Topic: Hayek Money: The Cryptocurrency Price Stability Solution (Read 5959 times)

How is it that Hayek money does not have stable purchasing power? If the unit is pegged on a basket of goods, eg, and changes in the demand for the unit causes a rebasement, such that it still purchases the same goods, then there is no change in purchasing power?

I agree this is definitely true

Bitcoin will never be stable until around 2050, you are delusional if you think otherwise. Until then we are only going UP and we will see big up and down trends, thats that.

I have downloaded this and i will read it later and keep you posted on my own perception about this.

Quotes have been taken from your synopsis in the uro whitepaper http://uro.io/uro_whitepaper_agriculture_focused_v1.pdf , was probably just a misunderstanding from not bothering to read the actual paper.
 
5. Economics: URO as a Commodity Market Utility
 
While UROs are primarily used as a functional utility in the urea market, its roots lie in
currency technology. Recent economics research suggests that commodity pegging can be an
effective mode of currency value stabilisation or “adjustment”, and it is my assertion that
URO, can achieve such stabilization by adopting a similar pegging strategy:
 
The adjustment is based on a commodity price index determined with a resilient consensus process that
does not rely on central third party authorities. It is posited in this paper that a digital cryptocurrency
adopting elastic monetary standard is Hayek Money, so named from the Nobel Prize-winning
economist: possibly the best money ever devised, a good money standard providing stable prices for a
new economic era [viii]
 
The ethos of URO is consistent with Hayek’s notion of concurrent and competing
denationalized currencies in that it attempts to form a free market supply/demand stabilisation
of urea prices that in turn reduces the magnitude of fluctuations in urea prices for the entire
economy – even those not adopting URO. Moreover, it aims to achieve this stabilization
through providing greater efficiency and reliability to existing payment and distribution
methods for urea, a competitive advancement achieved through market innovation by
technological means, which will lead to wider international adoption as a mode of
transaction.

It is not clear to me how URO is effectively pegged to Urea, and I'm not a fertilizer market expert. Anyway I think this point should be clarified, possibly in a proper forum, not here.

Also it is not clear to me the relationship with my paper: I am not personally a supporter of asset backed currencies, as I am more favorable to controlling supply of the quantity of money instead.

About the "scam or not" debate: time will tell, in the meantime everybody deserves credit until proven guilty.

In any case: never buy something you do not understand, hopefully main adopters will be farmers and players in the fertilizer market. Caveat emptor.

Usual disclaimer applies

Also, there is an Whitepaper that you might find interesting, Mr. Ametrano: http://uro.io/uro_whitepaper_agriculture_focused_v1.pdf

True-Asset

Yes, there are few more links to URO, please check those when you get a chance.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-accusation-against-urocoin-true-asset-and-green-earth-systems-limited-713983




https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=687231.1100


or maybe True-Asset would like to answer these questions to you:



still open questions which needs to be answered by GES and other members of URO Foundation (not from URO community).

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/uro-interview-with-bohan-huang-32-questions-from-the-community



















Provide better answer why BITCOIN could not be used instead of UROCOIN

Mr Ferdinando M. Ametrano

Around the same time that you released the first draft of this paper, we launched URO, a long term currency pegged to urea (1 URO == 1 metric tonne of urea).

Urea is a commodity that predominately costs energy to produce, and is consistently demanded by global food production as the most used fertilizer.

We would be most gracious if you could comment on your thoughts regarding the economics of URO.

Here are some links:

Official Website: http://uro.io
Blog of Forum Discussion Highlights: http://urofoundation.wordpress.com
Project Management Platform: http://launchpad.net/uro
Previous Thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annuro-a-real-long-term-currency-1-uro-1-metric-tonne-urea-fertilizer-600639
Current Thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/moderated-annuro-first-urea-commodity-token-1-uro-1-metric-tonne-urea-684972

Regards

Bohan Huang
Currency Development Officer
Uro Foundation

Very interesting!

Is one of those a fnord?

Taek, Teukon, and all those that are interested in the issue of monetary design of a cryptocurrency.

I have posted a paper where I address the issue of how to have price AND wallet stability. Have a look and let me know, please

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2458890

Abstract:     

Interest is growing in the monetary implications of digital currencies, see Economist's article http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/03/bitcoin. The Centre for Financial Stability indicates stable prices as the crucial challenge for successful digital money, and http://ssrn.com/abstract=2425270 designs a cryptocurrency where money supply is automatically regulated. In basic implementation, this breakthrough has however a feature that can hamper its adoption: the mechanism for stable prices implies that the amount of money in every account is continuously modified. The instability of prices typical of bitcoins is transferred to accounts, so that the purchasing power of savings continues to be far less protected from inflation/deflation than in standard fiat currencies.

The solution, in line with the principles of digital currencies, is to give to each wallet's owner the freedom to choose how much risk of instability they want to take, by introducing two types of wallets: Inv wallets and Sav wallets. Money in Sav wallets is protected from instability thanks to the presence of Inv wallets, that take the risk, and the reward, of being target of the monetary policy. This role of channel and cushion for monetary policy is taken by banks in fiat currencies. Such a role is necessary also in digital currencies, where it can be taken by any willing player, allowing for decentralized financial intermediaries and a currency where both savings and prices are stable. In this paper I analyze this and other issues regarding the role financial intermediaries in a digital currency.

