Is store of value incompatible with medium of exchange?

BTC had no ICO so that’s a particularly bad example. I’m talking about Cardano. Another problem with your thinking is that cryptos are not companies. They’re decentralized ecosystems. So their cash flow is the total cash flow of their participants and not just the income from the token issuance. The inception of BTC would have been impossible if your logic would stand, since there would have been no resources to finance the development of the project at the beginning. With such superficial arguments backing your position I would be more cautious about saying anything about the level of my understanding of the matter…

Yes and no. Issuance of new tokens would have not propped up anything in itself. The new tokens had to have people willing to pay a price for them. And why do they pay a price for them? Because of the fixed supply. Change that and you will lose more then you gain with the changed monetary policy. Even if this fixed supply will realize in the future. This is a promise. Fuck with that promise, and see how the market reacts.

Ok. Then again. Every fiat is volatile yet they “acting like money”. (People are using them as money, they are not “acting” any freaking way) Fiats are just less volatile. Volatility is a property, that can be measured, that we need to work on if we want to make the project successful. Even if we don’t want to use ADA as money, if we only want to finance projects through it (which is not any different) like Project Catalyst does. Can we agree on that it would be more usable to fund projects through ADA if ADA was less volatile? Can you agree to that?

Agreed. I was just kidding.

Good! You still didn’t give me any suggestion why issuing new money over the promised fixed supply is a better way of funding development than asking from it from the community. Please, would you do that for me?

Price is best set by the market. An index that measures economic activity or better yet adoption would be a super useful helper for the market.

But if we want to decrease volatility we need to increase liquidity on the markets. We need to start appreciating traders as just as important part of the project as developers, communicators, organizers, writers, etc. We need to educate traders. We need to develop trading strategies that compete with staking interests so people willing to risk a bit more could earn a bit more. We need to develop trading tools to automate those rigorously formalized trading strategies.

That must be hard! Why don’t you try something else then? For example stick to the topic, answer important points, appreciate the viewpoint of the other. Something along those lines…

I am a firm believer that logic leads only to speculative bubbles and ponzi schemes - you buy an asset for the rights it gives you and those rights form the foundation of value. If it’s a voucher for a cup of coffee - it will be worth a cup of coffee, not because it’s the only coupon for a cup of coffee in existence but because it represents a claim on a cup of coffee.

so, I strongly disagree.

1 Like

Yes, in this case ADA represents the right to a fixed portion of the money supply. Fiat doesn’t have this property. With fiat you don’t know how your share relates to the whole.

Speculative bubbles yes. That’s what we need to fight by traders interested in the long term success of the project. Traders that also hold stakes. Speculative bubbles crop up everywhere where there is not enough liquidity, where you can drive up the prices with some investment. It is not caused by fixed supply. Now for example the promise of simply fixed supply is not enough in itself to spur up a shitcoin and rob naive investors, so schemers have to come up with more elaborate false promises.

Ponzi schemes no. Ponzi schemes have a central organizer who benefits from the scam and then run. Until now empirical evidence shows that anybody HODL-ing long enough to their BTC, ETH or ADA gained instead of lost money. (I don’t want to imply that it will stay this way, just a fact.)

Another question: what do you disagree with so strongly?

  1. People needed to pay a price for ADA to make it able to fund anything
  2. People payed the price because of the promise of fixed supply

Money is nothing but bookkeeping. It is a measure what you owe to the community and the community owes to you. Money is a circulation of information and in itself has no value, money is an abstraction. The relationship of money to wealth is that of words to meaning in the physical world, it is just a label.

Exactly, what we really want is “un-forge-ability”. Because it is accounting nobody should be messing up with the ledger: Getting money in “unjust” ways. You get money, only when you do something valuable for the community. We as a community can decide whether to give you some of our money or to forge new money for you.

Fixed and known supply gives you a simpler mental model to reason which share of the total wealth you receive & when to consider yourself paid. Fixed supply also pushes power to the edges, convincing all the community to issue new money when I want to pay you is out of the question, I must directly give you my money and that trade ensures that you consider yourself paid and equally I consider myself served. That dynamic saves us from “power proxies”, like the government, deciding for us what might not be in our best interest.

