Tell me, what assets exactly are backing BTC which stop it from crashing just like Luna?
BTC's max supply is capped and the release schedule of new coins is fixed and predictable. There is no possible way that trillions of new bitcoins could suddenly be created.
It would take a long, long time for this to play out.
I mean, just think about it for a moment: how many bitcoins were "lost" today? Was it 0 or 100,000? Perhaps it's -100,000, because somebody gained access to 100,000 that were previously lost.
If it doesn't make a difference, then the supply isn't affecting demand
If it DOES make a difference, then demand can't be affected, because nobody knows whether it was 0 or 100,000 or -100,000
If people have to know supply and demand to determine prices, how can free market work for thousands of years before the basic principle of economics is established?
1. 10% of all BTC holders want to cash out. nobody lost their keys, so 2M BTC hit the “supply side” of the market.
2. 10% of all BTC holders want to cash out. half of them lost their keys, so only 1M BTC hit the supply side of the market.
this is the way it makes a difference. in the latter scenario, BTC spot price would likely reach a higher value.
There absolutely is: fractional reserve banking. Exchanges are already operating that way. They offer loans, savings accounts and everything.
Banks and/or exchanges cannot create more bitcoin.
Every single day it's Economics 101 here.
If someone loans you BTC, the supply of BTC has not increased.
The question is: why is one called fractional reserve banking, a behavior that is acknowledged to increase the money supply, and the other one called "oh no this is definitely not increase of the money supply, it's just you relinquishing custody of your bitcoin and why would you do that, there's no reason you'd ever do that".
A currency is not backed by land value. It’s usually “backed” by a combination of sovereign debt obligations and its status as legal tender.
There are no annual property taxes in El Salvador :)
But this may be a technicality, based on the Salvadoran legal definition of the term. So it really depends on what is understood as tax in each jurisdiction.
El Salvador law differentiates between taxes and fees. Taxes are born from an "generating action", like selling a computer generates sales tax. While Fees are born from a "service provided" .
So there are monthly fees payable to the local city/town/village hall based on property size and location for services they provide in that area Some common ones are garbage collection, CCTV, city lighting, road maintenance and the contribution for each City/Town annual Festival. A monthly fee for each town's annual party :O Does that exist in other countries?
So once you get your city hall invoice, and wanted to pay in bitcoin, you'd have to visit the city hall to pay in their bitcoin terminal.
At least four city halls are connected to BitRefill which allows online invoice payments using Bitcoin/Lightning. BitRefill connects to a local payment network, then the user types or scans the Invoice barcode, and makes the bitcoin payment for the fees bill.
If it's some wrapped Bitcoin that is backed, that means that there exists some UTxO which corresponds to the wrapped bitcoin tokens you hold. UTxO are atomic and unique so you can verify that your wrapped tokens have a 1:1 mapping to the tokens held within the UTxO on the native token's network. Non-backed bitcoin instead are just tokens that are handled through some minting mechanism where there is claimed to be a 1:1 equivalence without any actual tooling to prove that.
This concept of backing can actually even be further extended via Secure Multi-Party Computation where private keys can be collectively held in such a way that no user ever can see the private key but together they can coordinate to build and sign transactions with that private key without leaking it even to themselves. This can then be used to actually hold tokens from a foreign/incompatible network and interact with that network with little to any required trust.
Hopefully that helps answer what is meant.
---
Also since it's often a question asked I'll answer preemptively: "What is UTxO?"
I've mentioned the UTxO accounting model a few times here. Bitcoin doesn't have accounts but rather UTxO or Unspent(U) Transaction(Tx) Outputs(O). These are indivisible bundles of tokens that can only be created or consumed/destroyed atomically. There are no accounts but rather just private/public key pairs which can redeem/spend those UTxO. Additionally, all transactions are just a collection of input UTxO (that are consumed with the tx) and newly created UTxO. All Tx must uphold the rule that the sum of all inputs equal the sum of all outputs (or some equivalent of this rule as is the case for Monero's Zero Knowledge transaction proofs). A number of networks use UTxO or a UTxO extension (such as EUTxO or the cell model). Most famous is Bitcoin but Monero, Litecoin, Cardano, Ergo, Nervos, and a number of other networks also use this model.
