Fear of Cryptos Pervades Davos

csm_davos_winter_night.jpg

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/bitcoin-wont-last-in-world-of-finance-warns-nobel-winning-economist

So, here we go...

Nobel prize-winning (whatever that's worth) economist (undoubtedly Keynesian) Robert Shiller claims that bitcoin will not be a "permanent feature" of the financial world.

Robert, how many times was that said of the internet in its early stages? Have you looked at the financial impact that the internet is having today? Have you surveyed how many times the demise of bitcoin has been predicted since its inception? And yet strangely, it and its siblings and cousins get stronger every year.

Theresa May and Steven Mnuchin, you express concern that "digital currencies" might be used for nefarious purposes.

Have you not noticed how often your currencies (which are mostly digital by the way) have been used for nefarious activities? Including by your own governments? How about your currencies, among others, being used to send $400 billion in cold hard cash on pallets by cargo plane in a late night deliver to pay a bribe negotiated by John Kerry (another of your speakers) and approved by Barak Obama with Iran?

And, please, tell me what the world gained by this "nefarious" activity? So far, all I have seen is the possibility that those funds were used to finance more terrorists and terrorists activities.

Cecilia Skingsley, could you please provide your definition of the appropriate criteria for money? I am of the opinion (which I believe is all you have) that you've not really investigated the cryptocurrencies yourself. Perhaps, I'm wrong and you have.

In which case, I infer that it's not a case of bitcoin and others not meeting the classic criteria of money. Isn't it really a case of you being scared to death that you'll "lose control" and be put out of the business of appropriating other people's money?

After all, Cecilia, you do say, "...over time it's much better if you have a trustworthy authority that releases enough money - not too little and not too much." What makes you think you're a trustworthy authority outside of your "little" circle of friends?

Jennifer Zhu Scott and Neil Rimer did hit the essence of bitcoin. It functions very much like gold and silver. There is a finite amount, most of which has already been issued. And, like gold and silver, it can't be arbitrarily issued by "trustworthy authorities."

Rather, it doesn't require trusting any human. It simply functions by a mathematical algorithm baked in from the beginning and immutable without 100% consensus of the participants.

Well, that applies to bitcoin and a few others. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily true of all coins. And, there is where the individual has to take the responsibility to do their due diligence before investing their fiat currency.

Are there scams and scammers? Yeah. Were in the world, and in what industry, aren't there scammers? Some of the greatest scammers in the world are participants at the Davos conference about cryptocurrencies (cyptos).

Why are the cryptos so volatile? So far, they are young without a lot of participation. Is the participation growing? Yes. It is the market forces of the free market in action. It also means a lot of people are jumping into something because they are in fear of mission out (FOMO), not because they understand the basic concept.

Then, when "trustworthy authorities" such as those mentioned above make veiled and direct threats, those who don't yet understand what they have in their hands panic and bail out.

Does this happen in other arenas? Yes. Why then don't we see the same volatility in the other arenas? Simply because there is a much greater number of individuals involved.

Will the cryptocurrency volatility ever smooth out? Yeah. As the cryptocurrencies mature and most people adopt the use of them, they won't be as susceptible to the outside forces attempting to manipulate them for their own benefit.