https://youtu.be/TPMuX0vgBhE
Great point in the video, I have a couple secondary questions on this (for anyone who feels like chiming in). There is some agreement in the industry that mass adoption will solve cryptocurrency's volatility. The problems I see in this are:
1) Any currency that has a severely restricted incoming supply would see prices absolutely skyrocket if there was a 'mass acceptance sized amount' of investment being pumped into the market, how could these currencies ever achieve stability once their growth period has ended?
2) Using fiat investment as the main driver of mass acceptance means that the exact same people who control most of the money now, will likely control cryptocurrency. Could this negate any chance there was at using cryptocurrency as a means of financial inclusion? People won't use cryptocurrency if it doesn't better their life, so why would they switch monetary systems if it's just going to put them further from the top?
As long as the interest and demand grows, if no new currency is created, then it has to rely supply of people willing to sell. I believe you are correct that something like a bitcoin, as it stands today, it would be difficult if not impossible to achieve equilibrium and relative stability over the longer term. DNotes goal of stability is not a perfect level of value, but growing value slowly over time without disrupting day to day financial activity.
There are multiple issues in regards to financial inclusion. I think in terms of equal financial opportunity rather than strict equality or equality of outcome. Whether you start with very little money, should not impact your ability to grow at an equal rate as everyone else. We know that fiat will have less value over time, a savings account offers a negligible yield, investing in stocks can be risky and require specialized knowledge, not to mention the cost can far outweigh any gains when dealing with small amounts, among many other things that make it difficult for someone with not a lot of money to benefit from the financial system. But imagine if the value of your money could grow slowly over time, because value isn't extracted from the currency, along with a modest interest.
Whether or not someone enters the system with a lot of money, in a system like DNotes is creating, should have no impact on the individuals starting with very little ability to benefit from the system. I believe that is very different than the existing financial system, and benefits everyone.
I really liked the above post, and the direction that DNotes is taking in regards to growing its ecosystem and money supply.
A lot of people do draw attention to Bitcoin's deflationary nature, but what a lot of people forget is that inflation is not necessarily a bad thing. Back in the 1800s banks would often issue more bank notes to allow seasonal workers and farmers to have enough money during harvest seasons etc. When demand for tokens outstrips the supply, there shouldn't be much of an issue with more units coming into existence, and this is an issue Bitcoin may face.
The real issue with inflation is when it occurs without any sort of intrinsic value attached to it. It no longer works in the central bank world in my view because the dollar is an infinitely printed token that isn't backed by anything. Currency is, and should always be a reflection of value produced. Inflation becomes a dirty word when it occurs without any new value created to back the issue of the newly minted units. In crypto, the new money works as a liquidity vessel, and in the case of DNotes in particular, the tokens represent an ownership claim against DNotes Global -- a company whose modus operandi is to create value for DNotes currency.
It is only when we cross the rubicon, and money creation becomes a value-soaking activity, rather than a value-creation activity that a currency is done for. It is my view that we see this when it comes to Central Bank operated currencies who print money for their government's spending purposes, without any actual new value being created in line with the new tokens.
In contrast DNotes Global will be creating additional value into the DNotes currency with an array of business activities that include a storage vault, book and business subscription property, crypto news website, and hopefully soon a regulated digital currency exchange among other exciting things the mini-IPO will enable us to offer. I can see (some) issues with the deflationary nature in Bitcoin, and definitely others in the valueless inflation in current mainstream money. I think DNotes has the right approach.
Been very busy working lately, apologies for being quiet.
Great answers guys, exact same line of thought as I had followed, albeit in much better detail.
...how could these currencies ever achieve stability once their growth period has ended?
I think one of the big differences we'll see between the stability of fiat currencies and the stability of cryptocurrencies is how frequently they are traded. If there is only one trusted cryptocurrency handling 95+% of all investment and transactions, there will be no problems. But if there are more players, and I am pretty confident this will be the case, there will be trading between the currencies as investors bet on which one will go up more over short periods.
Because transferring large amounts of fiat currency, whether in hard cash at midnight under a bridge, or electronically over some computer system, incurs a lot of risk and oversight, it will always be expensive. Currently it is very expensive to send large sums of money electronically and those prices reflect collusion-like pricing behaviour rather than value. So the price has room to drop, but it will always be higher due to managing security internally rather than algorithmically. This high cost of trading between fiat currencies causes the frequency of trade to be slower while the investor waits longer to make back their transaction fee in the diverging currency values.
With cryptocurrencies which can be exchanged directly and algorithmically without paying for exchange services, the cost of this exchange could be marginal, and based on a per-exchange price, instead of a percentage of the exchanged value. This would make very-short-term trading profitable and cause both cryptocurrencies involved to suffer from price volatility.
Because cryptocurrency transactions, and value, can be accurately checked by software, and the same software can initiate a transaction, it is also very likely that this volatile price will also suffer from computer-algorithm-ML-AI trading. So I'm predicting volatility as a long-term feature of successful cryptocurrencies. The only stability will come from those owners who distrust the many automatic trading programs that will be on offer, and don't have the time / expertise / interest in doing it manually.
People won't use cryptocurrency if it doesn't better their life, so why...
I think that mobile phone based payment systems will become the most common form of 'physical' transaction one day. It is likely that the most successful one will integrate with one or more cryptocurrencies, but equally as likely that it won't interact with more cryptocurrencies than the market accepted as competitors in the credit card industry.
So many people will move over to cryptocurrency when it is the simplest and most functional solution. I know after topping up my fiat currency hardware wallet two weeks previously, I've looked at it, and wondered where all the dollars went. I've also tried hanging onto all receipts and adding them up or entering them into a home accounting system. It was not fun. But using a mobile phone based wallet, I could have all my 'cash' expenditure information at my fingertips without doing anything.
Maybe New Zealand will lead the world on this, not China. I just read an interesting round up of many country's central banks' opinions regarding cryptocurrency. The most interesting part was this:
"The Reserve Bank of New Zealand, once a pioneer on the global stage with its early introduction of an inflation target, said Wednesday it’s considering its future plans for currency issuance, and how digital units may fit into those strategies. “Work is currently underway to assess the future demand for New Zealand fiat currency and to consider whether it would be feasible for the reserve bank to replace the physical currency that currently circulates with a digital alternative,” the RBNZ said in what it termed an analytical note."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-26/what-the-world-s-central-banks-are-saying-about-cryptocurrencies
Any news TeeGee?
So even if the richest people in the world get into cryptocurrency in a big way, I still think that everyone will eventually join in because of its functionality. It is also more secure in that you can store the same value in a physical way in multiple locations that can't be stolen if part of it is stored independently. So sure, due to buying pressure, the value of a single coin might be inaccessible. But I don't see the single coin price having an impact on everyday people who can buy the fraction of a coin they need for daily purchases. A single bitcoin would have to be worth more than US$100,000,000 before the satoshi becomes a bad choice for buying coffee. At that point, a fork will add some more decimal places.