This is opposed to Ethereum and co (Polkadot, Solana, Luna...) who use the balance-account accounting model. This model works like traditional ledgers where tokens are stored as some balance in an account and transactions are just transfers from one account to another.
True when someone does it, false when a fractional reserve bank does it.
When someone loans money to someone else, money physically changes hands and there is no concept of a reserve. Banks are able to maintain the illusion of full reserves even though they operate in a state of perpetual insolvency.
This is a critical difference. A bank can loan you fiat money that they do not physically have, with the almost always correct assumption that most people won't want to convert that database entry into cash at the same time.
This is not possible with bitcoin. Either the bank has the coins in wallets they control to send to a wallet you control, or they do not and can't.
BTC that's in an offline wallet is like cash under the bed; and you're right that no-one is lending money that they have under the bed.
However, a significant number of BTC owners don't keep their money in their own wallets - they keep it at an exchange, which almost certainly commingles it with other owners in shared wallets.
You can certainly take a maximalist position here and assert that the exchange is the real owner, because they have the private keys. The fact of the matter is that the real world includes a difference between legal and beneficial ownership; and has done since well before the existence of fiat currencies - because it's useful.
The total supply of bitcoin is the sum of all unspent transaction outputs on the Blockchain. Not what a bunch of exchanges tell their users they have.
These are demand deposits with the exchanges/shadow-banks. You can (at least with some products; others look more like time deposits) withdraw your deposit at any time. This seems basically the same as a bank account where you can withdraw money at any time to buy goods or services.
I visit my "bank". I deposit my "currency" in a demand deposit account. I receive regular interest payments. My "bank" lends my "currency" to other people, in exchange for interest; presumably making a profit on the net interest margin. I can return to my "bank" at any time to withdraw my "currency".
How is this not credit creation? How is, e.g., Binance not operating as an unregulated shadow-bank without any kind of deposit insurance?
You need not convert your bank balance into cash to spend it on goods or services. The balance itself can be used directly.
They change a number in their database. All they have to do is edit the entry that records how many BTC you have in your account.
Whether you can actually withdraw those funds is a completely different matter. They're totally available for trading though.
> the almost always correct assumption that most people won't want to convert that database entry into cash at the same time
> This is not possible with bitcoin
It is. Most people do not withdraw bitcoin either.
I've written more detailed posts about this:
Yes, it is. They are not introducing BTC into circulation. This is verifiable via the blockchain.
Banks creating IOU's or derivatives or whatever other abstraction they can come up with never generates new BTC. You'd hope that people foolish enough to work with such financial institutions would know the risk of possessing nothing but an instrument created by the bank. If you're unwilling to take custody of your own bitcoin, you better damn well do some good research on third party custodians.
If you deposit 1 BTC on Binance, then I can get your BTC in the form of a loan. I can even withdraw your BTC. Meanwhile, Binance records still say you have 1 BTC, they even allow you to trade with it. So there's really 2 BTC in circulation. That BTC is duplicated, it's in multiple places simultaneously.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31375366
Accounting tricks, basically. They say you have BTC in your account when in fact your deposit is tied up in investments, loans.
It absolutely does. I can get a loan at an exchange while the original owners of those BTC still have it listed under their accounts. So multiple people can trade with the same coins, as if they had been copied.
> When the fractional-reserve imaginary bitcoin implodes, it might even increase the price of actual bitcoin?
Unknown. Perhaps.
But this doesn't happen with Bitcoin.
It's true that there are a number of DeFi apps that will loan BTC.
However if you look at the loan mechanism it is different to how it is done in traditional finance.
A BTC loan is done in one of two ways:
1) The original owner of the BTC is given an IOU in the form of a different token (lets call it "Wrapped BTC" or wBTC) and the original BTC token is given to the person taking the loan, OR
2) The person taking the loan is given another token ("wBTC"). This is more common.
In both these cases no new BTC is actually created. It's possible to create more of this other token though. In the specific case of wBTC[1] they say it is 1:1 backed with BTC, but other tokens might not have the same backing.
I don't have a strong opinion on the utility of BTC, but I think it is worth being accurate in our discussion.
