pull down to refresh

Background

There was a recent post asking the question of "Will gold be used alongside Bitcoin in a hyperbitcoinized world?" There was no official consensus, with some arguing that gold makes no sense to use even right now, and that it would only be relevant for electronics.
I, however, respectfully disagree and believe that gold will have a use case in a hyperbitcoinize world, as it will fill the role of physical cash that has so far been insufficiently addressed by Bitcoin. This is because of a recent development in gold cash called the Goldback.

Physical Money is Essential

As much as we would love for it to, Bitcoin cannot fulfill the use-case of every person who needs to transact. Although in a hyperbitcoinized world almost all transactions would be digital and thus done using Bitcoin, there is still a significant. 18% of transactions are still in cash, indicating a thriving demand.
Image by Jonathan Borba
It is important to have something physical to store and transact with. Gold and silver rounds, or even cash, is a fantastically direct form of self-custody. It's on the same level as a seed plate, yet doesn't require a computer to use. In addition, many people I know do not have smart phones, which makes it difficult to transact with anything other than cash.

Bitcoin Struggles With Physical Money

Right now, it is hard to use physical Bitcoin in an effective way. Because of the digital nature, you need NFC tech or something else to make your sats physical.

Opendime

The Opendime was the first successful Bitcoin physical cash, and is fantastic technology. It stores the key to a UTXO, then can be passed from person to person as cash.

Satscard

The Satscard was the second edition of the Opendime, and used NFC tech to be smaller, cheaper, and less conspicuous.

The Problems with Opendime and Satscard

Premium Discourages Small Transactions

Using the Opendime or Satscard involves a premium, as there is a cost to producing each that discourages storing more sats than the Opendime or Satscard is worth.
  • The Opendime costs $23 each. That means you can only economically store ~58,000 sats
  • The Satscard costs $7 each. That means you can only economically store ~18,000 sats For small and granular transactions, this is a major hurdle.

Verification

You have to verify the exact amount of sats each time, as there is no easy way to indicate the amount of sats on the Opendime or Satscard. Therefore, you still need a computer to verify physical Bitcoin.

Gold Fixes This

Gold makes no sense for digital payments, but it does for physical ones. However, it is hard to break gold down into the size needed for transactions, as it becomes simply too small to make a coin. A few years ago, a company in Utah built technology to address this issue, making a form of gold cash called Goldbacks. The gold is laid inside of the bill using vacuum technology, so that 1 Goldback contains 1/1000 oz of 24K gold. And because of their anti-counterfeit measures, you can be reasonably certain that there is the same amount of gold as in your Goldbacks and the ones metallurgists have verified.

1 Goldback = $4.09 = ~11,000 sats

Currently, 1 Goldback = $4.09 = ~11,000 sats, meaning they can be used for much smaller transactions that would be feasible with the Opendime or Satscard. Because of this, combined with the ease of accepting them when compared to Bitcoin or other digital payments, almost 600 small businesses already accept them in four states in the US. Do note that they are not tied to the dollar and are tied only to physical gold.