Exactly, we must reward people in our community. Rewards come in many ways too. There is money, there is fame, there is prestige, whatever you like. And best of all, none of those are scarce, we can always create more, that is the hallmark of human ingenuity. As a community we must be smart enough to recognize that and reward what we want to see in our community. If someone created value, we can create the reward. Zero-sum just helps with the accounting.

I believe the biggest innovation of cryptocurrencies is not the fixed supply, but that we can achieve 100% democracy. You volunteer to join a community and its money, the one that reflects your values or at least the values you want to strive for. Some communities will have fantastic ideas and those will foster the wealth and well being of their members, others will drive themselves to oblivion. Today you are “captured”, you must use the money they give you, you must pay they taxes they impose you(After covid I don’t even understand why taxes if they will just print money). Voting with ballots do not fix the problem, especially if you don’t get a vote on monetary policy. The only true votes are with your wallet and your feet, and governments are working to take those options from you.

The reality of economic reality is that when something works everybody copies. When a business starts doing well, it sprouts more of those business, competition is best for the customer in the long run but very confusing on the short term. Some copy-cat business are never worth it. Same with cryptocurrencies, they offer a tremendous amount of value and so there are good projects and outright scams. We’ll have to find out what works best in the long run yet. And we must work to keep that possibility alive, because no government wants 100% democracy, they want 100% compliance. Just take covid, we could have copied Sweden that kept everything open, yet every government copied the most authoritative regime of China and locked everybody down. As I said, if something works everybody copies. Whether it is good for you or not is a different problem.

Yes!! All human ingenuity is geared towards giving us more for less, to save labor and to produce goods and services. In a prosperous economy we grow wealthy, prices go down and we need to work less. Your work today and you should be able to save for the future where your money will give you more and free you from work, that is in general the reward of society. Passing the post, let new generations work. We don’t want money, we want what money buys. Money is boring, you can’t do anything with it, what you want is to trade it for something else that is truly valuable to you. People wont hoard their fixed supply crypto forever, something that they truly want will come their way and they’ll seize that opportunity.

What crypto brings to the table is a better savings technology. You can save in something that can capture the aggregate effort of society. Just make sure you build a better society and your money will be worth more. You don’t need to worry about your stock portfolio, investing, or other things. Just be a good person and save.

Now to the question of this post. Is store of value incompatible with medium of exchange? I don’t think at all, it is in fact what you want to have because it frees up your mental space, focus is extremely valuable. In fact we are at the point in technology where store of value and medium of exchange can be unified.

However, life is not certain, thus nothing fixed works long term. Because something works today, it doesn’t mean it will work tomorrow. I said crypto currencies give you 100% democracy, yet if you have ever interacted with other people you’ll soon realize that conflict arises all the time. Just read this thread, we are “arguing”, even if it is constructive and will leave more knowledgeable, there will be some hard feelings and frustration along the way. There are always “timescales” at play. We start with our preconceptions, then we confront them to those of others, we get hurt and defensive, maybe even become stubborn or maybe we relax and open to learn or to teach others. And an agreement will take time to consolidate. If money was on the line, how would you stabilize the entire turmoil?

Our economy is precisely that. Is a place where every participant has their own opinion, and values things differently. Maybe you love Coca-Cola and would even pay twice its price, I don’t drink it even when its free. Maybe you would accept a payment in Coca-Cola because you like it and on top of that it saves you the time to going to the store, I would be worried about how am I going to get rid of it thus I would never take it. Thus we invented money, to solve the problem of the coincidence of wants. Money is a technology that grows inside a community because it is able to keep the accounting clear (there is a saying: clear accounting makes friendships last). As I said, we don’t really want money, we want what we want, money is a shared social believe system that allows people to transact. If you don’t want to transact today, you want a store of value. If you want to transact, you want a medium of exchange. For store of value you want something you can defend, for medium of exchange you want to be able to move it. Digital currencies solve those problems at once for the first time. You can defend your crypto at close to no cost, it doesn’t rot, it can’t be confiscated and you can send it to any place in the network with final settlement at quite a high speed. They are an open permission-less system, anybody that wants to receive crypto can do it.