It doesn't happen on the bitcoin blockchain. Exchanges are black boxes though, we don't always know what's going on in there.
If you think otherwise explain the mechanism you think is happening.
Everything keeps functioning because the exchange is a black box and not everyone wants to move their BTC at the same time. More people can 'own' BTC on paper than there is BTC in existence on the blockchain.
In the same way that most BTC transactions don't involve the blockchain either, they take place entirely within exchanges.
But for BTC you can't do this. If they have 100 BTC deposited from all their users and then try to loan out 101 that 101st transaction is impossible because the bitcoin isn't there.
The exchange's BTC reserves only matter when customers try to withdraw their coins. Until then, the coins are nothing but digits in their database. They can inflate that number as much as they want.
In DeFi apps you need an actual token to use. If you don't have a the token you can't do a transaction, and apps choose which tokens they support.
So an exchange can create its own token, say it is backed 1:1 by BTC and lend that. But it isn't BTC so apps have to specifically opt into it.
If they loan out the actual BTC they have in the exchange they can only loan out 100% of what they have (not more) because control and use of each BTC token is dictated by the public ledger which is out of their control.
You can do other things (eg use the BTC as collateral for a dollar loan), but again you aren't lending BTC.
You may as well talk about this being impossible with paper money, the bank can't give out more than it has! There are only so many notes! But it doesn't need to. People can trade within the bank and between banks so long as the reserves cover the activities.
Quadriga CX worked this way, until it didn't and everyone discovered their cryptocurrency was fictional.
Sure, within the exchange that's true. The instance the BTC leaves the exchange as a loan or withdrawl it is no longer possible for that BTC.
> Quadriga CX worked this way, until it didn't and everyone discovered their cryptocurrency was fictional.
I don't think this was the case, unless you can show me otherwise.
In particular, they had "BTC ATMs" where people could withdraw cash. Note that this is not loaning BTC.
And when the CEO died, the BTC could not be retrieved. There was no magic second exchange-issued BTC around - it was gone because there is only one copy.
Notably there is a precise accounting of the BTC that was lost because there is a public ledger of it. Quadriga CX didn't produce any more BTC - they just lost their customer's BTC.
Quadriga CX showed their users having BTC in their accounts.
In reality, the guy running the show had already gambled those away on other exchanges.
It all held together, ish, until he died and the music stopped.
> In particular, they had "BTC ATMs" where people could withdraw cash.
This is news to me and hasn't featured in any write-up of QCX I've ever seen.
> And when the CEO died, the BTC could not be retrieved. There was no magic second exchange-issued BTC around - it was gone because there is only one copy.
Yes, this is exactly what we're talking about - we have no real idea how much BTC is in peoples accounts on exchanges, because they are a black box and may be creating it out of thin air. While they don't try to move too much of it and the exchange remains operational, the ecosystem functions as if those balances are correct.
> Quadriga CX didn't produce any more BTC - they just lost their customer's BTC.
While they were still solvent it behaved as if there were more BTC present. Sure, they didn't create more on the blockchain, but they were able to operate as if there was more.
Until they weren't.
So as I said - they can't lend more than 100% of the BTC they have. They can make up anything want within their own exchange of course.
You simply do not understand finance. Consider Eurodollars as another example: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eurodollar.asp
Do you mean "they" purchase a second bitcoin with the second person's loan money? if not, where does the second bitcoin come from? (Hint: think about the blockchain)
On the blockchain, there only exists the 1 you deposited, the 1 that was loaned, and the 1 that was generated as profit by the bank. The blockchain tracks these transactions. The bank only has to settle these transactions when someone withdraws and when someone is depositing. Internally, there can be as many or as little transactions are as necessary.
Fiat currency has the backing of a government. The government demands certain payments of this currency in order to own land, and also for some extra rights like mineral extraction, fishing licenses etc. Thus, as long as the government is viable and can confiscate the land of those who don't pay, there will be demand for the currency, and it will be proportional to the value the government assigns to the property and the rate of tax.
Thus, the currency is stable, because you know at the end of the day, there will always be a buyer who needs to pay their taxes.
No. It crashed because trillions of tokens were created rendering each token worthless.
Prices stay changed because the beliefs change.
If people had thought this was a sane and reasonable move that didn't really affect things the price would quickly return despite the quantity increasing.
