pull down to refresh

Matt Odell had a throw-away remark in this week’s Rabbit hole Recap, #335 ( #808408). It was punchy, it was rah-rah Bitcoiny—and it was completely wrong.
With Marty Bent and Rob Hamilton they discussed the Microsoft shareholder vote (#805429) and reported some hypothetical numbers: how much would Microsoft had earned if they had purchased bitcoin with 1-5-10% of its treasury etc, etc).
And Odell said something like "Microsoft is valued at 32 million bitcoin—a valuation they can't even have in Bitcoin!" A few minutes later he repeated the sentiment again in different words.
The math seems easy: 1 BTC currently trades for 101,500 cuckbucks; Microsoft's market cap (its outstanding number of shares, 7,433 million, times the share price that one share trades at, $447.27) equals about 3.3 trillion. Divide the latter by the former, and we get 32.700,000. Violà, Microsoft trades for more bitcoin than exist! How fishy.
Of course that's absurd. And I'm not bringing it up to take at dig at Odell; maybe he's just joking (and I'm and idiot?), but I've heard this perspective voiced by plenty of Bitcoiners—and I imagine more than one money-curious person has reflected on this. One personal such experience I've had is Knut Svanholm in an impromptu chat at BTC Prague after BTC Sessions on stage had made a similar claim about Canadian truckers having received 1/21-millionth of all the bitcoin there will ever be. The idea seems to be that all the world's assets will eventually fit inside bitcoin's dollar-exchange rate. Velocity doesn't matter, all the world's bitcoin will sum to the total number of assets in existence.
That's insane. For this, or for any other monetary system we can think of. Money ≠ assets ≠ income.
  • income = the flow of earnings for a given time period, say a salary
  • money = the physical or digital railways on which we run our economic transactions, and the denomination of said income. (Without money, your income could still be ten fish and two loafs of bread and five blankets instead of 100 dollars, total barter style; I can be paid 1 BTC or 101,500 dollars and my income would be the same, even if the specific nominal units would be vastly different #737272).
  • wealth = the money valuation/sum total of all the goods and capital in existence. For divisible assets, this is derived at by multiplying outstanding portions by the unit price of one such portion, i.e., a share: for financial assets, these are "fictional," i.e. they don't exist as a matter of reality, but are a way to conveniently carve up the ownership of a business without interrupting its operation—a principle that goes back to Greek and Roman times.)
Look, as a metric of flow (a little like debt-to-GDP or something), it's elementary math to put anything in bitcoin terms; as a way to express how small bitcoin still is or how ginourmous the pile of world asset is, that's fine.
As some sort of practical wealth cap on asset values of the world, it's nonsense.
The beautiful thing about the financial system—or indeed, including any other asset—is that you can own them, run them, use them, or profit from them without having to take space on the monetary network. The money can be busy fulfilling transaction demands or saving elsewhere. Of course, the fiat network is a little messed up in this regard, where (financial+real estate) assets have become the only way to not disastrously lose purchasing power on your money.
What economists refer to as “velocity” is how many times a unit of currency circulates in the economy over a period of time. With higher velocity, the same amount of money "goes further," economically speaking, by supporting and participating in more economic transactions. Microsoft trades in wealth shares; at no point does the entirety of that wealth pile have to be transacted into money, before it's moved into something else (other assets or consumption).
In fact, a novice observer could look up the number of physical dollar notes and coin in circulation RIGHT NOW and be aghast at the impossibility of Microsoft's valuation—or, indeed, the U.S. annual GDP (~29trn) or U.S. government spending (~7trn)—to fit into the 2.355 trillion USD1 in physical notes outstanding. (Yes, yes, there's a banking system on top and a ton of eurodollar credit outstanding too, but just as illustration—and also, Hal Finney style 2, very possible that bitcoin, too, will build banks on top of it, like was the case under gold.)
ANALOGY TIME:
"Money serves one singular function for all market participants: to bridge the present to the future” (Parker Lewis, Gradually, Then Suddenly, p. 35)
We can even dig up all our beloved John Maynard Keynes, saying the same thing in The General Theory: “the importance of money essentially flows from its being a link between the present and the future”
This construction/engineering analogy here helps us understand what money does in a world of income flows and assets: A functional bridge connecting two cities doesn’t need capacity for the entire fleet of cars and pedestrians to cross at the same time. It's enough that just some small share of all the cars can fit through: the traffic load matters more for the size of the bridge than the number of cars or houses or trucks in the region.
In Bitcoin’s own blockchain, Bitcoiners intuitively understand this: There’s limited blockspace, and it’s precious and scarce (#798342) so you must bid for access. Nobody (I hope?) would claim that Bitcoin is broken because not all the world’s bitcoin can fit through the next block…?
So yea, stop paying attention to silly ideas like this. What, the world's total amount of capital, real estate, commodities, businesses etc is limited to 21 million bitcoin? Get outta here!
That's today's little money lesson Peace /J

