Topic: "Various aspects of Bitcoin and crypto economics" (Read 290 times)

As for the answer to this question, from my point of view, I believe that the only acceptable form for governments to interact between traditional monetary policy mechanisms and the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies would be to decentralize Bitcoin and decentralized cryptocurrencies by controlling third-party services.

For example, the recent approval of the ETF is a form of government control and the transformation of decentralization into centralization.

For me though, I don't like to overthink and complicate things with regards to Bitcoin.

If government accept it as money or legal tender then good, just like what El Salvador has done, and they have reserves too. And with the incoming bull run, they will pose to make a lot of money.

If other doesn't want to accept it, authoritative government, then so be it.

We can't force Bitcoin to everyone, if you want to used it as hedge, store of value, sound money, it's up to you.

1.The central banks will keep dominating the financial world. DeFi cannot change this.

2.Whoever wants to buy BTC and add it to his/her portfolio is free to do so. I don't think that Bitcoin will have an impact over "macroeconomic stability" or "consumption patterns".

3.This question cannot be answered with one or several sentences. Someone has to conduct a research about the impact of crypto regulations across the crypto investors in various jurisdictions.

4.Nah, tokenization won't lead to redistribution of wealth and resources. The rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer.
Tokenization is BS, if you ask me, but many not-so-smart people believe in it and they will lose money because of that.

Money earmarked for daily use and emergency funds can be kept in banks for easy access. However keeping large funds in banks is not ideal, especially in nations that experience high inflation. The fund will naturally lose value because its purchasing power will be reduced. Bitcoin is a good investment but it will be better to diversify your investment into different economic sectors. Real estate, buying and keeping precious stones, stocks and even starting a business are all good investment options. Diversifying investment also helps to reduce risk since it is not possible to experience losses in all sectors at the same time.

Due to inflation, it might not be wise to keep all our money in the bank, nobody ever became rich by keeping their money in the bank, they invest it and the money works for them. But the thing is, we cannot completely avoid the bank, neither can we invest too much money into Bitcoin because of its risks. Generally i don't think Bitcoin is the best investment one can get into, there's real estate, stocks, bonds, etc, some are less risky with low ROI, but i think it is essential for one not to invest in too many risky assets.

Just so you get a grasp on reality, the US Stock market capitalization was about 50 Trillion in 2023:

Just to correct your number it's over 3.5 trillion now.As far as the part of BTC in the world economy is considered then it doesn't have a part in it rather the economy is a part of BTC (exaggerating).

Jokes apart but nowadays people are very much into crypto and it has become a major part of the economies. Investors and investing a large amount into different coins and projects and it's having a direct impact on the country's economy. So governments should apply laws and regulations but up to an extent that people don't get offended by that.

I disagree with you here none of these currencies will suffer if they are alone in the industry. One thing that is making the industry to look like there is a competition is because the government don't want to acknowledge the fact that the digital currencies are doing wonders in the world, so they feel insecure that the digital system would take over the monetary system from them and keep the out of the market. However, i still believe that both can work together if the government accepts cryptocurrency fully. If they do magic can be made in the banking and finance system.

Also be aware that the government has no impact in the slow growth of cryptocurrency. This is because every year the number of new crypto adopters are very much massive so if by this way government threats cryptocurrency, but they are gaining more enthusiast i wonder when the government fully allows crypto as a form of money the number of people who would flood into it,

I do agree that it takes a little bit of time to get to this point, I am not saying that it is going to be tough or anything like that, but if we are given enough time then we could make it work one way or another.

Bitcoin in the world economics has a place now, back in the day it was too small to matter, but since we are above 1 trillion dollars, we are not there anymore and we do not have to fear anything, which is why I believe that we need to make sure that things to change a bit, and should be something that will take a while. I believe that we need to reach to a point where it will not be all that simple and could probably lead to having a better result so we should let it be and not really focus on anything else.

+1.
 One of the accurate assessment I've read so far on the impact of crypto. The biggest visible impact is to have made a few 100 Thousand people richer. Bitcoin has given us the Wallet technology which is more important for millions, many not even realizing what opportunities those hold.

Look governments actually have to find a balance between the existing baking system and the integration of crypto currencies with the system otherwise both will suffer in some way. Governments will never allow the complete shift to crypto transactions and this will lead to slow growth of crypto because the officials wouldn't be supporting it.

While the existing systems will also suffer because people will find a way to use the crypto currencies for transactions. So in order for sustaining both they should be merged in a way that they both can grow together while depending on one another.

this is a complex question that should be asked on a serious discussion board. however, i understand several points of the question you asked, and my view on this is that bitcoin as a digital asset actually does not need to be too complicated to understand and relate to macroeconomics. it will grow for sure, but the government is trying to limit it so that bitcoin doesn't get further into the economic system.

question related to defi and frictional ownership, it's actually just an ordinary innovation developed by developers in the crypto world, and actually i'm not that interested in it, especially in frictional ownership, it's something that is just a waste of money and investing in it's not worth it, since it has no future.

Op, I think it will be easier for people to answer the questions if you put numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) or letters (A, B, C, D, E) next to them. This way, people can just refer to a specific question without needing to rephrase it to make sure everyone understands which one they're addressing. Also, just for the record, questions sound like they were written by ChatGPT to me.
1. I think Bitcoin isn't really getting integrated into global financial systems, not to a point where it's making any significant impact on global trade or fiat currencies.
2. DeFi aren't new, and they changed nothing.
3. Bitcoin's growth is a challenge to its adoption as a currency because people want to hodl it more than they want to spend it, it seems.
4. Regulations so far don't have a big global impact, aside from occasional negative impact when restrictions are suggested.
5. Bitcoin doesn't have a minimum amount one can invest, which makes it more accessible to people as an investment. But the general state of things where you can buy more if you have more money still applies here.

I;ve been hearing about Defi for 6 years, everyone is cheering new Defi projects, how will they revolutionize everything how this and that, and all the while they are just sending those tokens to a CEX, selling them, and withdrawing fiat via a bank!

CB have nothing to fear about decentralized finances, central banks wouldn't care how you move your funds and how you play with your money, CB are about macroeconomics, CB set the interest rate, and they set economic policies, that's why every crypto trader is glued to the screen when there is FED announcement and nobody cares what new defi project on solana comes to life!


This is something people really don't understand, if there had been a real interest in fractional ownership we would have already seen it more often than this, we had the stocks and shares for centuries, and the technology was never a problem, it's the complete unattractivity of such a thing that's keeping it out of the mainstream investing

If we should consider the booming years of Bitcoin, it is now when the price hasn't yet crossed the $100k point, it is now when we have access to our own wallets without strict hold or much regulations by government, it is now when exchanges are gaining their names and credibility due to the kinds of service they offer users, the web3 and AI integrations, and for the fees across all exchange market platforms that bears a standard for minimum amounts deposited, withdrawn or transfered.

With cryptocurrencies being accepted in the world, with its price volatility, and role in the global financial system, it can have a significant impact on the macroeconomic stability of a country in both positive and negative way.

Macroeconomics is more concerned with economies on a much larger scale. Talking about regional, national, continental, and even global with its goal set on the interest rates and national productivity efficiency.

So far Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies has in more ways than one, shown to be a much better option to boost an improvement of the macroeconomics of any country, else,  why does CBDC innovation exists and why is there so much clamour for SEC regulations by the government?

Bitcoin adoption on a macroeconomic scale will try to co-exist with fiat currency so as to create a stable and sustainable economic growth, ensure low levels of inflation, ensure low rates of unemployment, ensure equitable distribution of income in a country, and an equilibrium in the balance of payments of a nation.

Cryptoeconomics, Fundamental principles of Bitcoin. Downloadable book in pdf, shared for free download by Eric Voskuil.

Macroeconomics includes many components and Bitcoin as one component, can not solve any macroeconomic problem. It is responsibility of governments, central banks and politicians. We can not trust politicians so macroeconomic problems will never be solved.

To defend our finance, wealth, we have to avoid banks, use money to invest. No better investment asset than Bitcoin.

Fractional ownership is really not a new thing, there has always been funds that offered to pool investments for those who have too little capital to invest themselves in something like real estate. And tokenization is just a buzzword with no real-world applications, because you can't go to court and say that you own 5% of some property because you own some token. Without government's blessing this "revolution" is impossible.

You are asking a lot of unrelated questions. The links between Bitcoin, DeFi, the functions of the central bank, and the macroeconomy are not reliable, even if there is an attempt to do so.
The maximum value that Bitcoin can reach in the next 10 years is 10 trillion, which US market is still able to absorb without a direct impact on financial policies. As for the DeFi market, it is small and flourished when interest levels were low, but it will not grow otherwise.

Tokenization is a good migration and intersection of Traditional Finance with Cryptocurrency market, Blockchain technology to bring more seamless experience to investors and at the same time, give them more transparency too.

With investors, nothing is more important than transparency of data, stocks or token holders and distribution of a company's stock/ token. With transparency, investors will have more valid data to assess and make their decisions more accurately.

Without tokenization, RWA, they will have to rely on reports from companies and it is clearly that reports from companies can not be trusted. Investors can be fooled by company reports.

You've got a lot of questions which could be thoroughly discussed separately.

Anyway, in general, the good thing about Bitcoin is that we can finally have a money that is entirely independent from the state. It is global and decentralized so any disruption or intervention from the state is impossible. This makes Bitcoin a better money than fiat. Fiat is subject to whimsical policies of central banks and governments. Fiat is susceptible to abuses, incompetence, and unreasonable management. Bitcoin is insulated from all this.

Bitcoin's finite supply will remove the inflationary nature of money. Savings would be encouraged. But this doesn't necessarily mean economic activities would be greatly reduced. It could mean spending is more focused, commercial ventures more studied, capital becomes more valuable, and so on.

As far as wealth distribution is concerned, Bitcoin makes it fairer in a way because the power over money is already taken away from the state. If money printing and distribution are under the state's power, whoever that is close to the powers that be will have easier access and will get more.