How Goldbacks Could Work Alongside Bitcoin

Goldbacks will not replace Bitcoin, and I don't think gold will "win" over sats either. However, gold still is unique in its ability to serve as physical, hard money. Bitcoin can form the global currency, while Goldbacks or some similar physical gold cash can serve as a local currency directly tied to gold that cannot easily come unpegged. This way, we don't need to rely on IOUs from banks for physical cash. And even though I would prefer it if we could do with Bitcoin what has been done with gold and make physical bills out of it, this kind of gold-Bitcoin dynamic seems a reasonable future for sound money.
Very interesting! I might have to buy some of those just because I like the idea. My main concerns would be counterfeiting and making sure the company doesn't dilute the gold with copper or something like coins in Roman times. I also wonder if repeated handling of the bills would make any of the gold flake off? This is weird, but it kind of looks like you can't fold the bills - not sure if that's a big deal but might make it harder to fit in a pocket?
Bitcoin still has more advantages in my mind, though: (1) bitcoin is so easy to verify, (2) bitcoin isn't produced by a single company, (3) easier to be exact and not need change, (4) probably more people accept bitcoin vs Goldbacks, (5) bitcoin's fixed supply, (6) can buy online products with bitcoin but not Goldbacks, (7) etc.
I think I've heard of some tech that might allow people to use Bitcoin Lightning without internet. In that case, the only real hurdle would be for everyone to have a smart device - which I think you can get for nearly free these days?
Goldbacks would probably win the day if we had a world wide EMP go off and bitcoin stopped working. If we have a world were internet is missing then I'd prefer Goldbacks over gold coins. I think Goldbacks might be fun to own (a small amount) but my networth would primarily be in bitcoin.
reply
I think there's a very real demand for physical media that bitcoiners have a hard time appreciating. There are people who just trust it more, because it's in their hand rather than being a digital abstraction. It's more clearly anonymous, too, for people who don't want to leave a record of their transactions. It's still available during natural disasters when the power goes out and networks go down.
I know bitcoiners have answers to all these points, but that isn't my point. My point is just that there will continue to be people with a preference for physical media and gold is the obvious candidate to fill that role, so there will be physical media even in a bitcoin world.
reply
Agree -- there's an entirely different neural machinery pertaining to concrete things vs abstract things. I believe it to be consequential. Even if btc proves overwhelmingly successful in the coming years, it will be in spite of this difference, but because there is no difference.
Kind of what this comment was meant to get at.
reply
One of the interesting points Austrians make about money, is that better moneys drive out worse moneys. I've seen them argue that ultimately there will be one money that is used for all transactions, because that best/true money will be the best medium of exchange and store of value and unit of account.
This thread made me think about that argument and wonder if it overlooked the possibility of different moneys having different comparative advantages. I'd have to give it more thought, but I suspect that either gold or bitcoin would have to evolve or another money will arise that suits both purposes.
reply
Same, and exactly my thoughts. Bitcoin is hands down a better form of money than gold, gold simply has a benefits in a few areas that make it very useful. I'm considering getting some of the Goldbacks as well, although I haven't yet so I can't personally vouch for how effective using them is.
reply
That was the point I made on the post you mentioned. Good job articulating it in detail.
I hadn't heard of the Goldback, but I've seen a bunch of similar attempts at more practical gold solutions. Do you think silver would play a role for even smaller values or will physical transactions just take place at these higher values?
reply
Do you think silver would play a role for even smaller values or will physical transactions just take place at these higher values?
Seems like if gold is serving the purpose described in this post, and btc or other monies are serving the more general role of money, then the need for bimetallism would be negligible. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
reply
My reasoning is just that it becomes impractical to use gold for very small values. That's why silver (and copper) was used in the first place.
It's such a niche situation that I wouldn't be surprised if people just did their gold transactions in those larger units.
reply
The impracticality was related to needing a transactional money that wasn't so logistically problematic, though. I'm assuming that the dominant transactional use in the future will be in btc and fiat. The slice of "transactional money this is also a sound money and exists in tangible form" will, I think, be pretty small, so I'd be surprised if anyone bothered to split the pie with silver. But I've been wrong before.
reply
I was thinking about what would replace cash in a world where fiat had been completely eradicated. In that world, if gold fills the void of cash, it would be difficult to have a gold transaction below about $5 of value. There are lots of individual items that cost less than that, so I was wondering whether silver would be used or if transactions would only occur at the values gold could accommodate.
What occurs to me as I write this, though, is that maybe it's just a sign that gold isn't what would replace cash. Silver might just be more suited to that purpose.
reply
Ah, that's a different premise than I was entertaining. I see 0% liklihood of gold (or really, any metal) replacing fiat, for the same reasons we have fiat in the first place -- I've swallowed the hook on this "velocity mismatch" part of Lyn's "technological determinism" idea.
I can see a role for gold as a physical-bearer-asset hard money adjunct, but in that use case I can't see silver being relevant. It serves no additional purpose. I don't see significant numbers of hard money people caring that much about being able to spend $0.25 or whatever to go to the trouble.
reply
Goldbacks have a 100%+ premium.
That’s worse than on-chain bitcoin fees, imho.
reply
They probably won't catch on then.
reply
Right, you did. I should have mentioned your comment, sorry.
Do you think silver would play a role for even smaller values or will physical transactions just take place at these higher values? I'm not informed enough to say. It's most definitely possible. I'm not even certain if gold cash will pan out, just that it's a distinct possibility. However, given the historical relationship of gold and silver, smaller silver denominations is entirely possible. It's only downside would the the fact that silver and gold sometimes drift from each other in value, which makes running a monetary system with both very difficult.
reply
which makes running a monetary system with both very difficult.
Right. Plus, they would be secondary currencies in this context, rather than the primary ones. I'm glad you revived this discussion and put more thought into than the original post.
I hadn't thought about it before and it seems so obvious to me that gold will displace cash.
reply
"Gold invites violence.
Alexander gallivanted around the world to seize gold. Livy tells the story of one thousand roman sieges in order to steal the gold. Caeser sacked Gaul to take their gold. Kublai Khan seized the gold. Pizzaro seized gold from the Incas. Cortez seized gold from the Aztecs. King Charles I seized the gold from all the British nobles. The Prussians seized gold from the French in 1871. In World War I, EVERYBODY seized the gold. Lenin seized gold from the church in 1922. Roosevelt seized everybody's gold in 1933. Stalin seized the gold from the Spaniards in '36. Churchill took everybody's gold in 1940 at the onset of the war. At Bretton Woods, the United States seized the world's gold and took it hostage. And then Nixon killed all the hostages in 1971. "
-Saylor
reply
this sound like a huge scam..
While they claim
The Goldback® is the world’s first physical, interchangeable, gold money, that is designed to accommodate even small transactions . . .
Valcambi has this for ages now
reply
Nah gold is a shitcoin that will be used for electronics
reply
Extremely retarded post.
"Satscard costs $7 each"
That's what they're priced at, not what they cost.
If you don't know what things cost and you have a static view of the world, the most important skill for you to learn is to STFU. Covenants will likely allow cheap bitcoin bearer instruments to more easily proliferate.
reply
Who do we need to trust that the gold is real ?
reply
The only thing gold is good for is suspending liquid latinum.
reply
I disagree. Gold is ridiculous.
reply