What is left is the unit of account, there is where you need people to agree and people have different opinions all the time. Units of measure are not a technological problem, they are a social one. Meters are no better than yards, yet both are better than a stone’s throw of distance. Standardized units of measure are the biggest foundation for human progress. We have not yet invented a unit of measure for money, because money is an abstraction it does not exist in objective reality, it is a collective believe system and we don’t have any idea how to measure. However, don’t let the perfect be enemy of the good and we still have a lot of innovation to see in the space.

Cryptocurrencies give you today: store of value, medium of exchange, global auditability, immutability + impossible to counterfeit. You just need to solve the unit of account, which is a social problem. That means as long as you get a community to back you up is good enough, because that is the point, you want your peers to have your back, you want to live in community with them, you want to reward them for the value they bring to your life.

Maybe we do need a 3 tier system. The network base money, where everybody can save and capture the collective increase in human productivity over the long term(think ADA). A credit issuance system or security issuance system where you individually capture the value of your individual work and risk taking(think other native-tokens of the network). A financial insurance system that hedges you against targeted volatility(this innovation does not yet fully exist, but it would be like a flat coin, a constant purchasing power). As you read the last 2 are actually systems, that means they need to be adaptive, the second one needs a legal framework(which we already have), you want to buy securities that make their issuer accountable. The third one already exists as well as futures contracts, they are like vouchers for large purchases. They are financial contracts, you buy the option to buy or sell something at a given price by a given date. This contract shields you from volatility in a specific asset, we need to bring it down from a tool for large finance players to everybody. From valid for the purchase of 10 Tons of copper in 6 months, to valid for 1 gallon of milk within 12 months(they also exist they are called coupons and merchants issue them directly because they know their production rate).

2 Likes

hahaha. um, no. or at least not specific enough.

The best prices are for the bidder to pay the externality she imposes on the other bidders in something that looks like a Vickery auction.

Reverse auctions are a happy medium between practicality and fairness.

Exchange of goods and services is best handled by mutual consent. It’s always preferable to have some idea what something is worth and price it accordingly; then someone can decide whether or not they want to accept your offer.

That’s not incompatible with what you said - there are market mechanisms that operate that way, but just saying “the market” is a very wide field.

I did not say that “the best prices are the prices set by the market”. I just said that we didn’t come up yet with a better (centralized) method to set prices.

I think crypto markets currently are very far from being good at pricing. For example I don’t think that the Cardano project worth less 75% than it have been a year ago. Which drives me to the conclusion that our markets are not working efficiently. Which drive me to the conclusion that we need to put effort into improving our markets. I hope you see how this is related to our whole conversation.

There will be no hard feelings. We all know that everybody here is here with good intentions, and that’s what matters. I’m here to understand other viewpoints and to broadcast mine. I’m old enough to know that I won’t convince anybody. It’s enough for me if @Colin_Edwards understands the fact that there are users who think differently, even if he thinks that these users thinking is totally wrong. Anyway coming from him, it’s a compliment, since he is always totally wrong! (And because of the nature of totality that also means I’m totally right!)

Note: The fact that we can create more of something doesn’t mean it’s not scarce.

Note: I never said that fixed supply is the greatest innovation, I think this is the defining difference from fiat from a user’s perspective. In my opinion fixed supply stems naturally from decentralization so from a developers perspective decentralization will be the defining difference. But again the two is the same until proponents of other monetary policies come up and present a meaningful and fair decentralized policy with any evidence of benefits. They don’t and won’t, because they don’t have one. I have these arguments for months here, and they never have… They don’t even answer my direct question about how money printing over the supply ceiling would be better than fundraising. Probably even my questions are totally wrong…

Yes. Totally.

We’re far from that yet. The possibility is there, but we have to work on the right things to achieve that. And we must not deny that possibility at the first place just because we are not there yet!

It’s not incompatible it’s necessary. Medium of exchange only works if it’s a store of value as well.

But they are both fixed. Also introducing a new unit of length doesn’t change the length of the others. Not with money. New unit of accounts that people actually start to use change the measuring properties of the others, because there will be more abstractions that expresses the same amount of real-world value.

