and was last trading above $23,300.

“First of all, calling it a currency — it’s not a currency. It’s not a unit of account, it’s not a means of payment.…it’s not a stable store of value. Secondly, it’s not even an asset,” Roubini said.

According to Roubini, Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. He pointed out that assets — bonds, stocks, real estate, or precious metals — either provide income, capital gains or some form of utility.

“While in the case of Bitcoin, there is no income,” he said. “There is no use. There is no utility. The only thing is a speculative, self-fulfilling kind of rise, and that rise is driven totally by manipulation.”

Roubini noted that there’s academic research to suggest that “this pseudo stable coin Tether has been created by fiat” and is “used literally to manipulate the price of Bitcoin.”

“The price of Bitcoin is totally manipulated by a bunch of people, by a bunch of whales. It doesn’t have any fundamental value,” he said. “We’re close to the point where the hyperbolic bubble is going to go bust.”
This is a renowned economist talking. Are there any respected economists making the case for bitcoin? Ironically the amazing bitcoin performance of 2020, from 10k to 4k to 30k(?) spells its early demise. A nice steady performance would have been more indicative that bitcoin had come of age and was here to stay. 2017 was a similarly ridiculous year and it was followed by the collapse from 20k to 3k in 2018.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,051
Ah Duke, you couldn't even wait until NY to end the bitcoin ceasefire ;).

Are there any respected economists making the case for bitcoin?

I would be inclined to engage only I am hesitant that your definition of "respected economist" may only reach as far as those economists that share your view about Bitcoin?

I will put it to the test so. Would a senior economist at say, the Bank of Chicago, like François Velde, qualify as a "respected economist"?
In 2013, he wrote

"Should bitcoin become widely accepted, it is un-
likely that it will remain free of govern-
ment intervention, if only because the
governance of the bitcoin code and net-
work is opaque and vulnerable. That said,
it represents a remarkable conceptual and
technical achievement,
which may well
be used by existing financial institutions
(which could issue their own bitcoins)
or even by governments themselves"


Not a resounding endorsement, but in 2013, surely a more open-minded lead in the field of economics?

As for Roubini, he is indeed a respected economist. Here is the interview, I think, that is quoted.

Nouriel Roubini and bitcoin
After about 1m 40sec.

From my perspective he is not saying anything new that has not been said over the last decade. He is, however, brazenly ignoring the points of increasing institutional investment being made by the presenter in her opening remarks.

My sense is that the smirk on the interviewers face toward the end of the interview is most telling. While being dutifully respectable to Roubini, I can't help sense that she has "crazy old fool!" written all over her face.
 
Last edited:

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,359
Hi theo Happy New Year to you. Thanks for posting that video clip, I thought of posting it myself but was wary that maybe the strong language would be in breach of AAM rules. I recommend everyone to watch it as he says much more than the extract which I quoted. The passion with which he damns sh1tcoins is really persuasive and yes it caused amusement for the interviewer which I didn't read as ageist contempt.
The 2013 quote from an economist employee at a bank does not impress me. Is there even one professor who would speak so passionately about the huge boon for humanity that crypto cultists proclaim it to be.
It's all been said before for sure, for example by myself. But clearly some people are not convinced by what seems to me so ble*ding obvious, so I am not going to fault him for repeating it.
 
Last edited:

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,051
And HNY to you Duke.
Im not doubting the passion of Nouriel nor dismissing his credentials as an economist. There are valid reasons as to why I didn't get involved until 2017 when it was circa $2,800, albeit learning of its existence when it was $80!

However, my doubts about Bitcoin have reduced greatly since my first venture into it.
There are valid reasons for this, all the forecasts of its demise - government regulation, banning, BOHA, criminality etc have not materialised. And, to my knowledge, there is no other ponzi, bubble, scam (choose your own metaphor), in financial history that has produced anything like the price action of bitcoin.
Secondly, I have bitcoin, I have bought it, sold it, and in recent times invested it and received a return, in BTC.

Thirdly, is the adoption of institutional investors into bitcoin. This is a significant game-changer in my view. And it's why it's disappointing, but probably not unexpected, that the views of a senior economist are not taken seriously. As far back as 2013 economist François Velde wrote about possible adoption of financial institutions using bitcoin. His paper on bitcoin is as an objective a piece I have read about Bitcoin from anyone. He neither endorses nor dismisses it, and it can be argued if he actually understands it. Regardless of his pros and cons, or general understanding, it is clear to me that he understands something of significance has occurred.

