tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post1978220325373606937..comments2024-03-28T06:53:23.473-04:00Comments on Moneyness: Evaluating my bitcoin predictionsJP Koninghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-53404671496156446472018-03-06T08:17:51.622-05:002018-03-06T08:17:51.622-05:00Please let me know when BTC will go to zero $ ?? a...Please let me know when BTC will go to zero $ ?? any timeframe ?? i want to buy on zero $. Thanks.ZEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07843916654180197964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-75913530400514237622017-06-14T11:50:41.813-04:002017-06-14T11:50:41.813-04:00bitcoin is digital gold type B assetbitcoin is digital gold type B assetAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14341083782114890147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-18835768829274598792017-06-10T23:28:44.146-04:002017-06-10T23:28:44.146-04:00"a number of other futures market that I'..."a number of other futures market that I've traded like gold, wheat, silver, and orange juice tend to demonstrate this same feature, so I think it is fair to generalize this observation to a broad variety of markets."<br /><br />Interesting point, thanks. I simply don't know nearly enough about the topic to know what to do with this info. It kinda seems that if this is a pattern it would be exploitable somehow (if the info who are buying at a given point is available in that moment), but I don't know. Maybe not. <br /><br />"We could argue whether the same principle that govern corn markets apply to bitcoin."<br /><br />Or e.g. markets for art, fine wines, but also gold. More generally, markets where the actual price of an asset seems almost always considerably higher than seems justified (though we disagree about that (I wrote more about this issue in my blog post)) by the asset's non-monetary role. <br /><br />"I don't think speculators are dumb, but I don't think they can be counted to provide much buying support as prices fall. They are trend followers."<br /><br />And yet, in the case of bitcoin etc there has always been *something* that stopped a selling trend. Who would that have been if not speculators, given that bitcoin has no non-monetary value. The fact that so far there has always been something that has stopped a selling trend does of course not mean that it will continue to be true in the future. But it does mean that within a finite time period a plunge to zero is not inevitable. Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-76971913819499068212017-06-08T10:38:41.434-04:002017-06-08T10:38:41.434-04:00Hi JP, interesting stuff. With this division of A ...Hi JP, interesting stuff. With this division of A and B assets all networking software must be type A assets. The utility comes from the network effect. So if you devide assets based on the utility at the individual level it will appear that network tools have no intrinsic value. If me and my friends open a joint account at Bernies we as a group still have a Type A asset. But if we own Bitcoins and there are no bids outside our group we could still use it as a transaction system for our small group. So from the perspective of a small group instead of an isolated individual Bitcoin seems to be a Type B asset.Dan https://www.blogger.com/profile/14228383423254118263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-4349757785705136162017-06-08T02:47:05.315-04:002017-06-08T02:47:05.315-04:00revised version is up https://philosophyofbitcoin....revised version is up https://philosophyofbitcoin.blogspot.ca/2017/06/bitcoin-culture-and-value.htmlKoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-45434690060838652772017-06-07T23:02:19.907-04:002017-06-07T23:02:19.907-04:00Hi Adam, thanks for your thoughts.
"I have a...Hi Adam, thanks for your thoughts.<br /><br />"I have a feeling that digital/ decentralized currencies could potentially help developing economies, and it could boost a technological revolution in our economy."<br /><br />I think mobile money has already had a big effect in places like Kenya, Angola, India, and elsewhere, far more than cryptocurrencies. Because mobile money is stable, and crypto isn't, mobile money will continue to be far more effective in helping developing countries than crypto.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-64849488088357470802017-06-07T21:25:09.547-04:002017-06-07T21:25:09.547-04:00Hello JP ,
I've been following this issue fo...Hello JP , <br /><br />I've been following this issue for awhile now. I, along with entire world, find it quite interesting. Also, as most of people here, I'm speculating on digital currencies mostly for fun. That's partially, the reason I'm here, but I'm also an economics student who is naturally curious. <br /><br />"To get me out of my intellectual rut, you'll have to: 1) show me that bitcoin doesn't require a stream of new buyers and therefore that it is not a Type B asset; or 2) explain to me why not all Type B assets need to fall to zero. Telling me that bitcoin isn't a Type B asset because it doesn't emerge from deceit is breaking the rules."<br /><br />I've seen the Internet has influenced political elections, and I feel it is likely doing the same with our monetary system. I've seen 6000 websites which promote bitcoin. <br /><br />Bitcoin may be a ponzi scheme, that needs a constant supply of buyers, and yet the dollar also needs a constant supply of dollars. For all the talk of decentralization, I feel that most decentralized currencies are hoping banks and governments buy them.<br /><br /> I read a bloomberg view article that states that russia is looking to invest in ethereum. According to the article, Russia has failed in technological innovation, and as their oil is running out, they are looking for a technological boost.