Topic: How world currencies compare to Bitcoin in terms of "market capitalization" (Read 4306 times)

Hopefully we will see more and more red countries in the list as you update it

It does, indeed. We're all waiting for it.

Deflate as in gain value, the opposite of inflation.   To the point where a single satoshi is worth a decent amount.  Then there would be enough to go around.   Does that make sense?

On the internet.
No idea, you tell me.
Because it says CIA. (No, seriously, I tried other sources and the CIA's data just seemed more reliable.)
Maybe I should.
Is it me or are you being aggressive?

So where is bitcoin's country? where are North Korea and Iran? why CIA as reference? because it says CIA? you should check the data provided by the world bank. now we all know bitcoin knows no borders and could reach even more levels of credibility and value or are you trying to prove a point I'm not seeing it.

I think it's more relevant when compared to currencies that are bigger than it. I don't care about weak currencies actually. The green is what matters to me. It gives an idea of the room left for Bitoin to grow. I also wanted the detailed data, which the original map is very elusive about, and that's why I started all these calculations after seeing it. Actually I now think that the chart in #4 is more relevant, firstly because it uses the same data as the map (which comes from the CIA website, which seems more reliable than my original source, tradingeconomics) and secondly because it shows the difference in the shape of a percentage compared to Bitcoin.
I'm thinking about dumping OP all in all and replacing it with this second chart. What say you, people?

BTW, what do you mean by "it has to deflate", The Pharmacist?
It is relevant in the sense that governments are managed in a similar fashion as companies are, and it's interesting to notice how companies, which basically are plutocratic dictatures, are proving more efficient than democraties. Several years ago, newspapers were talking about how Google could technically buy Greece. Of course it didn't happen, but it opened my eyes to the idea that despite the fact that most of us live in democratic countries, we work for dictatorial companies, and they sometimes fare better than said democraties.

xhomerx10, please don't. You have been the most helpful person here until now. I was asking for other people's insight about the weak market cap that I got for the RUB, now it's just that I've gotten it, partly thanks to you, and that I'm afraid that if I don't remove the information from the first post the discussion will only revolve about it although the issue has already been solved. But actually you're right: I should update the chart with the Russian central bank's data instead. I'll do it now.

I do find this mildly interesting, but you could also list the countries that have a smaller market cap than the Coca-Cola company, and there would be a lot more red.  I'm not sure it's really relevant to anything.  Now of course if bitcoin is to become a worldwide currency, it has to deflate.  A lot.  We're all waiting for that, but I'm just not sure it's going to happen.  Do any of you?

That's actually pretty impressive to be honest, I had a feeling Bitcoin was bigger than some countries' currencies, however I didn't think it was bigger than 60% of the currencies throughout the world. Especially when you consider that Bitcoin has a market cap of $14B.

Goes to show how a lot of the world is poorer than you think.

 It's your post so you can remove what you like but I think 25% difference isn't so bad considering that the CIA had estimated the data for the years 2015 and 2016 in their statistics and I got the data directly from the Russian central bank's website (kudos to Perestroica and Glastnost) so I tend to think that is more accurate.  I'm not sure why the CIA doesn't trust Russian central bank's own data... maybe the CIA is just lazy or underfunded (or both!).

 Sorry.  That'll be my last post on the subject of Russian money supply.

Alright. I deleted Russia from the first post. As I warned in my first post and as we've since confirmed, the data on tradingeconomics was most likely flawed and I feel like I'm just getting a glimpse of what will happen when the hordes of signature posters will comment here without reading the whole post and the other comments. It was either that or I changed the name of the topic into "Is there a mistake in the data on tradingeconomics regarding the RUB's M1?" The answer is probably yes, so I'll cut it short by removing that line from the chart.
According to the CIA, the total M1 money supply of the RUB is $199,700,000,000 and that seems much more accurate at first glance (also it is around 1346% of Bitcoin's market cap). It's either that or xhomerx10: $152 billion (and that's already a 25% difference, which is relatively huge). If we assume that tradingeconomics mispelled the word billion for million, their M1 would be $281 billion. Again that's about 40% difference with the CIA's data and more or less 90% difference with xhomerx10's. Seems like accurately calculating a currency's money supply is a difficult exercise, given these margins.

 I believe it is cash plus the banks' reserve requirements and they refer to this as Monetary Base (or MB).  Their M2 is that amount plus deposits.

9 trillion rubles is about $150 billion, much less that I expected, but still 10 times that of Bitcoin.

If they din't use M1, what do they use? Do you mean that they only show the fractionally reserved money supply?

I'm not sure that Russia uses M1 (the UK doesn't) so those values you got from trading economics website were probably flawed.  Here from the mouth of the bear is the narrow money supply in Russia:





 source: https://www.cbr.ru/Eng/statistics/?PrtId=indcalendar

The market cap of the Russian Ruble is 1,000 times more than what he had posted here. As per the latest exchange rates, the market cap is around 210 billion USD (and not 281 million USD).

Any currency's M1 is the total amount of "physical money — both paper and coin — as well as checking accounts, demand deposits and negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts" (source : http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/m1.asp). Investopedia goes on by saying: "The most liquid portions of the money supply are measured by M1 because it contains currency and assets that can be converted to cash quickly". That's close enough to the total number of units of that currency in circulation as well as to the situation with Bitcoin.

I multiplied that value by "the average value of this currency on all exchanges", as you said, to get the numbers here.
Indeed it's not exactly the same as what we call the market cap for Bitcoin, but it stills seems close enough IMO.

The fiat currencies market capitalization should not be viewed like we view bitcoins market capitalization or the other way around. The reason why we must not compare is due to bitcoins volatility. Bitcoins market capitalization is based on the average value of bitcoin on all exchangers and multiplied it by the total number of circulation. So if you look at your description of M1 compared to bitcoins market capitalization then you will notice that they are not the same.

Yeah I was talking about the possibility of this very one to be wrong in my OP. In the end I think the data that I based my math on ( from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m1) probably was wrong about Russia.
The second chart, with the percentages, however, uses different data and there, Russia seems to be more at the right place.
I'm trying to see what kind of room Bitcoin still has for improvement and I don't reckon comparing bitcoin with USD or any other fiat currency is like comparing apples with tomatoes. A currency is a currency. It makes no sense to make a difference like you do just based on the fact that some are inflating and others deflating.

You might be right as I have read many times market capitalization are just numbers and there will be no significant importance for it other than giving a feel of how big one commodity would be, among investors.

I guess a typical bitcoin trader will not bother about market capitalization of bitcoin, but do take care of impacting news and events for their analysis.

This one stood out to me as 'possibly' being wrong! It seems like you might be missing a few zeros.

It is pretty cool that bitcoin is more valuable than the currencies of some 3rd world countries, but I would like to see the same comparison with tech companies.
There are some pretty average American Tech companies with multi Billion dollar values.

I wouldn't be too surprised if Snapchat goes for more than the value of every Bitcoin in the world! There is still some room for expansion!