And finally back to Nouriel. It was his clear avoidance of the substance of the question being put to him (the adoption of institutional investors of bitcoin) and his reversion to the mantra of the last decade which devalues his own standing as someone who can talk authoritatively on the subject. More so, when there are economists who were producing greater insights and analysis deserving of respect back in 2013.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
44,205
Guys, the last few threads became pointless after about 10 pages , so I closed them off and deleted a few more posts which reopened the debate.

tecate offered to do a balanced pros and cons of Bitcoin post and I was hoping to suspend discussion until this was done. But he hasn't produced it yet.

I do think that the hyperbolic rise is worth discussing.

I don't know how it can be done without just repeating ad nauseam what has already been said.

At least, please make sure to avoid any personal attacks on each other.

Brendan
 

Colm Fagan

Registered User
Messages
496
I've not contributed much to this discussion, but I found that interview with Roubini compelling. Could anyone enlighten me on his allegation that there is criminal activity, in the form of front-running, etc.? That would help to change the focus slightly, and hopefully satisfy Brendan's aspiration to move on from the previous mud-slinging.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,359
As far back as 2013 economist François Velde wrote about possible adoption of financial institutions using bitcoin. His paper on bitcoin is as an objective a piece I have read about Bitcoin from anyone.
I decided to read François. I see he is an employee of a Federal Reserve bank and therefore less likely to have a commercial motive, so I must take him seriously. His paper and his admiration for bitcoin is mainly based on his appreciation of the technology. Very little is said about the economic substance which Roubini rubbishes so forcibly. The following is his full conclusion.
François Velde in 2013 said:
Conclusion So far, the uses of bitcoin as a medium of exchange appear limited, particularly if one excludes illegal activities. It has been used as a means to transfer funds outside of traditional and regulated channels and, presumably, as a speculative investment opportunity. People bet on bitcoin because it may develop into a full-fledged currency. Some of bitcoin’s features make it less convenient than existing currencies and payment systems, particularly for those who have no strong desire to avoid them in the first place. Nor does it truly embody what Hayek and others in the “Austrian School of Economics” proposed. Should bitcoin become widely accepted, it is unlikely that it will remain free of government intervention, if only because the governance of the bitcoin code and network is opaque and vulnerable. That said, it represents a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing financial institutions (which could issue their own bitcoins) or even by governments themselves.
As you say, hardly a ringing endorsement. If that is the intellectual case for the defence (of btc) then I am afraid this jury member is voting guilty as charged (by Roubini).
Note in particular that his whole article is about bitcoin making the grade as a currency. It has completely lost its way in that endeavour - it will never be a currency.
 
Last edited:

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,359
I've not contributed much to this discussion, but I found that interview with Roubini compelling. Could anyone enlighten me on his allegation that there is criminal activity, in the form of front-running, etc.? That would help to change the focus slightly, and hopefully satisfy Brendan's aspiration to move on from the previous mud-slinging.
Colm, yes I was fascinated by his charges of manipulation. Don't know what front-running is but most intriguing is this Tether thing. Tether is unusual as a crypto in that it is linked to the dollar. I don't know exactly what Roubini is suggesting but its along the lines that in crypto land Tether is the US dollar. I think he is saying that Tethers are being created without any actual dollar backing and then used to support the bitcoin price. If he is right and there is currently a criminal investigation into that possibility we might get a denouement very soon.
 

TheBig40

Registered User
Messages
107
I think the front running he is talking about in the video is when Bots see a larger order placed and buy up crypto just ahead of the big purchase and sell it just after so they benefited from the brief marginal gain in price. It’s seem to be a focus at the moment to find ways of stopping this from happening. Seems reminiscent of brokers training to install IT infrastructure closer and closer to the exchanges etc.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,051
His paper and his admiration for bitcoin is mainly based on his appreciation of the technology.

Yes.

If that is the intellectual case for the defence (of btc)

Not at all. The question was "are there any respected economists making the case for bitcoin?"

Admittedly, I have not found any mainstream economists putting their weight and reputation behind bitcoin. But then again, Im familiar with maybe only a dozen or so such economists. And, from a profession that can't even agree with itself alot of the time, it's a peculiarity to me why so much value is placed in their opinion on bitcoin. That is not to disparage their views, but from my understanding of bitcoin, what we are talking about is a new technology for transmitting money securely without third party interference. This has value. The price applicable to that value is what appears to be contentious amongst the economists.

That is why Veldes paper is interesting somewhat as, one, he is an economist (as requested) and, two, he recognises the technology of bitcoin rather than focus on the price action.

(I'm cognisant here of Brendans forewarning of discussing ad nauseam what has already been said).

The 'hyperbolic' price of bitcoin is with regard to failures of global central bank monetary policy and subservient sovereign states that facilitate these policies that are distorting and manipulating price valuations across a range of sectors.

As long as such systems prevail, then a demand for a decentralised monetary network will exist - more so, now, that it has been invented.
Whether it is bitcoin that prevails, or another, time will tell.
The extent of adoption is anybodys guess, but currently the demand for such a system places BTC at around $28,000, or $500bn market for its 18m or so coins in circulation.
In the global scheme of the financial sector, it is tiny and its scope for greater adoption is massive, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,359
That is not to disparage their views, but from my understanding of bitcoin, what we are talking about is a new technology for transmitting money securely without third party interference. This has value.
Yes it would have value if bitcoin was "money". As Roubini so passionately explains bitcoin is not money.

The extent of adoption is anybodys guess, but currently the demand for such a system places BTC at around $28,000, or $500bn market for its 18m or so coins in circulation.
In the global scheme of the financial sector, it is tiny and its scope for greater adoption is massive, in my opinion.
Adoption? Adoption as what? Certainly not as a medium of exchange i.e. money as intended and as described by Veldes. That speculators in a frenzy of FOMO induced by whales' manipulation is not adoption. And yet this argument is frequently used to talk up the potential of cryptos. It is completely bogus IMHO.
Though I will concede my dear theo that your prediction of 35k may indeed mark the zenith of this madness before the bubble bursts.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,051
Adoption? Adoption as what? Certainly not as a medium of exchange i.e. money as intended and as described by Veldes.

I have no qualms in recognising that bitcoin has failed, to date, to act as a medium of exchange in the general sense as we understand it. But I'm prepared to argue it's potential to act as a medium of exchange does exist.
It is of course along way, way off reaching that holy grail, if ever. But its current trajectory - in the form of increasing numbers of people, and now corporate institutions, owning bitcoin, lends weight to the possibility of it being a medium of exchange at some point.
The € was the most recent adoption of a new currency in recent times. Quite a seamless introduction and adoption imo. But the € had considerable infrastructure in place prior to its introduction not least, legislation of 18 EU countries, printing presses, an established banking sector, widespread public knowledge and preparation, etc
Bitcoin has had none of this. It is a 9 page whitepaper posted as a blog on some fringe techsite in 2008.
That it is now a long-running saga not only on AAM but with some of the world's most respected economists and financiers is an incredible achievement.

The only conclusion I can come to is, like Veldes, is that "bitcoin remains a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement" - this is not the general economist description of something with no intrinsic value?
It is clear, to me, that is the descriptive of something of intrinsic value.
What the price attributable to that is what appears to be contentious.

That speculators in a frenzy of FOMO induced by whales' manipulation is not adoption.

Assuming for the moment that the price is being manipulated by 'whales' to create a FOMO frenzy.
Is there any such commodity, good or service, with no intrinsic value, throughout the history of the world, that has experienced the price action of bitcoin in such a manipulated way that didn't return to zero on being exposed as such?
I do not know of any.

In fact, what Roubini is referring to is nothing more than an apparently long established price manipulation tactic that is pervasive throughout financial transactions and the industry in general. I'm no expert in these matters but at a simple level you can prove price manipulation - Eg buying large amounts of stock in advance of information coming to the market in the expectation that such information will drive the price of stock up significantly. It is harder to prove price manipulation with intent to deceive, criminal intent.

What information (insider or otherwise) do the 'whales' have that prompts the large scale buying? There is no centralised office. Is there inside information on govt regulation leaking to the whales? Which govt, US or China?
The type of front-running Roubini is talking about would need an incredible amount of coordination between the whales (so that one whale does not offset intended price increases of large scale purchases by large scale selling during the same period) that his argument is not overly convincing I have to say.
 
Last edited:

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,359
The only conclusion I can come to is, like Veldes, is that "bitcoin remains a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement" - this is not the general economist description of something with no intrinsic value?
It is clear, to me, that is the descriptive of something of intrinsic value.
What the price attributable to that is what appears to be contentious.
Let's explore that thought.
Pure Mathematics is full of theorems and theories which have absolutely no utility value. Yet I concede that they do have an intrinsic value. What's it worth? Well most earn a decent living lecturing or writing books. Napoleon was fond of rewarding mathematicians with titles and bursaries etc., possibly explaining the huge French influence on 19th century mathematics.
So yes we are haggling about the price. I personally find the technology very ugly (mindless computer hashtag trial and errors) but that is not relevant; I don't like modern art or punk rock either. If I was hooked on the technology though, I would have thought a few satoshis in a wallet would satisfy my craving.
Take Laslo Hanyecz. He was (probably still is) a computer programmer and he sounds like the kinda guy who was presumably bowled over by the new technology in 2010. Nonetheless he still parted with 10,000 bitcoin for two pizzas ($150,000,000 each in today's money).
It is really difficult for me to see how the admiration of its aesthetic beauty could justify a price tag of $600bn. I also don't see what relevance at all the world stock of currencies has for setting this price. I doubt whether Pierre-Simon Laplace argued with Napoleon about how his elegant math theories compared with the size of the French treasury.
 
Last edited:

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,051
I admit on the technological side I'm not totally bowled over by bitcoin from an end user point of view. As mentioned, there were reasons why I didn't buy into bitcoin at $80, instead it was closer to $3k.
I find some of the terminology goes over my head and the private keys element is a risk by itself, particularly for someone used to the convenience of third party banking. For a non-technically minded person like myself it is somewhat a leap of faith - cushioned somewhat by not putting large amounts of money into it.
But in comparison, if someone laid out a white paper for a 400-tonne of steel to fly passengers safely over the Atlantic, having never previously occurred, I may be inclined to buy into the concept of it although not necessarily convinced of the technology.
What assures me of the technology is witnessing and participating in its continued existence and, over time, experiencing the improvements made to that technology. Aircraft are now long established safe modes of transport with very low risk of crashing. Bitcoin, still in its infancy, does crash but yet the technology survives, the "mindless hashtags", being necessary to secure the network, reward miners and underpinning the concept of ownership, or proof of work.
If there was a fundamental flaw in the security of this network my guess is it would have emerged by now. Its possible it may emerge at some future point. Confidence is built over time and reliability. The longer the reliability over time the greater the confidence.
If technological solutions emerge to deal with the somewhat clunky awkward engagement with bitcoin then it will keep making in-roads in becoming mainstream.

Take Laslo Hanyecz

In his own words, being involved at the very beginning of bitcoin, he stated that if no-one is using BTC then it is not working.
That makes sense, he understood it for what it was intended but if it wasn't circulating then what was the point of it?
Take FB as an example. MZ (notwithstanding the subsequent legal wrangle of ownership) gave away considerable stakes of FB for what now looks like, well, pizza-valued amounts of seed capital, compared to what FB is now valued.
MZ understood if people were not using FB then it was effectively worthless.

It's not clear if Hanycez dispensed of his entire store of bitcoin for the pizza either? The chat exchange below suggests he did not.
My understanding is that the pizza purchase was not a consequence of being caught short of cash and having a dose of the munchies after a hefty session down the local.
Instead the pizza order was made from the UK to a pizza establishment in US and the bitcoin was transferred to the person ordering in the UK. I may be incorrect in that.
It was a trial experiment. Could someone send large amounts of bitcoin over the network securely to a recipient in return for goods or services? It worked.

Bitcoin pizza order

I'm more intrigued with who ordered the pizza and what they did with the 10,000 BTC they received. I can only assume they too had a grasp of the bitcoin concept, otherwise why bother?
But if I had received 10,000 BTC for roughly $50 ($0.005c per coin) what would I do with the BTC when it reached $1? I would surely be tempted to offload some of BTC to fiat cash?
Ditto when it reached $2, $5, $10, $100, $1,000 etc. And what would other recipients do with BTC as its price increased?
Meaning, has the entire $500bn network of bitcoin been nudged into being from out of the sale of two pizzas?

Of course, this prompts the ponzi 'greater-fool' theory. And at some point people will get burnt/have got burnt. But what is the difference in this and people buying into overvalued stock, of which there are many at high values producing little, if any, profit?
Someone will get burnt.

The question arises, what do you get exchanging cash for BTC?

This is where I buy into the conceptual side of bitcoin. This is also somewhat a leap of faith, but less and less so in an increasingly, more and more so, digitalised world.

This is where we may part our ways as I digress into my "worldly view". But rather than focus on my oft stated position of fundamental flaws inherent in central Bank monetary policy, I will try add another layer to concepts that may indirectly support the case for bitcoin.

The World Wide Web and the advances of information technology over the Internet is ripping up the rule book on practically every aspect of our lives and in every sector of commerce and science. These advancements are not slowing down anytime soon but appear to be increasing at greater rates.
I revert to well known TV physicist Michio Kaku, and a talk to science students in 2007. The talk is engaging, in simplified form, and somewhat enlightening, to me anyway, as to ways will be living our lives in the future. A 'Tomorrows World' talk if you like.

The future in 2030.

The talk is an hour long and there is no mention of bitcoin.
If you are not inclined to sit the the hour, the talk starts at around 5mins, in earnest by 10mins, and by 30-40mins you will have the jist of what he bringing to his audience.

The critical points for me is that in all the technological advances he mentions that a fundamental reason is to reach out to people, to communicate with people, providing greater levels of information and service.

Stepping outside the price speculation of bitcoin for a moment (and I will post a view on speculation later) - bitcoin is a form of communication. A form of communicating value, or perceived value. It is basic form of communication of supply and demand directly between users transmitting value in digital form.
In the near future, I won't need the CSO via RTÉ to tell me what the inflation rate is. I will know exactly for myself at any given time via bitcoin.
I will know with greater certainty if the new electric car, or if a kitchen fit out, or the price of pizza that I want to buy is providing me value.
The monopoly of Central Bank issued fiat currency will be broken and all individuals, by themselves and directly so, will determine what is the true value, or what they themselves perceive the true value, of any given good or service to be to themselves.
My car tax was due today, €200. I could have cashed out some bitcoin to pay for it, but my expectation is that €200 fiat today will be worth considerably less in 12 months time relative to bitcoin. But that is my perception, my choice, and I now have that autonomy to decide that.
So bitcoin offers autonomy to ALL individuals, with a smart phone and Internet connection. It is something that the banking and financial sector has come nowhere close to achieving and is unlikely to ever achieve.
From a conceptual point of view this is what gives bitcoin its value. The price attributable to that value is determined by old-fashioned market supply and demand.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,359
Lots to digest there theo. It is becoming a bit of a dialogue, nonetheless if I find something new to add after perusing your post I will do so.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,051
Annual sales run at about €7bn. If someone came looking to spend €16bn, prices would go through the roof (see what I dun there?)

Yes, I understand that, but it doesn't account for price manipulation levels of $18 to $350bn? Certainly it may account for some manipulation, but in the round I would estimate its impact at a low level relative to the overall price level.

What has changed? A vaccine?

A couple of things. As @DazedInPontoon mentioned, institutional investors have begun entering the market with significant levels of investment.

Also, there was the halving of the block reward in March this year. This is part of the technical side that I trust more than understand.
As much as I do understand it, it is that as the block reward has halved that the nodes/miners require more processing power to validate the blocks and earn the rewards. Or in short, it hardens the network against hacking, fraud, centralised control, etc.
In turn, it is now more attractive as a store of money than it was in 2016 (the last halving) and in 2012.
This may be the inducement of the very institutional investors that we are now seeing entering the market. Once the bull run ends, it may, lead to less volatility in the overall price.
Less volatility in the price may begin moving it towards its intended purpose as a medium of exchange.

As a side, and without wanting to go over the whole "features of money" I did hear two features/characteristics of what defines money that I think may have been absent in the discussions here and elsewhere - apologies in advance, if that is not the case.

First is that money needs to be collectable, only then does the scarcity feature emerge. Secondly, time & sequence - so what is not money today, may be money and a medium of exchange in the future.
The example given was primitive societies and the use of shells to trade. It wasn't the actual shells per se that was money, it was the shells in decorative and ornamental form that was money. Even still, shells made into bracelets, necklaces, ornaments etc were not made with the intention of being used as money, but rather for aesthetic purposes. Only when in say, times of hardship, did the ornamental items become of value to trade with other communities (perhaps experiencing a time of affluence) did the shells become money.
As a consequence, the ornament makers had, unintentionally, built up a store of value to be used eventually as a medium of exchange at the appropriate time.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,359
Also, there was the halving of the block reward in March this year. This is part of the technical side that I trust more than understand.
As much as I do understand it, it is that as the block reward has halved that the nodes/miners require more processing power to validate the blocks and earn the rewards. Or in short, it hardens the network against hacking, fraud, centralised control, etc.
I was asking why btc has increased 50% in the last two months. Only two news stories worth a mention. A good guy will be next POTUS and the discovery of a vaccine. Really can't see why that adds $200bn to btc mkt cap. On the doubling my understanding was that that was not the @tecate argument. That argument was that as the supply of new bitcoins halved its price would go up on supply and demand arguments. Completely bogus of course, as the supply of new coins is a very minor part of the supply/demand dynamic. On the other hand if you think the supply of new coins is a significant price driver then that would underpin that an extra $16bn of demand would have a highly leveraged effect on the price.


The example given was primitive societies and the use of shells to trade. It wasn't the actual shells per se that was money, it was the shells in decorative and ornamental form that was money. Even still, shells made into bracelets, necklaces, ornaments etc were not made with the intention of being used as money, but rather for aesthetic purposes. Only when in say, times of hardship, did the ornamental items become of value to trade with other communities (perhaps experiencing a time of affluence) did the shells become money.
As a consequence, the ornament makers had, unintentionally, built up a store of value to be used eventually as a medium of exchange at the appropriate time.
I agree with this and it is completely contrary to orthodox bitcoin theology. The cultists do from time to time cite shells as an example of money with no intrinsic value. You have just explained that the reason it served as money in primitive times was precisely because it had intrinsic value, at least when made into an ornament.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,051
Only two news stories worth a mention.

I would attribute more to the recent news stories of ECB and Federal Reserve additional stimuli as being of more significance, but that is just a matter of opinion.

as the supply of new coins is a very minor part of the supply/demand dynamic.

Indeed, but it is the other element of the halving that is most significant. The "mindless hashtags" as you call them, just got crazier. In doing so, it hardens the network.
In theory it is possible to alter the 21m bitcoin supply. In practice, it may take a co-ordinated supercomputer effort to do so, or at least that is my understanding.
So bitcoin, a hard digital monetary network , becomes more attractive place to store money than say, fiat, a softer digital monetary network.

precisely because it had intrinsic value, at least when made into an ornament.

You are not applying the concept of time and sequence here.
At a very base level, shell intrinsic value is its function to marine biology - not much use in monetary terms, but there you go.
It's use in the form of an ornament or decoration offers aesthetic value, in that form is its intrinsic value. In monetary terms it is still zero.
Only when the shell, in its ornamental form is used as a medium of exchange in trade is its monetary intrinsic value realised (price).
And as we are a species more sophisticated than say, goldfish, we can apply or establish that similar shell based ornaments can hold intrinsic monetary value to greater or lesser extents depending on demand and supply and forming markets.

Another example would be my 8yr old Christmas card drawn at school. Its only intrinsic value is the emotional gushing from mum and dad. Until that is, 20 copies are made, a price tag of €1 applied to each copy, and proceeds being sent to St Vín de Paul. In an instant, the emotional intrinsic value also has a monetary intrinsic value extracted from mum and dad to the charity. And this monetary value will sustain until, well, until it doesn't.

Bitcoin’s intrinsic value is the ability to store money outside the soft digital fiat form in a hard digital form. The price attributable to that value is determined by market supply and demand.
 
Last edited:
Top