THREAD: As transaction and exchange costs approach 0 the only factor that determines the value of a token is if there is an incentive to HOLD the token. So lets explore the different models that we have seen so far.
-
-
What if asset tokenization enables a solution to the double coincidence of wants such that money is no longer needed at all?
-
which stock is gonna be more liquid than money?
-
Why would liquid money be needed if all assets are liquid? Why not hold purely “productive” or real assets as tokenized fractions that can be seamlessly redeemed and spent as needed?
-
because money is an asset with lowest idiosyncratic risk at full maturity & full voluntary adoption (think gold in 1880s) no other asset is less risky
-
Since gold approximates inflation over the long term, would a CPI-esque basket of commodities not accomplish the same thing?
-
No, because Bitcoin has a superior stock-to-flow ratio over *any* commodity in the world.
-
That is true and of course only getting better. If we suppose that tokenization does eliminate the transactional demand for money, any figures on how large the remaining asset demand for money as a store of value would be?
-
Actually I believe if Bitcoin succeeds in its fixed-supply form, the total amount of wealth held in it, in 2018 USD terms, will be higher than $90T currently held in Fiat. Think about it. If $90T is held in inflationary/dilutable/depreciating instruments today, how big BTC'll be.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.