We don’t need a separate layer for crediting. We can simply use ADA to credit. Donation is a form of credit with -100% interest. If we can do that we will be able to give credit with higher interest too. Yeah, you probably won’t finance something that you don’t want to support just because it’s profitable. It’s the same logic as with fixed supply you don’t spend on things you don’t need. It is not a loss, it is a gain.

Yes, you need a base token and other stable coins pegged to different price indexes. If someone prefers to credit with these stable coins it will be also possible.

And there could be stablecoins pegged to fiat for the fans of fundraising through money printing!

1 Like

They are standardized, that’s why introducing a new unit doesn’t change the length of others. Unlike distance which is a physical thing, money is a social construction. That is not to say that we can’t come up with a standard unit. Commodity money was for thousand of years the best money we had. The beauty of the idea of a physical object representing money is that we can exchange it freely for goods and services without any third party involved in the exchange. Thus the “money object” becomes a material expression of a very abstract idea. Even there standardizing the commodity is paramount, a gold nugget is not the same as a gold coin of standard weight, shape, purity, stamped with a design known to everybody.

The best commodity money is just the most salable good. Yes, the gold rush created inflation, but 1oz of gold is 1oz of gold. Its purchasing power decreased because our own greed. If there is more we ask for more. That’s how humans think: Never leave money on the table is the negotiation goal, not get paid what makes you happy. It is really get the most out of the buyer. But that is even consistent with physical really, the same way distance, time, mass are fixed, because we mostly observe them at rest. But we now know from relativity that there is space contraction, time dilation and mass increase for moving objects. When things move, everything changes. Meters, seconds, grams remain definite standardized units, yet somehow they give different measurements depending of the dynamics of the system.

Same way, there is the amount of money and the velocity of money. You are not wealthy because the money you have, but because you satisfy your wants. Maybe you have an expensive highly valuable Picasso, but that’s because it doesn’t move/“trade”. You don’t have a liquid market to transform it into something else you might want at a later time. In the same way, you can have all the Gold/Bitcoin/USD you can fathom, as soon as you are on a desert island you are miserable because there is nothing to buy.

One thing Bitcoiners are right, although delusional of it, is that you can’t print more energy, you can always print more fiat. That is the property of money we want something unforgeable, energy has true natural consequences and would make the best money. Yet we can’t store energy well, thus it fails the store of value test and we can’t transmit it well failing the medium of exchange. However, it would be amazing to have energy as money. We have standardized units for energy already they are called Joules, we even have units for its velocity we call them Watts. And yes as soon as we have energy as money, people would try to make more energy, we would have so much energy available it would probably be a wonderful society to live in where we are flooded with energy. Yes, having more energy would devalue the energy, but it would give you nevertheless a better standard of living. Contrary to finding more gold or worse just printing more money which bring zero value to society. A society is wealthy not because the amount of money it has, but by the amount of goods and services it offers. We must find ways to reward members of society for the things we want. There was a time when Rockefeller, Edison, Tesla, Ford where the most admired men, they harnessed energy for the public. Nowadays we admire Warren Buffet, venture capitalist, wall street people. We admire Investors and money managers way more than we admire the actual creators of the wealth in society.

I find it amazing that electricity companies are not the most valuable companies. We humans are so destructive to our well being that we even capture those companies, give them bad management, forbid them to make profit and block free market competition for the single most important utility of nature: energy. That is where Bitcoiners are right, we need to make energy more available, and we must give a social incentive to produce more energy. Bitcoin difficulty adjustment is the objective measure of the devaluation of energy. Energy producers need to find a better market to sell their energy, Bitcoin is just the buyer of last resort.

1 Like

As an empiricist, I take pride in my ability to change my position as new evidence comes along. Good judgement comes from experience and that experiences grows out of mistakes.

2 Likes

We can exchange anything freely for goods without a third party. In a society with high trust levels like a family or a small village we don’t even need to give something in exchange immediately: there is credit. In such environments the mention of money can be even insulting or inappropriate. Immediate barter or money is only needed when there is no trust and no shared future. That’s why we feel that money is soulless, cold or alienating.

