was perhaps not specific enough, so let me outline one possible scenario in which the value of Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) would fall apart.
For purposes of argument, let’s say that a year from now Bitcoin is priced at $500.
Then you want some Bitcoin, let’s say to buy some drugs.
And you find someone willing to sell you Bitcoin for about $500.
But then the QuitCoin company comes along, with its algorithm, offering to sell you QuitCoin for $400.
Will you ever accept such an offer?
Well, QuitCoin is “cheaper,” but of course it may buy you less on the other side of the transaction as well.
The QuitCoin merchants realize this, and so , so you expect QuitCoin to rise in value over time, enough to make you want to hold it.
So you buy some newly minted QuitCoin for $400, and its price springs up pretty quickly,
at which point you buy the drugs with it.
(Note that the cryptocurrency creators will, for reasons of profit maximization, exempt themselves from upfront mining costs and thus reap initial seigniorage, which will be some fraction of the total new value they create, and make a market by sharing some of that seigniorage with early adopters.)
Let’s say it costs the QuitCoin company $50 in per unit marketing costs for each arbitrage of this nature.
(Alternatively you can think of that sum as representing the natural monopoly reserve currency advantage of Bitcoin.)
In that case both the company and the buyers of QuitCoin are better off at the initial transfer price of $400 and people will prefer that new medium.
Over time the price of Bitcoin will have to fall to about $450 in response to competition.
But of course the story doesn’t end there.
Along comes SpitCoin, offering to sell you some payment media for $300.
offers you a deal for $200.
ZitCoin is cheaper yet.
And so on.
Once the market becomes contestable, it seems the price of the dominant cryptocurrency is set at about $50, or the marketing costs faced by its potential competitors.
And so are the available rents on the supply-side exhausted.
There is thus a new theorem: the value of WitCoin should, in equilibrium, be equal to the marketing costs of its potential competitors.
This theorem will hold even if you are very optimistic about market demand and think that grannies will get in on it.
In fact the larger the network of demanders, the lower the marginal marketing cost may be — a bit like cellphones — and that means even lower valuations for the dominant cryptocurrency.
(It is an interesting question what fixed, marginal, and average cost look like here.
Arguably market participants will not accept any cryptocurrency which is not ultimately and credibly fixed in supply, so for a given cryptocurrency the marginal cost of marketing more at some point becomes infinite.
Marginal cost of supply for the market as a whole is perhaps the (mostly) fixed cost of setting up a new cryptocurrency-generating firm, which issues blocks of cryptocurrency, and that we can think of as roughly constant as the total supply of cryptocurrency expands through further entry.
In any case this issue deserves further consideration.)
Note that the more “” you are , presumably you should also be more optimistic about its future competitors too.
Which means the theorem will kick in and you should be a bear on Bitcoin price.
Arguably it’s the bears on the general workability of cryptocurrencies who should be bullish on Bitcoin price because a) we know Bitcoin already exists, and b) we would have to consider that existence an unexpected and unreplicable outlier of some sort.
Yet the usual demon of mood affiliation denies us such a consistency of reasoning, and the cryptocurrency bulls are often also bulls on Bitcoin price, as too many of us prefer a consistency of mood!
Now, theoretically, you might believe that the current price of Bitcoin already reflects exactly those marketing costs of potential competitors and thus the current equilibrium is stable or semi-stable.
Maybe so, but I doubt that.
The current value of outstanding Bitcoin is about $20 billion or so, and it doesn’t seem it cost nearly that much to launch the idea.
And now that we know cryptocurrencies can in some way “work,” it seems marketing a competitor might be easier yet.
(You will note that by its nature, there are
permanently built into the system, imperfections which a competitor could improve upon.
Furthermore the longer Bitcoin stays in the public eye, the more likely that an established institution will label its new and improved product LegitCoin and give it a big boost.)
You can think of that $20 billion — or perhaps just some chunk of that? — as a very rough measure of the prize to be won if you can come up with a successful Bitcoin competitor.
Even a fraction of that sum will spur some real effort.
In short, we are still in a situation where supply-side arbitrage has not worked its way through the value of Bitcoin.
And that is one reason —
— why I expect the value of Bitcoin to fall — a lot.
I thank Brad DeLong for an email query and analysis which sparked this blog post.
Addendum: Maybe I’ll write another post on the possible expected deflationary bias in any cryptocurrency, given that expected price changes usually get compressed into the present and that an overall expected rate of return equality must hold.
And the question of how much an initial issuer can exempt itself from mining costs as a form of reaping upfront seigniorage. and the profit-maximizing way of sharing these gains with early adopters.
Those are two hanging issues with respect to the analysis here, in addition to the matter of cost structure discussed in the parentheses above.
And now go reread
“” I think one has to say here.
Our Web Pages
Contact Us
Interesting People and Sites
Recent Posts
Supporters
Categories
Select Category
Books&&(2,020)
Current Affairs&&(2,450)
Data Source&&(1,142)
Economics&&(7,724)
Education&&(1,542)
Film&&(391)
Food and Drink&&(794)
Games&&(191)
History&&(1,419)
Law&&(1,489)
Medicine&&(998)
Music&&(383)
Philosophy&&(575)
Political Science&&(1,547)
Religion&&(326)
Science&&(1,306)
Sports&&(338)
Television&&(186)
The Arts&&(438)
Travel&&(179)
Travels&&(237)
Uncategorized&&(2,770)
Web/Tech&&(1,720)
Weblogs&&(99)
Select Month
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003He sold the house that he had p( ) at low price two years before and made a lot of money_百度知道
He sold the house that he had p( ) at low price two years before and made a lot of money
我有更好的答案
按默认排序
我来了==手机发了很多遍都没有成功，太伤心了TTpurchase。先翻译：他卖了那个两年前他以低价__的房子，赚了很多钱。首先你想到的应该是buy,但是你要注意，我们中国人说买房子买家具，都是用买但是外国人是用“购置”这个词，因为东西已经买回去了，如果是还在“买”这个过程的话，你是可以用buy的不过，外国人买房买家具都是用purchase这个词的。记住了。希望明白。
其他类似问题
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁}