• Tag Archives gridcoin
  • Money, It Turns Out, Is a Practical Art

    If you read on the topic of money’s history from any mainstream textbook, you will already know the drill. In the past, money took many forms. It was shells, pelts, salt, and various metals. Finally we got paper money, credit institutions, then central banks. At this point, we are told, history was complete. The final and best form had arrived.

    The state would be in charge of money forever. All that was left was to have it managed in a way that better served our needs. People argued about systems of government management. Maybe a rule of some sort, based on quantity or the gold price or some other scheme. The system can be reformed, but the idea of treating money as a technology to be managed by the market – well, let’s just leave that to utopians like F.A. Hayek.

    Frozen in Place

     

    But look what actually happened. From the time when money came to be nationalized by the state and managed by central banks, roughly 100 years ago, the improvements stopped. Everything else got better: cars, flight, communication, homes, indoor environments, distribution of all essentials from food to clothing to finance. What did not improve was the money itself. In fact, it became worse.

    This is for a reason. The nationalization of money froze it in place. It was no longer subject to the pressure that free enterprise places on everything else. It was the great exception (there were other exceptions too, like schools and courts). It was stuck. In the 21st century, we were using the same core money technology as we were using in the early part of the 20th century. Hardly anyone thought anything of it. Surely we had come to the end of history.

    The consequences were not only that money never got better. The nationalization of money led to a huge increase in government debt, wild swings in credit cycles, inflation, and even war because government no longer had to tax people for funds but rather could print it without limit. All of this ended up eating away at liberty itself, growing government beyond what any liberal society should tolerate, and fed human rights abuses.

    Then Came Crypto

    From the time that Bitcoin became viable, however, monetary theory would never be the same. In the years since that time (2009), I’ve noticed a gradual change taking place. We used to think about money as somehow existing in a finalized form. No more. It is now being thought of as we should have thought about it all along, as a technology that can become better in response to human needs.

    In the 19th century, the word technology was not in common use. Instead a different phrase was popular: the practical arts. I think it is better. Inventing new things for human use is an art form. But it is not art just for admiring. It is art for using, art to make life better, a tool to enable a better path forward for all.

    The practical arts today involve new apps, new buying options, new ways to communicate, new modes of transportation, and new markets. They make things cheaper, better, and more adaptive to our needs. Entrepreneurs compete to find better ways of serving us through the practical arts.

    Thanks to the rise of cryptocurrency, the practical arts are being applied to reinventing money itself. It is going on every day, with thousands of companies innovating new monetary technologies. The big breakthroughs include: the uniting of money with payment systems, the dramatic diminution of counterparty risk, the inclusion of the unbanked, the impossibility of censorship, the security of ownership, the absence of a central point of failure. We keep discovering new virtues.

    Cryptocurrency opened up the floodgates of monetary innovation a century after the enterprise had been shut down. F.A. Hayek wrote, “I have no doubt that competition would be much more inventive in providing the kind of monetary institutions needed for the proper functioning of markets.” He thought this might only happen by eliminating legal tender laws and dismantling central banks.

    Perhaps the most remarkable thing about cryptocurrency is that it unleashed competition without any reform of the system that still operates from the top down. No law was repealed, no plan was enacted, no new reforms were passed. It was as if a Maserati had sudden driven up alongside a fleet of Model Ts.

    When will mainstream monetary theory adapt to the new reality? Check back in ten years.

    When I was in Tel Aviv, Israel, recently, I did a full interview on a popular podcast on this topic and its meaning for our future.

     


    Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, economics adviser to FreeSociety.com, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books, most recently Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty, with a preface by Deirdre McCloskey (FEE 2017). He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press. He is available for press interviews via his email.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • IMF Head Foresees the End of Banking and the Triumph of Cryptocurrency

    In a remarkably frank talk at a Bank of England conference, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund has speculated that Bitcoin and cryptocurrency have as much of a future as the Internet itself. It could displace central banks, conventional banking, and challenge the monopoly of national monies.

    Christine Lagarde–a Paris native who has held her position at the IMF since 2011–says the only substantial problems with existing cryptocurrency are fixable over time.

    In the long run, the technology itself can replace national monies, conventional financial intermediation, and even “puts a question mark on the fractional banking model we know today.”

    In a lecture that chastised her colleagues for failing to embrace the future, she warned that “Not so long ago, some experts argued that personal computers would never be adopted, and that tablets would only be used as expensive coffee trays. So I think it may not be wise to dismiss virtual currencies.”

    Here are the relevant parts of her paper:

    Let us start with virtual currencies. To be clear, this is not about digital payments in existing currencies—through Paypal and other “e-money” providers such as Alipay in China, or M-Pesa in Kenya.

    Virtual currencies are in a different category, because they provide their own unit of account and payment systems. These systems allow for peer-to-peer transactions without central clearinghouses, without central banks.

    For now, virtual currencies such as Bitcoin pose little or no challenge to the existing order of fiat currencies and central banks. Why? Because they are too volatile, too risky, too energy intensive, and because the underlying technologies are not yet scalable. Many are too opaque for regulators; and some have been hacked.

    But many of these are technological challenges that could be addressed over time. Not so long ago, some experts argued that personal computers would never be adopted, and that tablets would only be used as expensive coffee trays. So I think it may not be wise to dismiss virtual currencies.

    Better value for money?

    For instance, think of countries with weak institutions and unstable national currencies. Instead of adopting the currency of another country—such as the U.S. dollar—some of these economies might see a growing use of virtual currencies. Call it dollarization 2.0.

    IMF experience shows that there is a tipping point beyond which coordination around a new currency is exponential. In the Seychelles, for example, dollarization jumped from 20 percent in 2006 to 60 percent in 2008.

    And yet, why might citizens hold virtual currencies rather than physical dollars, euros, or sterling? Because it may one day be easier and safer than obtaining paper bills, especially in remote regions. And because virtual currencies could actually become more stable.

    For instance, they could be issued one-for-one for dollars, or a stable basket of currencies. Issuance could be fully transparent, governed by a credible, pre-defined rule, an algorithm that can be monitored…or even a “smart rule” that might reflect changing macroeconomic circumstances.

    So in many ways, virtual currencies might just give existing currencies and monetary policy a run for their money. The best response by central bankers is to continue running effective monetary policy, while being open to fresh ideas and new demands, as economies evolve.

    Better payment services?

    For example, consider the growing demand for new payment services in countries where the shared, decentralized service economy is taking off.

    This is an economy rooted in peer-to-peer transactions, in frequent, small-value payments, often across borders.

    Four dollars for gardening tips from a lady in New Zealand, three euros for an expert translation of a Japanese poem, and 80 pence for a virtual rendering of historic Fleet Street: these payments can be made with credit cards and other forms of e-money. But the charges are relatively high for small-value transactions, especially across borders.

    Instead, citizens may one day prefer virtual currencies, since they potentially offer the same cost and convenience as cash—no settlement risks, no clearing delays, no central registration, no intermediary to check accounts and identities. If privately issued virtual currencies remain risky and unstable, citizens may even call on central banks to provide digital forms of legal tender.

    So, when the new service economy comes knocking on the Bank of England’s door, will you welcome it inside? Offer it tea—and financial liquidity?

    New models of financial intermediation

    This brings us to the second leg of our pod journey—new models of financial intermediation.

    One possibility is the break-up, or unbundling, of banking services. In the future, we might keep minimal balances for payment services on electronic wallets.

    The remaining balances may be kept in mutual funds, or invested in peer-to-peer lending platforms with an edge in big data and artificial intelligence for automatic credit scoring.

    This is a world of six-month product development cycles and constant updates, primarily of software, with a huge premium on simple user-interfaces and trusted security. A world where data is king. A world of many new players without imposing branch offices.

    Some would argue that this puts a question mark on the fractional banking model we know today, if there are fewer bank deposits and money flows into the economy through new channels.

    How would monetary policy be set in this context?

    Today’s central banks typically affect asset prices through primary dealers, or big banks, to which they provide liquidity at fixed prices—so-called open-market operations. But if these banks were to become less relevant in the new financial world, and demand for central bank balances were to diminish, could monetary policy transmission remain as effective?


    Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books, most recently Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty, with a preface by Deirdre McCloskey (FEE 2017). He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.



  • The Osmosis Theory of Wealth Transfer: Gold to USD to Cryptos

    We are in the early stages of a new global financial epoch. The transfer of wealth from fiat into crypos is just beginning and will unfold over multiple decades. This article introduces a basic theory explaining how and why this wealth transfer is happening.

    Osmosis

    Do you remember from high school Chemistry the concept of osmosis?

    Here is the high school definition that I remember learning years ago: Osmosis is the movement of a solvent from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration through a selectively permeable membrane.

    Here is the Wikipedia definition, with a nice diagram:

    Osmosis is the spontaneous net movement of solvent molecules through a semi-permeable membrane into a region of higher solute concentration, in the direction that tends to equalize the solute concentrations on the two sides.[1][2][3] It may also be used to describe a physical process in which any solvent moves across a semipermeable membrane (permeable to the solvent, but not the solute) separating two solutions of different concentrations.[4][5] Osmosis can be made to do work.[6]

    What has always fascinated me about this process is how it happens in a predictable and spontaneous manner. Also, if you study the Wikipedia diagram, you can see that the power of Osmosis is sufficient to actually counter the effects of gravity: the water on the one side of the beaker stands up higher than the water on the other side of the beaker.

    Just like a difference in the concentration of solute across two sides of a membrane causes the process of osmosis to happen spontaneously, and the solvent will defy the effects of gravity and flow upwards to a higher center of gravity, I believe that a difference in the relative security strength of two financial safe haven assets will cause money to flow in a similarly predictable and spontaneous way.

    Osmosis Theory of Wealth Transfer

    Just what causes money to flow? Fear and greed. Apart from day-to-day transactional usages, I would guess that 90%+ of money flows between savings accounts, Gold, ETFs, stocks, bonds, etc is driven by fear and greed. It is simple human psychology at work.

    As such, if some new safe haven asset for storage of wealth is introduced to the mix that is better than any prior safe-haven asset, then due to fear factors and greed factors investors will start to move some portion of their wealth into the new safe haven asset.

    As this process unfolds, the rising value of this new safe haven asset will lead more skeptical people in society to eventually jump on the bandwagon as fear of missing out takes hold. Thus fear and greed drive the popularity and allure of the new safe haven asset even higher.

    Thus, the pumping of financial wealth from the older safe-haven assets to the newly created and technically-superior ones will be as certain, predictable, and spontaneous as the process of osmosis “pumping of fluid” from one side of a selectively permeable membrane over to another.

    In formal terms, here is the “Osmosis Theory of Wealth Transfer”:

    If a differential exists in the security strength of two safe-haven assets, then this differential will lead to a certain, predictable, and spontaneous transfer of financial wealth, that is amplified by psychological factors of both human fear and greed.

    As this cycle proceeds, the new suitor for the crown of global safe haven asset gains in its credibility thus casting a spotlight on the potential weaknesses of the former safe haven asset that the masses are fleeing, thus quickening the pace and overall net effect of the wealth migration.

    Application

    This simple theory explains the meteoric rise we are seeing in the value of crypto digital assets today (e.g. BTC, XRP, etc). These digital assets are technologically-superior versus the old safe haven assets Gold and USD. USD was previously perceived as the safest asset, as it was backed by the strongest government, and at one point in time, the US government even had the bravado to disallow the usage of the prior competing safe-haven asset, Gold, as a medium of exchange. But, in the end, the USD is still backed by a government, and, indeed, all governments can fail. With the continuous lifting of the US debt ceiling, the rapid rise of inflation in the US economy over the past three decades, and the irrationality of the US Congress and White House Administration today, the end no longer seems implausible.

    In contrast, the crypto digital assets are supported by armies of decentralized computers across geopolitical boundaries, consensus protocols, and strong cryptography, and, this method is now successfully defending more than $150B of financial value. These new crypto assets are not at risk of government seizure or inflation, and they could survive even after the combined collapse of all of the political-economies in the West. Even with the entire world in utter chaos or World War III, there would not be any question of the safety and security of these assets.

    The Osmosis Theory of Wealth Transfer explains how the process of financial flows from the old safe haven asset to the new safe haven asset is a natural, inevitable, and spontaneous process driven by human psychology. We are still in the early stages of this cycle, but, the pace is quickening now.

    Reprinted from Medium


    Ryan Orr

    Dr. Orr is a Stanford University Professor, Consultant, Entrepreneur and Investor recognized around the world as an expert in infrastructure and technology.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.