Appendices hint at the link between Inv wallets and proof-of-stake, and at the long-term possibility of a currency indexed to block-chain-resident real-estate prices.

There would be improved convenience in transacting, because you know how much things are worth if they are denominated in stablecoin, without checking cross-rates. 

It is more practical to denominate in depreciating USD right now, because of the volatility of BTC.  That is detrimental to the adoption of BTC as currency (but not as a transmission mechanism or appreciating value store).

Thanks for the detailed response.


You've lost me here.  Why would variation in demand for a cryptocurrency be at all affected by this price stabilising mechanism?  The same uncertainties and speculative opportunities would exist.


I would be very uncomfortable entering into a pure simple bitcoin mortgage (a loan secured in property for which fixed regular bitcoin payments are specified).  Of course, the reason for this is that I expect the value of a bitcoin to swing wildly relative to the value of the property.  The term of a typical mortgage and value of a typical property would be sufficient to cause me serious problems should the value of a bitcoin soar.

This, however, does not make the idea of having a mortgage where regular payments in bitcoin occur.  The contract could be worded such that, at regular intervals, I pay a number of bitcoins with value equivalent to a fixed number of dollars (for a simple example; as you note in your paper, we can do better).  I'd find such a contract to be much more palatable.


Certainly, an elastic money supply is not a new idea.  Certainly, there are many examples of the purchasing power of an untouched wallet varying with time.  What seems new to me is having the number of units in an untouched wallet vary.  Given that prices are simply "numbers of units", I very much suspect that classical arguments for the superiority of price stability over price volatility do not translate to stablecoin.


Fear not; it's reasonably clear from your paper that you do not intend to introduce central (corruptible) elements and that you are sensitive to the distortions (and harmful effects thereof) that a central-bank-style monetary inflation can introduce into an economy.  My only criticism is with the claim that Stablecoin would somehow be a "better stronger cryptocurrency" than an otherwise identical coin with inelastic supply.  I would like to be convinced, but have yet to read a convincing explanation.

I think that Hayek's assumptions greatly over simplify how economics work. People want wallet stability, not price stability. If I put $200 worth of bitcoins into a wallet, I expect to get $200+ out in 3 months. But if, to adjust for the change in price, my wallet gets zapped of 1/2 it's coins, I'm not going to care that the price of Bitcoin is the same, I'm going to care that my wallet is now worth $100.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, merely rebasing wallets every day (or 30 days) does absolutely nothing to address stability.

You will. I know it. And in case I'll remind you.

In the meantime here's my revised thoughts about volatility.
Even Hayek Money, the best money ever devised, is powerless at eradicating the volatility of the value of money: volatility is an intrinsic property of demand dynamics. The variation of demand over time cannot be artificially governed: nobody can alter this matter of fact and oppose the resulting change in value. Rebasing the monetary stock supply can absorb the volatility impact of variable demand, steering its instability effect away from prices and toward wallet amounts instead. The relevance of such elastic supply of money should not be underestimated, as it will trigger a virtuous loop for volatility too: as long as the currency keeps constant value, a sudden large variation of its demand will become unlikely. Moreover, the availability of stable prices will surely help the growth of the economy using that given money, providing a further benefit in terms of a reduction of the demand/supply variability. In the case of cryptocurrencies the noise due to the variable adoption rate and the need to resort to fiat currencies will be progressively reduced. The only remaining volatility contribution would then just be the variability of the cryptocurrency adoption rate, and this is exactly what is sterilized by Hayek Money through elastic supply of money.

All of this boils down again to the recognized necessity of stable prices.

I love the genuine character of your question, as I am under the impression most economists are just cheap jazz, or I cannot understand how they could live 40+ years with the government monopoly of money without a squeak.
Unfortunately, me too, I'm not up to Miles Davis, John Coltrane, or Dave Brubeck, and I am under risk of rehashing the usual jazz. While I ruminate about possible more convincing explanations I really challenge you to think harder about how comfortable you would be about entering into a bitcoin mortgage. This is not a rhetorical question, I am really asking. I would love to exploits any discovery you might progressively make along this line of thinking to improve the effectiveness of my own arguments.

No, it is not. Without dismissing your point, which I acknowledge as "new unfamiliar paradigm": the elastic supply of money is no novelty at all, as it is exactly what every central bank has been doing for every fiat currency. The variability of the number of fiat currency units in our wallets is already happening, mutatis mutandis and with the aggravation of severe unfairness, even if the man on the street is not aware. Read on in section 6.2.