The believed durability of the token changed
No matter what strategy is to be used to try to repeg it, it will only work if there's faith in the price.
Price isn't a thing it's a relationship between people about a thing
Whatever fate lies ahead for Bitcoin, it doesn't have this particular weakness. It's not "leveraged" in the same way as Luna/UST.
People lost trust because they knew people losing trust would cause a death spiral, and they wanted to get out before everyone else.
It was a fire in a crowded theater. Bitcoin depends on trust, yes, but there's no Damoclean sword like there was for Luna. Some people losing confidence does not necessarily lead to others losing confidence.
I would rather argue though that even government backed currencies are fully dependant on trust, not government usage of it. Just check out any government currency hyperinflation event.
The IMF (International Monetary Fund) which typically steps in to offer predatory financing terms, already outlined their demands: drop Bitcoin support.
So El Salvador really must have gone all into Bitcoin, right? Yes, somewhere between 25million to 73million dollars worth (in contrast to their 800million dollar bond or the ~6billion dollars they raise in taxes each year [1]).
Oh the horror. There is definitely no geopolitical maneuverings here. /s
[1] Government Revenues in El Salvador increased to 6037.70 USD Million in 2021 from 4894.30 USD Million in 2020 https://tradingeconomics.com/el-salvador/government-revenues....
1. Not being beholden to the whims of American banks and the American government
2. Less administrative overhead would mean being able to offer more competitive services with lower fees [1]
3. Being Bitcoin friendly would attract more crypto oriented industries to be based out of their country: offering a wider market to tap into (global remittances)
[1] "Last year, they collectively transferred nearly $6 billion, or roughly 23% of the country’s gross domestic product, and a chunk of that went to the middlemen facilitating these international transfers." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/el-salvador-bitcoin-move-cou...
What percentage of El Salvador's GDP does remittance processing represent?
The one that is actually important when it comes to currencies, having something valuable (whether it is a resource, power, political influence, military, finances, etc.) to back the currency up with.
But on the most technical level, you are correct, El Salvador has the ability to back up BTC in the same capacity as a country like Zimbabwe can back up Z$.
At least for now, El Salvador has enough cash on hand to pay the $800 million bond payable in February 2023. Current cash foreign reserves are about $3000 million.
I'd like to clarify though, that I'm not an economist, and that the processes required and implications of using those funds to pay the upcoming bonds due are outside my scope of knowledge.
91% of El Salvadoreans prefer to use USD, and most stopped using Chivo (the privately-owned, government controlled wallet) after withdrawing their initial deposit.
https://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/negocios/el-salvador-bit...
A government backed currency means the government can issue that currency (for better or worse).
Bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador, as is the US Dollar[1]. The US dollar is also legal tender in Zimbabwe and other countries.
We don't say the US dollar is backed by El Salvador or Zimbabwe. Instead it is backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States".
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/040915/countries...
Any reasonable definition of stability precludes hyperinflation, we agree on that right?
You need dollars not because people have faith in them but because people have faith in the underlying institutions they represent. It's fine to claim you back bitcoin because you don't have faith in the traditional institutions but pretending that those institutions don't support dollars in a way that crypto/bitcoin isn't seems a little near-sighted.
The fact that inflation is the escape hatch for loss aversion psychology tells you that everyone on this planet is actively choosing for there to be inflation or even hyperinflation instead of a negative interest rate.
People will argue how immoral it is for a bank to tell you that your physical capital is slowly depreciating and thus even a 0% interest rate would be too high to offer to you. No, that would violate the principle of private property, private property of coupons that represent the time of other people, who are slowly aging and paying opportunity costs. People think they deserve to own the time of other people as if they were cattle or slaves. After all, their freedom to not be a debt slave violates your right to private property which is a far more pressing matter, after all the psychological bias of loss aversion justifies any hideous act (note how I didn't refer to immoral acts, as many hideous acts are considered moral).
But governments can be poorly run so I suppose “stable” is not the right word.
no, but the currency belonging to a particular gov't is as stable as the gov't itself, so your statement is still true; vis a vis the Zimbabwe currency vs the US dollar.
