Thread by @GeorgeSelgin

It's worth noting that the paradox that an inconvertible, non-interest-bearing exchange medium should command value today despite the certain knowledge that it will eventually cease to be valuable, has long puzzled monetary economists.

https://twitter.com/doug_scott/status/1409217196891512843

In _Logik des Geldes_ (1912), Bruno Moll called it "the problem of the end." _The Value of Money_ by Dutch economist Tjardus Greidanus (cdn.mises.org/The%20Value%20…) has a nice discussion of it. Here's an excerpt, starting w/ a quote from Moll:

"The certainty of the individuals to be able to pass on the money rests in the end on the trust-whether conscious, half conscious or unconscious-that even the last owner of the money, who cannot pass it on, has in his possession something of value."

Greidanus responds: "The history of the last five thousand years, on the contrary, gives me the firm and deliberate conviction that the money that I readily accept to-day will one day be valueless. But
this has no perceptible influence on my readiness to accept it...

"... Whether the shilling that I accept to-day will still be
worth a shilling after a thousand years, or nothing, makes in cash value only the difference of a small fraction of a farthing."

Allowing that what goes for an actual money may also go for something that is merely expected by some to eventually become money, the same may be said, in answer to Taleb, about Bitcoin.