(The second post in the meta-experiment series of the Broken Money book club, part 5. Check out the first.)
Everyone knows that btc has been subject to price gyrations of enormous magnitude, and that these cycles are somehow fundamental to its nature. Lyn writes about these as invariable features of adoption and monetization:
Unlike other technologies such as electricity, washing machines, televisions, computers, and phones, a new type of emerging money most likely cannot be widely adopted quickly. This is because if too many people adopt it at once, it drives up the price and incentivizes leveraged buyers to enter it. This leverage eventually causes a bubble to form and to pop, which sets the price back and disillusions people for a while until it builds the next base and grows from there. Due to the attachment of leverage, Bitcoin cannot realistically have a fast and smooth adoption curve like non-monetary technologies can. (p. 324)
I'm not comfortable with attributing this cylic nature to leverage, although it seems clear that leverage must play a part. But the general pattern seems to be:
- btc price is relatively stable
- because it's stable, it's predictable and useful to some people
- stability also affords time and mental attention to build infrastructure outside of the lens of mania; btc becomes more useful as a result of this building; and it becomes useful in more contexts
- stability causes the apocalyptic memories of the last cycle to dissipate
- people buy btc, including people who've never bought it before, driving the price up and leading to bubble for all the usual reasons
- bubble pops, many people sell, investors are ruined, the larger world loses interest
- btc price is relatively stable
It seems to me that leverage would magnify step 5 -- the price would go up higher, faster; but even with no leverage, the steps would all be the same, and the cyclical pattern would still unfold in the way we've come to expect.
Leverage aside, do these steps capture the salient features of a cycle? What else happens during the different cycle phases? What's special, interesting, distinct about the version of the cycle that we're currently in? Is there a new narrative that we should take into account? Is Lyn right, and we're stuck with these until full btc monetization, or can you think of particular dynamics that could interrupt the customary cyclical pattern?
Footnotes