Slashdot Mirror
'Cryptocurrencies Are Like Lottery Tickets That Might Pay Off in Future' (theguardian.com)
With the price of bitcoin down 80% from its peak a year ago, and the larger cryptocurrency market in systemic collapse, has "peak crypto" come and gone? From a column: Perhaps, but don't expect to see true believers lining up to have their cryptocurrency tattoos removed just yet. At a recent conference I attended, the overwhelming sentiment was that market capitalisation of cryptocurrencies could explode over the next five years, rising to $5-10tn. For those who watched the price of bitcoin go from $13 in December 2012 to roughly $4,000 today, this year's drop from $20,000 was no reason to panic.
It is tempting to say, "Of course the price is collapsing." Regulators are gradually waking up to the fact that they cannot countenance large expensive-to-trace transaction technologies that facilitate tax evasion and criminal activity. At the same time, central banks from Sweden to China are realising that they, too, can issue digital currencies. As I emphasised in my 2016 book on the past, present, and future of currency, when it comes to new forms of money, the private sector may innovate, but in due time the government regulates and appropriates.
But as I also pointed out back then, just because the long-term value of bitcoin is more likely to be $100 than $100,000 does not necessarily mean that it definitely should be worth zero. The right way to think about cryptocurrency coins is as lottery tickets that pay off in a dystopian future where they are used in rogue and failed states, or perhaps in countries where citizens have already lost all semblance of privacy. It is no coincidence that dysfunctional Venezuela is the first issuer of a state-backed cryptocurrency (the "petro").
It is tempting to say, "Of course the price is collapsing." Regulators are gradually waking up to the fact that they cannot countenance large expensive-to-trace transaction technologies that facilitate tax evasion and criminal activity. At the same time, central banks from Sweden to China are realising that they, too, can issue digital currencies. As I emphasised in my 2016 book on the past, present, and future of currency, when it comes to new forms of money, the private sector may innovate, but in due time the government regulates and appropriates.
But as I also pointed out back then, just because the long-term value of bitcoin is more likely to be $100 than $100,000 does not necessarily mean that it definitely should be worth zero. The right way to think about cryptocurrency coins is as lottery tickets that pay off in a dystopian future where they are used in rogue and failed states, or perhaps in countries where citizens have already lost all semblance of privacy. It is no coincidence that dysfunctional Venezuela is the first issuer of a state-backed cryptocurrency (the "petro").
He's saying bitcoin will be gone because process bitcoin transactions because mining will not be profitable. Bitcoin will never hit zero because if it did, nobody would be around to process the transaction that puts it there.
Lottery usually has (a) certain guaranteed odds of winning, crypto has no guarantees. (b) Lotteries are usually licensed with a limited number of licenses at any time. There is literally no limit on the number of possible cryptocurrencies.
The value of major cryptos is unlikely to go to hard zero though. There is utility in BTC and friends which is circumvention of regulations. Someone will always want to launder money and sell drugs.
But it's very unlikely for a legit application of blockchain to exist at all because a distributed transaction with consensus is fundamentally more expensive than a centralized one with a trusted third party. All, and I mean absolutely all with no exceptions, all current companies/products in "legit" space are doing things with blockchain purely for marketing/FMO reasons. All of these apps can be done more efficiently without the blockchain.