I’d like to present a somewhat crazy thought experiment, which I find useful for thinking about Bitcoin as a unit of account.
Imagine a world in which dollars are illegal to directly own. Instead, we all own Treasuries. There is only one type of Treasury, a consol bond that pays $1 per year in perpetuity. Upon receipt, the $1 is immediately converted into an equivalent number of new Treasuries at the prevailing interest rate, which is manually set by the Fed. If the interest rate is 5%, for instance, you receive $1 in the form of 0.05 new Treasuries.
In this world, all taxes are paid in Treasuries. If $100 of taxes are owed and the interest rate is 5%, 5 Treasuries are owed to the government. Likewise, if a business charges $100 for a cup of coffee, 5 Treasuries are owed to the coffee shop. If a barista makes $1000 a month, he/she will receive Treasuries each month worth $1000 at the prevailing interest rate.
In this economy, the Fed effectively controls the value of the dollar. If demand for Treasuries suddenly surges, due to an unexpected negative supply shock, the Fed reduces the interest rate, just as it does today. Likewise, if demand for Treasuries suddenly falls because investments elsewhere are more attractive, the Fed raises the interest rate, keeping the value of the dollar approximately the same.
In this economy, there is no justifiable reason for the Fed to target inflation. Consumers do not own dollars, so inflation cannot spur spending. Thus, in equilibrium, the Fed would want to target 0% inflation, since that would reduce the cost of doing business and improve economic accounting. This means the interest rate the Fed would target would be the real “natural rate of interest,” or the real “risk-free rate,” which is a function of the state of the economy.
In this example, one Treasury produces $1 per year in perpetuity, but in effect, one Treasury produces new Treasuries at rate equal to the Fed’s current rate of interest. This analogy therefore maps 1-to-1 to the Bitcoin economy today, except the Bitcoin “Fed” has permanently set Bitcoin’s interest rate at 0%.
I sometimes struggle with the idea of using BTC as a unit of account because we would never price goods and services in Treasuries (unless we assume the “natural rate of interest” is constant). Even in the eventual end-state where Bitcoin dwarfs all other assets, it’s value will still vary with the natural rate of interest of the Bitcoin economy, which reflects the real rate of return expected / required by the market. Unless we can somehow know this natural rate of interest, we can’t create a stable unit of account native to the Bitcoin economy.
The good news is that as the natural rate of interest falls, the value of bitcoin rises. Undoubtedly, the rate of return required by the market is lower today than it was five or ten years ago, so it makes sense that bitcoin is worth far more. We have a long way to go before the required rate of return on Bitcoin approaches single digits, so I think it’s not unreasonable to expect significant further appreciation, as the perceived riskiness of investing in bitcoin falls.
Appreciate any thoughts! Curious how others think about BTC’s future as a unit of account.
I don't think that's the issue with using Bitcoin as a unit of account.
I've actually been meaning to write my own post about Bitcoin as a unit of account, because I think that's the next big hurdle on the path to becoming money.
It's difficult to use Bitcoin as a unit of account, because most goods and services are priced in fiat. In order to use Bitcoin as a unit of account, you need to be able to define your income and expenditures in Bitcoin.
Superficially, it would be simple for an entrepreneur to price their services in Bitcoin, but if they want to earn a profit, then they need to generate revenues that exceed their costs. In order to define their costs in Bitcoin, they need to find other entrepreneurs who provides the resources they need and also price them in Bitcoin.
I'm very curious about how the people who really live on a Bitcoin standard navigate this unit of account issue. Are they converting fiat prices into Bitcoin prices or have they managed to define their prices in Bitcoin terms?
reply
Would be interested in that as well. And I 100% agree that unit of account is the primary hurdle to Bitcoin’s adoption as money.
There’s definitely a chicken and egg problem. I’ve read somewhere that in a Bitcoin economy, businesses will simply update their prices when the value of Bitcoin changes. The problem is that’s just not realistic for anything but goods and services that can be bought today.
I haven’t read Graeber but I understand that he advocated a debt theory of money. To gain adoption as a unit of account, we need people to price their debts in BTC (and any other type of long-dated contract, like wages).
I think the unit of account problem is one of simple competition. When two parties sign a contract, it is in their interest to choose the least risky unit of account that’s available. This means a unit of account whose future value is as certain as possible. Much of international trade is done in dollars for this reason. To gain adoption as money, bitcoin needs a unit of account that is undeniably superior to any alternative.
reply
I can see why Bitcoin denominated debts would be important, since that would also mean well defined Bitcoin denominated payments. Now the lender has a steady defined stream of Bitcoin and the borrow has some consistent Bitcoin costs. It'll be figuring out interest rates on Bitcoin debts that will be very difficult at first.
I'm trying to take some baby steps towards unit of account thinking. For instance, on Fountain, I have a fairly predictable small Bitcoin income and I've preset how much I'm going to stream back to podcasts that have their LN stuff set up.