I'm confused. Countries manipulate their currency supply in various ways in order to make their money cheaper or more expensive, I get that. But I thought the main goal was to keep exports or imports to a good balance to avoid wrecking a real economy. Like, actual people's lifestyles and jobs and well-being, beyond just the value of an investment instrument
I'm not sure I see the metaphor holding up here, isn't the issue that came up an arbitrage opportunity caused by a peg that in the real world doesn't really exist or which is easy for actual human beings to intervene in?
Are you describing what Russia did? Did they "lose money" with the actions they actually took? It seemed more about adding rules and changing contracts than by spending money on anything in particular, I'm not sure how one would calculate how much money they lost doing it. Or if that's a useful way to think about it really even, nations just have so many other priorities and their money policy is not at all algorithmic...
So it sounds like this "ERM" is algorithmic enough that it broke things. It did get stopped due to human intervention though, so it feels like a weak metaphor.
I hope international currency markets aren't quite so fast... hopefully we won't find out.
If a national government can't maintain the value of their currency, they aren't backing it, and if they have so much gold that they can maintain the peg no matter what happens, it isn't fiat (the gold standard is where the government will sell and buy gold at a fixed price, printing or destroying currency in the process). So I would conclude that fiat currencies aren't backed by anything.
Want to own a house? Even if you buy it with bitcoin, you're going to need fiat to pay for the property tax bill.
Get paid wages? Even if you get paid in bitcoin, you still need fiat to pay the income tax bill.
Sell something? Even if you sold it for bitcoin, you still need fiat to pay the sales tax.
This fully disproves your argument, as far as I can see.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetis... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932022_Turkish_curr...
If a majority of miners fork their clients away from the bitcoin code repo by removing the coin cap, they would be creating a "new bitcoin". If the inter-subjective consensus of users also decide to use this new bitcoin it will be the defacto. Otherwise it will just be another fork (call it Bitcoin NoCap) like bitcoin cash, bitcoin diamond, bitcoin gold, etc.
The original "bitcoin" network (before the cap removal) would still propagate by whoever has the chain history.
The reality is that any attempts to split the chain to a state without a cap, at least with the current cultural consensus at this time, will result in a dead chain after a short period as people sell off the coins on the new fork.
https://www.investopedia.com/tech/history-bitcoin-hard-forks...
Quant has only 12 Million Tokens. No new tokens will ever be created. It topped at $400 a piece. Now it is trading at $72. It could go down all the way to fractions of cents.
Reality doesn't matter. Perception of reality is all that matters. Likewise, Bitcoin could only ever have a 21 M supply cap and it could end up trading in fractions of cents just like the above two coins in the future.
That doesn't mean it's not a Ponzi. One can run Ponzis with a cap and fixed/predictable supply increases..
Bitcoin sucks compared to many other cryptocurrencies, still it’s the most popular one because it was the first, because people know about it, and because people know that other people know about it.
Even if you could fork Twitter and put it behind a different domain name, for example , Twutter, and you would add some functionality that everybody would like to have (let’s say an edit button), most people would still go to Twitter.
If you could sell the rights to use the name Coca-Cola or Nike, even if you had to make it clear to the customer that the new product that you sold had nothing to do what so ever with old product, the names alone would be worth a couple of fortunes.
So what’s stopping Bitcoin from crashing is the brain virus (or meme if you want) that has infected hundreds of people around the globe and made them believe that other people will know about and believe that Bitcoin is valuable.
And since Bitcoin isn’t hooked up to a doomsday device like Luna and UST was, it can’t destroy itself.
I think you undersell that point: Bitcoin has proven itself. A lot of currencies have come and crashed, had backdoors, hacks, hard forks etc.; Bitcoin is simple-ish and stable. It also the longest surviving crypto currency. So it wields a lot of trust and market power.
When you don't claim a value, you don't need a 'backstop.'
The novelty was a guaranteed mint/burn mechanism across the two which was intended to maintain the peg on Terra.
As the prior poster correctly asserts, Luna was never pegged.
It isn't like you can reverse the mining process and get back the electricity which was used to mint your BTC or something.
I think this will hold in the future as well.
Or are you rather concerned with the volatility?
Because surely bitcoin crashed more often 80% than the dollar...
So pick your poison...