This is a research article published by Simon Butler. I can't believe I have never seen this before. It is a very well written and researched explanation of bitcoin's place in monetary history. I wasn't sure which territory to post this in, but I ultimately decided econ was most appropriate.
Before discussing bitcoin, Butler explains the history of money. He delves into the commodity versus claim theories, metallism, Adam Smith(in particular how States can and do debase money), the 20th century battles between Keynes and the Austrians, and the more modern nonsense derived from Chartalist theory known as Modern Monetary Theory.
Finally, Butler discusses bitcoin's place in this history. I guess you can characterize it as a libertarian defense of bitcoin.
Bitcoin is in effect deflationary, as users invariably lose access to some Bitcoins over time. This deflationary policy is a political statement aligned with the Austrian theory of money and establishes Bitcoin as hard money in contrast to the soft money of the state (Hayes, 2019).
Ultimately, he doesn't pigeonhole bitcoin as somehow "right or libertarian." I love this quote he cited:
Bitcoin is fascinating precisely because it demonstrates many of the contradictions and confusions that characterize money, and its relationship to law and the state, in general. Bitcoin is both a symptom of increasing monetary pluralism in the advanced capitalist societies, and an embodiment of monetary diversity in its own right. Like money itself, Bitcoin is multi-faceted, politically contested and sociologically rich in its functions and meanings. (Dodd, 2017: 36)
There is so much more to this article. My few notes don't do it justice. I encourage anyone interested in bitcoin from a monetary theory perspective to read it.
Nice find, @siggy47 -- I'd never heard of this either, and I've spent some time looking for such things. Weird.
I can't remember if you've read Broken Money but, if you have, I'd be interested to hear how the paper strikes you in terms of what Lyn discusses.
reply
Oh yes. I participated in your book club. I was reminded of Lyn's discussion of commodity v. credit theory. At the time I read Broken Money, I was happy to see her refutation of the credit theory put forth by Graeber in Debt, The First Five Thousand Years. When I read this article early this morning I was wondering if there is a distinction between what I think of as credit theory and the claim theory Butler discussed. They seem to me to be pretty much the same thing.
reply
374 sats \ 1 reply \ @duvel 6 Jan
What an amazing article! I'm at one third, but already have read so many fantastic insights and information.
reply
I can't believe I missed this. I'm going to see if he has written other material about bitcoin.
reply
Thank you, I will have to give it a read. Been trying to put together a stockpile of good academic research on Bitcoin
reply
I think you'll find it useful.
reply
Good article. Thanks Siggy.
reply
Great share and context. A really interesting article and it is refreshing to see the philosophy Bitcoin so expertly considered. We need more like this.
reply
Yes, I have never heard of this guy. I wonder how much other quality stuff is flying under the radar.
reply
Is it drowned out by influencer nonsense do you think?
reply
Very good point. I was wondering that when I first started reading it, because though I do read abstracts and articles from serious journals online sometimes, but it's never about bitcoin. Even the formatting seemed so different. Maybe we're trapped in our familiar little ecosystem while relevant stuff is being written elsewhere.
reply
There some excellent pieces of BTC writing out there but they rarely have this academic presentation and depth. I don’t think there is much being written elsewhere - Bitcoin, crypto and blockchain are still intertwined and taboo topics.
reply