#Bitcoin fails as a money b/c of its naive monetary policy.

Many people think government printing too much is evil, so a fixed money supply must be good. The reality: a money that cannot expand would crush the economy and put us all in poverty.

Here’s why and how to fix it.
To see this we need to understand why monetary deflation and expanding economy do not go together.

Let’s simplify so it’s easier to see. Say, we have an economy with 1 product— twinkie, and 1 currency— dollar. Price of 1 twinkie = $1.
Alice, a twinkie entrepreneur, hires Bob to help make twinkies. Alice’s company makes 1 twinkie a year, so company revenue is $1. Bob’s salary is $0.5 and Alice takes the other $0.5.
What happens when productivity goes up (a.k.a. economy grows)?

When prices/wages are stable, Alice is always motivated to find better ways (read: new technology) to make twinkies (read: increase productivity).
If the company manages to make 2 twinkies instead of 1 with the same resources, Alice’ll make $1.5 instead of $0.5 ($1 x 2 twinkies - $0.5 wage cost = $1.5).
But if price quickly drops as productivity of twinkie doubles— i.e. twinkie price deflates to $0.5— Alice would still make $0.5 after going through all the trouble to increase productivity (Revenue doesn’t increase: 2 twinkies x $0.5 = $1, while wage cost is still $0.5).
(Note: In our toy economy there’s only one product, so purchasing power of $0.5 is higher than before. In reality, $ is not used to just buy twinkies but a wide variety of other goods & services. So it’s the amount of $$ earned that Alice cares about.)
Why would Alice even bother to improve productivity, when she ends up still making $0.5 as she did before?

You say, since price dropped (deflation), shouldn’t wage drop too? Why doesn’t Alice pay a lower salary to Bob, or do profit share so that wage adjusts with revenue?
But Bob would tell you, “Wait what? No f*cking way!”

A twinkie company is a risky business. Bob didn’t sign up to share that risk and he doesn’t want to.
Alice can experiment with new technologies however she wants. It’s her company. Bob is just a hired gun who wants to get paid.

Bob: “She said she’d pay $0.5. $0.5 is my right! Why are these corporations so evil?!”
Employer-worker contract is an agreement about risk as much as about money exchange. Workers signed up to exchange labor for a more or less promised pay.
That’s why in reality wages are extremely difficult to adjust downward. Seasoned entrepreneurs would tell you to think carefully about raises— they’re easy to give, hard to take back.
What happens when companies need to make investments?

Let’s make our toy economy a bit more complex. Alice wants to find a better way to make twinkies. To do so, she has to invest in R&D (research & development), and that’s costly and risky.
Alice goes to Mary to borrow $0.5 with a 20% interest rate. She invests the money in R&D and keeps her fingers crossed.
Thank goodness! She discovers a new way to double twinkie-making productivity. (Mind you, it can easily go the opposite way. She could have invested all with nothing to show for. That’s what risk is.)
If price is stable, Alice now makes $0.9 ($1 x 2 twinkies - $0.5 wage cost - $0.6 loan repayment = $0.9). That’s great. She was only making $0.5 before.
But what happens if price quickly drops from $1 to $0.5 as productivity doubles? Alice makes $0.5 x 2 twinkies - $0.5 wage cost - $0.6 loan payment = -$0.1.

She’s now royally screwed, even though the investment was supposedly a “success”.
You say, if price drops, that means purchasing power of $ is up. So interest rate, denominated in dollar, should go down by same degree.
But Mary would tell you, no way! Her argument is the same as Bob’s. Mary and Bob didn’t sign up to be the main risk taker of a venture. They only agreed to provide capital and labor in exchange for a (relatively) predictable return.
It’s Alice, the entrepreneur, who signed up to take risks, with the prospect of hopefully capturing the gain of productivity growth. But if price quickly reflects productivity growth, it makes that impossible.
You say, but things have gotten cheaper with technology progress. Look at how much the prices of TV, computer, and smart phone have dropped?
Yes, but that drop happens gradually. It allows the companies that invested in tech progress first to capture the gains before the product becomes a commodity.
Plus, new products & services are invented every day to reset the price curve, and productivity growth is slower in some categories than in others. Money supply growth is keeping apace with overall productivity growth. So the price level of aggregate economy stays stable.
Because technology progress happens all the time & economy has become more and more abundant, people take it for granted. Don’t!

Realize that for every little progress that happened, someone took the risk and invested to make it happen.
They did so because a capitalistic economy with price stability provides powerful incentives to invest and to innovate. When you have deflation, you drastically weaken those incentives and economy stagnates.
BTW, like this so far? I write about ideas on investment, macro and human potential. Subscribe to my newsletter for updates 👉 natashache.com/newsletter/
What happens if you have a money whose supply cannot expand, or God forbid…shrinks?

The long-run determinant of inflation / deflation:

Inflation rate = Money supply growth - Real GDP growth - Money velocity growth
Money velocity fluctuates up/down and doesn’t have a trend growth (i.e. ≈ 0). That means if real GDP grows (aka productivities increase, goods & services more abundant), money supply needs to grow too, otherwise you have inflation rate < 0, i.e. deflation.
In our twinkie economy, we initially make 1 twinkie and money supply is $1. So the price of twinkie = $1. When twinkie productivity doubles, money supply needs to double as well to keep the price of twinkie at $1.
If you fix money supply, the price of twinkie drops to $0.5. You screw Alice.