Footnotes

This reminds me of the bad arguments about why interest bearing loans are not possible on bitcoin: i.e. there's a limited supply of bitcoin, so it's impossible to pay off extra interest on top of the strictly limited principle.
How do these ideas come about? And, more interestingly, how do they persist amongst generally economically literate bitcoiners?
reply
no, that's precisely it: I don't think Bitcoiners are particularly economically literate. In some ways more than the average person, but there are crazy blindspots -- particularly in, as you mention, thinking about loans and the financial system.
If anything, to some extent the MONEY CLASS series has merit precisely because it helps Bitcoiners think more clearly about money. (That's the ambition, anyway.)
reply
Indeed, I should have said "relatively economically literate".
I'm just often surprised that people with some of these misconceptions find their way to bitcoin at all. Maybe they find their way here because of the misconceptions, though.
reply
That could be true! That is why we are here, to help them out of their morass.
reply
probably. Some sort of midwit-filter selection going on?
The old (-ish, lol) Croesus classic still holds: "Why The Yuppie Elite Dismiss Bitcoin"
reply
I remember reading this article when it came out. It was a real eye opener personally. Of course I promptly forgot it even existed.
Re yuppies, check out PubKey on a Galaxy night. Yuppies have discovered bitcoin.
reply
Really? Yuppies have a tendency to kill whatever they seem to take a strong liking to.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 14 Dec
They love those ETFs and mstr.
reply
Maybe, I am old-fashioned, but I do not trust ETFs in the least bit. I know that they do not hold what they claim to hold in the metals. They are lying! I don’t want to be caught when they go bankrupt (that work’s origin is bank corrupt). They are all run by the same people running the banks and the exchanges. I also don’t trust the exchanges because they are constantly front running the orders to dip their beaks into the flow. They will never be caught because they are hand-in-glove with the state.
You gotta love those mid-wits! They are slightly better than nit-wits and a lot better than no-wits. However the mid-wits seem to be all over the place and forever overrunning everything.
reply
I think the whole thing is a Rockefeller plot!!!! The reason why people are economically illiterate is because they have never been really exposed to economic ideas and thinking throughout their educations. Perhaps, someday, that will change. Until then we will keep getting these silly exclamations.
reply
because they have never been really exposed to economic ideas and thinking throughout their educations.
what, the library wasn't open...? Google didn't function?
reply
"Available" and "Exposed" are different. Also, stumbling upon randomly available econ materials is probably worse than not seeing any.
reply
That is why people can give reading lists and such to others that are new to the area. I had some problems with starting because I found Mises, first and ploughed my way through Human Action without seeing other Austrian economics first. At that time, Hazlitt was available, but Callahan wasn’t. The next step for me was Rothbard. I think I am still stuck on that step!
reply
Google was not there (no modern internet, yet) and the libraries were and are still in the throes of the Rockefeller Trusts controls. Google never functioned the way it could, even now it doesn’t. They lost the plot from the beginning as an IC adjunct.
reply
They come around from economic illiterates! They can say any loony thing that they wish, but it is not necessarily accurate or true.
reply
I suppose the important difference is that bitcoiners are more likely to listen to economic sense when they hear it.
reply
That's insane. For this, or for any other monetary system we can think of. Money ≠ assets ≠ income.
Most people forget that! A wonderful reminder and, as always, a perfect explanation!
reply
Who puts that idea in their heads, anyway? Purposely misleading people is almost criminal, but still within free speech rights.
reply
I teach free choice, liberty and moral values at my school and there's been plenty of teachers and parents who've tried to shut me down. It is not really free speech, unfortunately. Most of it is proaganda thought. How are most normal people supposed to have free will and critical thinking when the media, parents and teachers all preach the same bullshit.
reply
The most of the normal people can’t have free will, according to our illustrious leaders. Teaching critical thinking is just not allowed. Try teaching logic or better yet a game like Woof ‘n Proof to kids and see how that works. The reluctance and resistance is palatable from the school, the kids and the parents if the kids complain. They all teach the same BS because they know no better.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Shugard 15 Dec
They all teach the same BS because they know no better.
Sadly true
reply
That is what the colleges of education pour into their heads. I just shudder to think of what they are indoctrinating the new teachers with now-a-days! What I am reading about is questionable.
reply
Kids have never made me feel both so poor, yet wealthy.
Have you even picked up your kid and flew them around the house shouting “Airplane!”
reply
Yes, I even picked them up, threw them into the air and caught them to gales of laughter!! Until the nosy neighbors said that was dangerous and I shouldn’t do it. Then they said it was unlawful. Then I quit when they were around. Yes, both wealthy and poor.
reply
Omg these neighbors sound awful!!
reply
No, just nosy Parker’s. Of course, in that place and that time, everyone was a nosy Parker into my affairs, it seemed.
reply
Great description on wealth
reply
Thank you for reminding me that I AM INFINITE!
reply
Naturally
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Fabs 14 Dec
Yeah, you're a fine addition to SN.
reply
the Fabs remark, always making me blush.
reply
Hi hi.. 🤭❤️‍🔥
reply