The story appears on

Page A7

February 24, 2021

GET this page in PDF

Free for subscribers

View shopping cart

Related News

Home » Opinion

On Bitcoin’s spectacular price volatility

Bitcoin was invented in 2008 and began trading in 2009. In 2010, the value of a single Bitcoin rose from around eight-hundredths of a cent to eight cents. In April 2011, it traded at 67 cents, before subsequently climbing to US$327 by November 2015. As recently as March 20 last year, Bitcoin traded at about US$6,200, but its price has since increased more than sevenfold.

Today, Bitcoin is a perfect, 12-year-old bubble. I once described gold as “shiny Bitcoin,” and characterized the metal’s price as a 6,000-year-old bubble. That was a bit unfair to gold, which used to have intrinsic value as an industrial commodity (now largely redundant), and still does as a consumer durable widely used in jewelry.

Bitcoin, by contrast, has no intrinsic value; it never did and never will. It is a purely speculative asset — a private fiat currency — whose value is whatever the markets say it is.

But Bitcoin is also a socially wasteful speculative asset, because it is expensive to produce. The cost of “mining” an additional Bitcoin — solving computational puzzles using energy-intensive digital equipment — increases at such a rate that the total stock of the cryptocurrency is capped at 21 million units.

Of course, even if Bitcoin’s protocol is not changed to allow for a larger supply, the whole exercise can be repeated through the issuance of Bitcoin 2, Bitcoin 3, and so on. The real costs of mining will thus be replicated, too. Moreover, there are already well-established cryptocurrencies operating in parallel with Bitcoin.

But as the success of government-issued fiat currencies shows, the universe of speculative bubbles is by no means restricted to cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

After all, in a world with flexible prices, there is always an equilibrium where everyone believes the official fiat currency has no value — in which case it consequently has no value. And there are infinitely many “non-fundamental” equilibria where the general price level — the reciprocal of the fiat currency’s price — either explodes and goes to infinity or implodes and falls to zero, even when the money stock remains fairly steady or does not change at all.

Finally, there is the unique “fundamental” equilibrium at which the price level (and the value of the currency) is positive and neither explodes nor implodes.

Tesla’s recent Bitcoin buy-in shows that a large additional buyer entering the market can boost the cryptocurrency’s price significantly, both directly (when markets are illiquid) and indirectly through demonstration and emulation effects. But an exit by a single important player would have a similar impact in the opposite direction. Positive or negative opinions voiced by market makers will have significant effects on Bitcoin’s price.

The cryptocurrency’s spectacular price volatility is not surprising. Deeply irrational market gyrations like the one that drove GameStop’s share price to unprecedented highs in January (followed by a significant correction) should serve as a reminder that, lacking any obvious fundamental value anchor, Bitcoin is likely to remain a textbook example of excess volatility.

This will not change with time. Bitcoin will continue to be an asset without intrinsic value whose market value can be anything or nothing. Only those with healthy risk appetites and a robust capacity to absorb losses should consider investing in it.

The author is visiting professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2021.


Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.

沪公网安备 31010602000204号

Email this to your friend