Having an uninflatable means of exchange is valuable in and of itself. Would the USD have a nonzero price if it weren't for taxes and legal tender laws? Not for long.
I understand where you're coming from, though. I was a long-time goldbug, Schiff-listener, etc. And I still appreciate and respect that perspective very much. But it was Ammous book The Bitcoin Standard that helped me make the switch, and I'd highly recommend it--from one monetary theory loving guy to another. 🤙🏼🤙🏼
It's only a means of exchange if it's valuable
Do you see the circularity?
It's valuable because it is uninflatable (among other things); it is uninflatable because of math; it's backed by math. And math cannot be tampered with (just like gold cannot be reproduced by the alchemists). I'm not sure this is helping, but I'm trying...
It's not backed by math, backing means the issuer holds the asset which is the real object of value and the currency is merely a stand-in.
You don't have a particular right to go to a "miner" (psyop term) and demand a particular amount of math for your Bitcoin, and even if you did that math wouldn't have any particular value.
And being un-inflatable only adds value to a currency if it already has economic value.
Weimar Reichsmarks are in some fixed quantity (trillions or quadrillions) but still none can be issued. While the paper mark has some value now it is as a historical relic, the actual accounting units are worthless, which you can see because the trillion reichsmark note fetches almost the same price as a hundred thousand reichsmark note (or at least not 10 million times as much).
Similarly there are only so many of the hyperinflated Zimbabwe notes but the $50 trillion note sells for almost exactly the same as the $50 billion note. So the accounting unit is worthless.
What brought down the Beanie Baby craze was not the exponential creation of stuffed animals, but the failure of new products to reach new highs.
Bitcoin is a more perfect liquidity receptacle than Beanie Babies so I suspect we will continue to see it gyrate and pump until fiat dies. But I expect it to die then too because there's no "there" there. The ledger tracks nothing.
I really do understand the argument, it's one I used to make as well when arguing for gold over fiat. Bitcoin is not a currency/claim check that needs to be backed by a commodity, because -- like gold -- it is itself the "valuable asset."
Yes, a currency's value is derived from the value of the thing it represents. In the case of gold, it is itself considered valuable for its intrinsic properties -- just like #bitcoin, it has its own unique, and intrinsic properties, that people find valuable. The "regression theorem" goes back to the beginning of a commodity's lifespan to see where its "value" first appeared, before it became a SoV/MoE. In the physical world, there had to first be a physical use for a physical substance. And, I would argue, one of the most important reasons that gold became such a good money -- beyond its usefulness -- was its scarcity: it cannot be reproduced; it's supply was relatively "fixed" by whatever amount was embedded in nature. Without that, it's no good as money.
But in the digital world (where almost all currency and the vast majority of commerce now exists), whatever we choose as a SoV/MoE must have a digital use. That digital use is that we can prove ownership of a certain amount of "coins" that cannot be inflated/counterfeited, confiscated, or double-spent. Those are useful properties of a digital resource, and they make it valuable as money. Some people prefer bitcoin for how easy it is to send value overseas. Others, for price speculation. Still others, because it is a best attempt at "liberty money" in the face of CBDCs. With the rise of totalitarian governments threatening to track and trace and limit and confiscate, fending this off is of great value, at least to me. Bitcoin gives us that ability: to own something (even though digitally) that no one can take away.
My email address has no corporeal existence, either. But I certainly value the ability to send a verified message proving that it was actually the real me who sent it. No one can speak for me. Because I hold the private pgp key to my email address, I "own" that email address. No one else can use it. That security has value even though it has no corporeal substance. That, too, comes from math and cryptography.
This is way longer than I'd intended. Again, I'm not sure this is helping at all, but I appreciate the exchange. 🤙🏻
Those properties conferring value is contingent on a positive valuation for the underlying good in the first place.
If I had a bank vault that could only secure normal water, would anyone be impressed that I could secure it really, really well?
Similarly, Bitcoin excellently secures and transports the thing the ledger tracks, which turns out to be nothing at all. If Bitcoin could perform those functions so well for actual money, that would indeed be remarkable. But I will not agree that the 'nothing' the ledger tracks is money merely because it would be wonderful if it were.
The underlying good is the ability to send verifiable messages containing value transfer without counterparty risk, and without the risk of inflation or confiscation. That ability is itself the underlying good, and I do positively value it (pun intended). But I repeat myself.