I've generally been an advocate for dollar-cost-averaging as a strategy for stacking sats. However, this conversation has me thinking about how buying the same amount of Bitcoin every week would provide a defined Bitcoin income.
reply
Variance in the fiat value of Bitcoin does not represent an interest rate. Thinking about Bitcoin in terms of interest rates is fiat thinking to begin with.
Addressing the question on how we'd use Bitcoin as a future unit of account, I think Bitcoin prices will be used after the value of Bitcoin has been stabilized (when the block reward is nearly gone and .the world starts to move to a Bitcoin standard)
reply
I think to get to a unit of account acceptability the volatility would need to below 10% annually, it would need to be in the trillions so that no one person or entity could move the market as they move in and out and that will take time.
When people only get a marginal increase in purchasing power each year it makes it easier to spend and easier to price things in bitcoin. If BTC pricing also doesn't make it hard to maintain your margins as a business and carry risk of not meeting your obligations people can price goods and services in it much easier too
Not that fiat wont stick around for a very long time even if we get to that point, people are creatures of habit and some of those with that habit need to die out first for a new one to take hold.
reply
Well your notion that it will still be volatile after fiat is dead is very foolish, not because there won't be variation in time for demand for money, but because volatility will be incredibly low, far less than any other good so it is obvious how it will be the unit of account after hyperbitcoinization.
Now, others here will tell you that as well, but where they are foolish is in having overlooked the true nature of unit of account in its entirety, and they have brushed it off no differently than a nocoiner brushes off bitcoin.
I have figured out the truth about unit of account and it is a lot more interesting than most people think (I skimmed through the replies and no one here is even remotely close to asking the right questions). The question and the answer is written down here: https://heaviside.substack.com/p/the-forgotten-fourth-function-of
reply
I already use sats as my unit of account!!!
I have earned a 5 figure net worth on stacker.news in just 2 months.
There are already some people who are millionaires in net worth on stacker.news.
I have not thought about dollars when writing here last weeks.
The only thing I’m looking at is the number in sats. And if it grows I’m happy.
And what I like is that these sats cannot just be printed out of nowhere! They are scarce.
reply
  1. Where does the interest come from?
Who produces it?
  1. You created another Fiat world. You changed the dollar into “treasuries”, but the basics seems the same. It is centralized, you can create it from thin air. You can increase the money supply. And when it is centralized it becomes something politicians can influence and print more of.
  2. I do not understand your story with the interest rate. And I do not understand your link with inflation. To me inflation is the debasement of money because you can print the digits. You have not convinced me why there is no inflation in your system.
  3. I do not believe a central organization like the FED can know what is happening in all markets, real estate, job market, goods and services market, capital market, stock market to set the price - e.g the interest rate of money or whatever fiat construct there is. Especially if you have to do this for 230 countries.
  4. What is the fundamental challenge/problem you are trying to solve with your analysis? That there is no “interest” for Bitcoin? I think it is good that there is no “interest”. You have limited supply. Nobody can create more of it beyond the limited supply. The only way you can get an interest on your bitcoin is if you lend it to me and I will give you 5% interest. 5% of the limited supply, because I cannot create any bitcoin indefinitely.
But to do that I’m gonna lend out your bitcoin to some riskier counterpatry of mine that pays me 11% of interest. So I can get my cut of 6% and pay you your 5%. And by doing that - chasing interest - you have introduced counterparty risk. You have to trust me and my counterparty and his counterparty etc.
  1. Why are you trying to find something “else”? Why can’t you stick with Bitcoin? Limited supply, nobody can change the rules, no interest. Only price based on demand and supply. Demand determining the price. Out of the influence of politicians. I think that is quite some magic there.
  2. I won’t trust any money created by any central organization. They have shown in the past 500-1000 years not to work. See Ray Dalio and Lyn Alden.
Unit of account: when other global currencies and possibly the US dollar start collapsing (eg debt to income already at 129%) this 10% fluctuations of bitcoin price would seem peanuts.
Then people will start saying: a cup of coffee 3000 sats. A house 4 bitcoin.
A car 1 bitcoin.
Bitcoin will appreciate against all other goods and services.
Hope this is some feedback you could use.
reply
Bitcoin will first be adopted by businesses with high margins and surpluses.
For example, I have several sources of income. Some of them I could switch to receiving in bitcoin, and pricing it in bitcoin without the need to swap it for fiat, because I'm buying bitcoin anyway and it would just mean I'd have to buy less.
Then as adoption grows, and as people's time preference drops, more and more will generate surpluses.
reply
If I price something in sats and the fiat price drops, it will effectively be a discount, but I don't care that much, because I'm receiving real and no-KYC money that will be worth more one day. The discount may drive more people to my business, so it's not a loss, but an incentive. A win-win scenario.
reply
1btc = 1btc. 80iq
reply
dollar to remain worldwide accounting standard for next 30yrs at least