If productivity stays same, but you cut money supply by half, the price of twinkie also drops to $0.5, except in this case not because of any action from Alice.
Alice is like, “What have I done to deserve this?”

Also note that deflation begets more deflation:
#bitcoin has a fixed supply. If it’s used as currency, as economy expands, prices of goods & services denominated in BTC drop. That encourages BTC hoarding as people expect it to be worth more tomorrow—> more BTC taken out of circulation —> money supply shrinks further.
Yes with deflation each satoshi can buy you more stuff. But with investment/production incentives destroyed, you soon won’t have more stuff to buy.
You say, we can still have a currency with fixed supply like bitcoin, we just need to entirely change how interest rates / wages / prices are set.
Yes, theoretically possible. But what for? Why would you ask the whole economy to bend backwards to fit the arbitrary tyranny of a currency, when money is supposed to serve the economy, not the other way around? Just so that BTC hodlers could see their asset appreciate?
Give me a motherf*cking break!

Stable prices— not persistent inflation or deflation— is a fundamental feature of any good money.

Bitcoin has a place as a store-of-value asset in a new monetary paradigm. But it’s unfit to be a currency and never will be.

Any other layer 1 chain that aspires to become a dominant medium of exchange / unit of account should take heed of this.
Money policy should be programmed in a way so that money supply will expand along with the volume of economic activities happening on the platform.
There should also be mechanism to accommodate cyclical change— lower money supply when economy is running too hot and increase when it’s in recession, to help economy cope with volatility.
These rules can be programmed so no subjective discretion / potential abuse like with a traditional central bank.
#Bitcoin is not a new economic paradigm. Programmable monetary policy is.
Like this? I write about ideas to help you become smarter, richer, freer. Follow me on Twitter for updates 👉 @realnatashache .

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Tascha

Tascha Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RealNatashaChe

7 Sep
People angry about a jpeg 🖼 selling for $1 mn fail to see the big picture.

If you understand the nature of assets & long-term macro backdrop, it’s easy to see why NFTs will grow exponentially.

Here’s a simple framework to help wrap your head around this new asset class.

They are instruments to transfer ownership of value across time and space.
Your Amazon stock is ownership on Amazon future earnings. Your ounce of gold is ownership of $1830 (today’s gold price) worth of economic output— you can use it to claim a share of today’s GDP by, say, using your gold to buy some groceries.
Read 36 tweets
31 Aug
If you mint a NFT based on a physical asset, e.g. a 💎 , how much should it be worth?

It seems a complex question, but is actually easy to answer w/ classical asset pricing principles.

Let’s see how to set a floor price for my diamond NFT & learn some asset pricing methods 👇
For background, I’m doing a destroyed-diamond NFT experiment, where I buy a real diamond—> create an associated NFT—> destroy the diamond—> sell the NFT.

You can follow the progress of the project here:
To price a new asset, we can think of its value as the sum of values of all its features.
Read 31 tweets
26 Aug
Me: I bought a diamond yesterday.

Mom: Nice. They’re good investments.

Me: I’m going to smash it & sell it as a NFT.

Mom: Say again?

So I tried to convince my mother (accountant w/ 30 yr experience) that NFT is a better asset than diamond.

Did I succeed? Let’s find out 👇
First off, if you’re out of loop, this all started b/c I’m doing an experiment inspired by all the brilliant comments people made on this tweet of mine:

I decided to buy a real diamond, create an associated NFT, destroy the diamond, and see if the NFT retains value. I told my mother about this on the phone. Like everyone else, she immediately went— this is crazy.
Read 40 tweets
24 Aug
Ok, you've all convinced me this is an experiment that needs to be done. So here's the deal.

I'm going to buy a real diamond--> create a NFT for it--> list it on @opensea--> destroy the original diamond. I'll ping this tweet on my profile so you can track progress.

Stay tuned.
STEP 1: Create an @opensea account.


STEP 2: Buy a hammer for diamond smashing (Never smashed a diamond before. Hope this one'll do the job, or I'll need to find another way).

STATUS: Done. Image
Read 15 tweets
16 Aug
Ethereum will be the new government bond.

Staked ETH, or PoS asset of a dominant blockchain, will replace US Treasuries as the risk-free asset in any portfolio.

This shall be the biggest revolution in the history of financial markets.

Here’s how I think it’ll go down 👇
First, how does a “risk-free asset” come to be?

There’s no guarantee in life. Everything has risk. An asteroid can hit earth tomorrow and we all die.

But in practice, people take the debt issued by the US government as a benchmark, risk-free asset, because—
Governments collect taxes. The US has the largest, most robust economy in the world. The US government has the largest, most robust incomes. It literally just takes a cut of the US GDP every year.
Read 33 tweets
10 Aug
Your bank offers 0.2% APY but BlockFi offers 8%. Are high yields in crypto for real?

The answer is yes AND no.

Here’s my review of 6 types of yields in crypto, ranked from most Ponzi 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 to most durable 🏰 🏰 🏰 🏰 🏰.
(Note: A Ponzi simply means the price of X depends on more people buying X, but without creating a meaningful network effect of intrinsic value. I have nothing against Ponzi. You can make money in them as long as you’re not the last fool. A lot of things in life work that way.)
TYPE 1: Staking a token with 100% APY

100% percent of zero is zero.

There are deFi projects hoping to get adoption by offering high yields. The APY is counted in the native token. Since the token is thinly traded, price can be easily manipulated and doesn’t mean much.
Read 45 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!