I don’t really understood where you wanted to go with the energy thing.

1 Like

Yes, within a community you don’t need money, because you take care of your relationships. Money is a tool to transact with people you have neither the time nor the interest in forming a relationship. Money is the least efficient value exchange but is all you have in the absence of a trust relationship.

The entire idea of having money is that you don’t have to know the other people. That is why I find it unreasonable that we have “know your customer” regulations, the entire point of inventing money was to not know your customer, if someone has the money we can trade.

The energy idea is that it would be the best money we could ever have. Energy doesn’t need to be scarce to be money, that means it is fine if we humans come up with better ideas to extract energy, because it would make our standard of living better because it is useful. Unfortunately today we can’t store or exchange energy at negligible loss, thus it doesn’t work as money today. But with energy, we would know what a Joule of energy is, the unit of account would be a solved problem. That is all to say that money is an abstract concept, but we live in physical reality and thus we must instantiate money in some form, and that cast brings a lot of trade offs.

Then yes, I agree there are a lot of ideas around energy, maybe it should go to a separate thread and to allow for a deeper discussion. Feel free to quote some ideas, I’ll explain myself better.

1 Like

I sincerely hope that the humorous intention of those sentences went through.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and curiosity, but sometimes some thinking before the experience doesn’t hurt, because the outcome might be deducible from information we already have. :smiley:

And finally let me offer you a deal: you post a concrete vision of a decentralized monetary policy without fixed supply with information about where the newly issued tokens go and who decides about their fate, and in exchange I keep quiet. I just shut the f up and think about it. What do you think? You don’t have to explain (if you don’t want) why you think it’s better or good or anything. Just how you imagine it.

1 Like

I see. You give me a fine stew and I zap you with a teaser. Or something along these lines, right? Just kidding.

As I see it, it’s just another commodity money. In my opinion as abstract money is, as small inherent value it has the better because if this inherent value changes it changes the price of everything else, so it loses its expressiveness. On sunny days you would get more amperes for the same work as on rainy days because of solar energy for example. In this sense ADA is just as good as it gets.

Note: Worth to mention that no money is abstract to the fullest, because of its universal exchangeability and other properties it has an inherent value. Sometime you need money and nothing else because you are in a situation where these properties comes in handy. For example you move into a distant country and you don’t want to move your stuff, etc.

I don’t think that fixed supply is necessary. For example, I think it would be OK to have a “money” that has a constant known inflation rate of say precisely 2%. So long as everyone knows this inflation rate, can verify it independently, and everyone experiences it proportionally.

I think predictability and transparency are the important factors and these in turn allow everyone to be sure that no one is getting preferential access to the “money”. These factors make it possible to make more accurate assessments about whether any action you take is going to increase your relative wealth or decrease it. Having predictability and transparency over the money supply would also reduce hedging costs since it removes a large part of the uncertainty. It also allows participants to be sure that competitors are governed by the same financial rules.

Please don’t.

The current financial system makes it so hard to make proper assessments because the measuring stick and the rules keep changing. It is also unfair that some actors have the supreme power to change both the measuring stick and the rules, at their timing.

1 Like

I don’t think a fixed supply is necessary either, yet I’m sure introducing inflation on purpose is a bad idea especially as a percent because of exponential growth it just compounds. It is also a power dynamic, who gets that 2% first? Money is accounting of what you owe to society and what it owes to you. The only appropriate way to get money is doing something for society, inflation does nothing but cover up for bad management decisions, poor credit issuance, where you socialize the losses.

In engineering you want lossless systems, you avoid leaks, otherwise the system becomes too complicated to keep running. Accepting a leak in a design is really the worst outcome, that you only take because technologically you can’t circumvent it yet and you need some kind of solution for now. The idea of inflation(putting a leak on purpose) being something you need is unreasonable.

We need moneys to transact, nowadays if we don’t have money we invent new ones all the time. They say cigarettes are money in prison, as a kid I did trade in collectible cards. Money is a lubricant in the engine of commerce. As such if you have none, anything would do, but there are just better moneys and only those can scale to larger systems.