The statement of bitcoin problem is: in the successful attempt of getting rid of any monetary authority using the Bitcoin protocol, the bitcoin currency has inadvertently thrown away also the flexibility of an elastic monetary policy. At this point the line of reasoning should hopefully be self-evident: in order to target purchasing power stability, the cryptocurrency outstanding amount must be dynamically rebased in a fully automatic non-discretionary way. If not self-evident, this idea has appeared at least consequential not only to me, but also to Kevin Dowd that has recently and independently written: “The ideal – one is tempted to say, the gold standard in this area – would be one or more cryptocurrencies that were able to achieve stable purchasing power through elastic but fully automatic and hence non-discretionary supply schedules when real demand changes, and which also have the ability to maintain state-of-the-art security”. Dowd ends his Hayek Money prophecy with a wish I wholeheartedly supports: “Going further, the ultimate possibility for those who believe in private money is that cryptocurrencies might eventually become so widely accepted that they drive government currencies out of circulation and expel the government from the monetary system once and for all”. Moving to elastic supply, the goal of getting rid of monetary authorities is never abandoned, only made easier by a better stronger cryptocurrency.

Agreed.  I don't mean to misrepresent you.  I'm just attempting to simplify as much as possible while attempting to communicate the kernel of the idea.  I fear very few people will read your entire paper.


I won't argue that it's worse, but for precisely the same reason, I don't see it as better.

I assure you that the different mindset is no problem for me.  I'm dropping all potential problems to do with marketing, adoption, understanding in an attempt to understand why this is being proposed at all.

I agree that stablecoin would be superior to an otherwise equivalent one which distorted the distribution of purchasing power when the supply was altered.

What I'm missing is why we want stable prices.  If you can sell me on that point in this context, you might sell me on the coin.  I really feel it is not enough to say "you know, we want stable prices because loans, salaries, forward payments, et cetera; all the usual jazz".  What you are proposing as a money is very different from things which have historically been used as money.  I can hold a dollar note, I can hold an ounce of gold, I can hold a bitcoin (not physically, but hold as in own and directly control).  I cannot hold a stablecoin.  I cannot have a holding of stablecoins in the traditional sense.  If I have a stablecoin today, I may find it becomes 0.8 stablecoins tomorrow.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing (again, functional equivalence to Bitcoin saves you here), but for me this is a sufficiently fundamental difference to warrant revisiting why these great economists desired stable prices.


I will if I remember.

@Catastrough

thank you, I was aware of the article, and I appreciate it a lot. Nonetheless it suffers two major misunderstandings:

1) fully automatic non-discretionary (auto-pilot, as Jeff Fong calls it) monetary policy does not need to be bitcoin's fixed inelastic supply. I am advocating a fully automatic non-discretionary elastic monetary policy for cryptocurrencies, and defining such cryptocurrencies as Hayek Money.

2) the issuer concept was relevant in the Hayek world, and that is why he was naturally thinking about banks. In the cryptocurrency world, as long as the protocol implementation is open source free software, the issuer concept is severely demoted to be almost irrelevant. It only makes residual sense in order to ascertain the existence and reliability of a developer team in charge of maintenance.

I actually write about stablecoin and basecoin, recognizing that redefining bitcoin will surely be impractical. A new cryptocurrency is probably needed... but I would love to salvage bitcoin from the decline of non-Hayek Monies ;-)

I am already having such an hard time in selling this unfamiliar but very easy idea, that I would be tempted to say I do not advocate a mindset change at all. Instead the implementation details should be not disclosed with people not familiar with the nature of monetary policy, and the Hayek Money experiment should be carried out until complete success. Only later details should be revealed ;-)

Today you know the number of unit currency you know, but prices change, right? Well at least in my proposal the situation is specular, probably unfamiliar, but not worse.
In reality I try to make clear in my paper (sec 6.2) that what I am suggesting is completely equivalent to what every central bank does today, just adapted to the blockchain as a multiplier of the monetary stock. The only difference is that when central banks create new money they do not distribute it to everybody. When they tighten the monetary base they remove currency units from those who need to borrow. Pretty unfair, and they want everybody not to realize the extent of this theft disguised as service to the economy.
Bitcoin does not suffer from this theft, but completely gives up on monetary policy losing price stability.
I will try to make this point clearer in the next paper revision.

I am going to expand section 6.4 to better answer this point. Please check back at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2425270 on monday for a revisited version of the paper.

thank you I will fix it in the next forthcoming version.

It seems you are simply describing the need for a reliable way of measuring the present value of 1 bitcoin (which is undeniably more volatile today than most goods/services/assets/currencies that most people care about).

With easy access to such a value, merchants would be able to update their prices automatically, and loans and salaries could incorporate reference to the value so that they too dodge Bitcoin's volatility.

These are not new ideas, but certainly good ones.

However, you go further to suggest that people should think in terms of a "rebased" bitcoin, even to suggest that bitcoins themselves should be an implementation detail, hidden from the user.  I'm not sure what you feel this change in mindset achieves.  Everyone benefits from seeing that prices in this new unit are relatively stable, but they suffer from not knowing how many of these units they will have in the future.  This doesn't address the volatility concerns; it merely shunts them into another realm.

Why is it important that people see "200 stablecoins" rather than "200 stablecoins worth of bitcoin" in their forward payment agreements?  It seems as though you're willing to give up a lot to obtain this simplification.

Minor error: you have two section 3.1s.