Humans have searched for the hardest money. The one we can store and transact with. Gold was the best because getting more Gold was very hard. Counterfeiting gold is also hard, yet authenticating gold is expensive and inconvenient for trade. That is why we invented mints, giving standard shape, weight, and design. And made it a crime to counterfeit those minted coins. In all monetary systems counterfeit is a crime we even hardened when moving to paper money. If it starts to ring a bell, we humans don’t want undue increase in the money supply.

We humans are only so smart to deal with closed systems, leaks are something we avoid because they break our systems thinking. We can’t avoid gold inflation, because of how we naturally extract it, or because we discover America and steal from the natives their gold, or we find it California and have the Gold rush. Those are failures of the system and have led to inflation. But to say we need inflation, is allowing “someone” to have legal right to counterfeit money, to receive service from society without offering value to it first, that is wrong.

In summary. Fixed supply is not necessary for a good monetary system, we can deal without it if it is a natural consequence of reality, and we put all our engineering effort leaks. Yet on a digital system, where we are not bound by the laws of physics, putting a leak on purpose is a really bad place to start and I would rather run the experiment with out it.

In thermodynamics, we invented the notion of the micro-canonical ensemble, it is a fully closed system. You can reason about it, but it is so closed that you can’t do anything with it. But only after you studied it to the fullest and understand it, you dare to add controlled ways to interact with the external world. And the way we do it is to embed another system inside where you can allow for a local heat/particle/volume… exchange. You see we don’t introduce a leak, we create a local subsystem with exchange capabilities. We do that, because we humans are not yet enlightened enough to understand bigger systems, we need to have things constant.

I find we have not fully seen the innovation in crypto currencies. Yet reasoning by analogy, first we must start with a controlled limited system with everything constant. Then create subsystems where more capabilities are allowed. And it is what we do now, locking some value on lightning or fedimit or liquid for bitcoin. Or for Cardano when we ever reach to Hydra. As you see, those are subsystems with a “Value locked”, but how much is arbitrary and can be changed following certain controlled rules. Those subsystems allow you to extract more work out of your value. Yes a bitcoin is still a bitcoin, but a bitcoin on lightning is nowadays a better bitcoin.

2 Likes

The idea that a fixed supply is a bad answer doesn’t mean that the other answers are easy; so, while we are talking about crypto - we can observe they are utterly failing to answer this problem adequately, without needing to pose a better answer other than to say “that is not what crypto can do”, much like observing that crypto isn’t going to be much use for micropayments either. Despite both at one point being talking points about what crypto might be.

My suggestion would be try to directly approach the problem you are trying to solve, not try to back into an answer. Money exists to make it easier to buy and sell things; that’s got two aspects to it:

  • am I getting a fair price?
  • am I getting assets that are easy to exchange for what I want?

Separate out money into two pieces

  • unit of measure (X) - price stability
  • medium of exchange (Y) - liquid, easy to store/transport/exchange

structure all prices in terms of X, payable in Y
"That will be “$0.35”, we accept payment in “USD, Visa/MC, PayPal, Google Pay, Apply pay, gift certificates”

The whole idea of a fixed supply only makes sense in an equilibrium: if the only thing that can change in an economy in equilibrium is the monetary supply, then to keep prices constant you have to keep the supply constant. If the supply of goods and services changes without the monetary supply changing then to keep prices constant - the monetary supply must change. (Obviously the actual monetary supply isn’t set by the government anyway, it’s set by the market… which is why you have measures like M1, M2, M3,etc.)

In the case of a constrained economy running on a set of rails (like a blockchain), it might actually be possible to calculate a value for everything, so you could determine a better price. That price could be paid in a variety of equally easy to transfer assets.

It’s sort of like a transition from the gold standard to the gold+silver standard to gold+silver+(a bunch of other stuff)

“I can pay you a dollar worth of gold” or “a dollar worth of silver” … all you need is an oracle and a supply of assets like gold or silver - not a fixed supply of dollars to make that happen.

1 Like

I think a better analogy is feedback and reinforcement loops - you don’t design a car to stay on the road by never allowing it to turn. As it starts to drift of course, you need a mechanism to course correct.