<br /><br />I have a feeling that digital/ decentralized currencies could potentially help developing economies, and it could boost a technological revolution in our economy. However, I'm not sure it is worth the cost of disruption. <br /><br />What are your thoughts? <br /><br />--adam <br />Adamhttp://www.twitter.com/shustadanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-53828154040671050602017-06-07T21:12:43.636-04:002017-06-07T21:12:43.636-04:00I temporarily took it down and will publish a revi...I temporarily took it down and will publish a revised version later tonight.Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-84675994583475542572017-06-07T19:41:50.856-04:002017-06-07T19:41:50.856-04:00I'm very excited to see your thoughts/response...I'm very excited to see your thoughts/responses to Koen's blog post on this topic (which I think is excellent), JP.Vijayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376645525363126901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-68026953085782435622017-06-06T11:21:36.092-04:002017-06-06T11:21:36.092-04:00"i.e. there was a permanent need among some p..."i.e. there was a permanent need among some people to make censorship free transactions?"<br /><br />I don't think your example is sufficient to assume away buyer's strikes. Even if there is a set of people who must make censorship free transactions, and a Type A object is the only way to do so, at some point a situation will arise in which--by sheer chance--most of them are sellers of the Type A object, say because they all want to buy some illicit good at the same time. JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-30479847067179646532017-06-06T09:27:17.408-04:002017-06-06T09:27:17.408-04:00"Maybe I misunderstand you here but this seem..."Maybe I misunderstand you here but this seems to portray speculators as quite dumb. Or dumber than the consumers and value investors anyway. "<br /><br />Not sure if you've ever traded futures, but there is an interesting report issued by the CFTC called the COT report, or commitment of traders. It disaggregates holdings between small speculators, large speculators, and commercials (i.e. hedgers, producers, refiners).<br /><br />Here it is for corn.<br /><br />https://www.barchart.com/futures/commitment-of-traders#/technical-charts/ZC*0<br /><br />You'll see that the line "Non-Commercials or Large Speculators, consisting of Managed Money and Other Reportables (Green Line)" generally moves with the price. Speculators add to their positions as price increases, and go short only as it falls. Commercials (who tend to value the stuff for its non-monetary value) do the exact opposite. Price peaks coincide with maximum spec long positions, valleys coincide with max spec short positions. <br /><br />We could argue whether the same principle that govern corn markets apply to bitcoin. But a number of other futures market that I've traded like gold, wheat, silver, and orange juice tend to demonstrate this same feature, so I think it is fair to generalize this observation to a broad variety of markets. I don't think speculators are dumb, but I don't think they can be counted to provide much buying support as prices fall. They are trend followers. JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-5671133325490540462017-06-05T17:01:18.621-04:002017-06-05T17:01:18.621-04:00Preliminary yet belated thought re our twitter dis...Preliminary yet belated thought re our twitter discussion: maybe the analogue of the originality aspect of the Rembrandt (vis-a-vis copies) is (also?) the originality of Bitcoin vis-a-vis other blockchains (or new networks running same software as Bitcoin). <br /><br />Anyone can copy the existing bitcoin software and start a new bitcoin network, 'just as' anybody can copy a Rembrandt. But others won't value it because it's not the original.<br /><br /> ---<br /><br />and to be sure, my point was that the cultural narrative plays a much more derivative role in the store of value function of bitcoin as opposed to the same function in the case of works of art. To exaggerate, with bitcoin it is much more the naked game-theoretic mechanism at play and all the rest is dress-up<br /><br /> ---<br /><br />More to come (he said forebodingly)Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-32145960823758150132017-06-05T15:11:17.068-04:002017-06-05T15:11:17.068-04:00Koen,
The Rembrandt is an interesting example. Y...Koen, <br /><br />The Rembrandt is an interesting example. You mention the "cultural narratives" that go into rationalizing why a buyer might "sell it later at a sufficiently high price." I think these narratives explain why we should get a special feeling looking at a Rembrandt in the first place i.e. why has value apart from our ability to sell it, or non-monetary value. National galleries, for instance, are not in the game of re-selling art to the highest bidder... they value a painting for its ability to throw off a repeated stream of consumptive enjoyment to museum visitors. Any improvement in the underlying cultural narrative--say a famous art critic writes a new Rembrandt book--only boosts the expected stream of consumption, and thus the painting's price. <br /><br />Speculators can of course base their purchases on the fact that they think the narrative justifying a certain Rembrandt is about to get some sort of boost. But in the end the are front-running what they anticipate to be an improvement in the feeling of consuming a Rembrandt (or, taken to the next degree, they are anticipating someone anticipating an improvement in the consumptive experience, this being the game-theoretic stuff you and Vijay are talking about).<br /><br />I'm skeptical whether the cultural narrative approach can explain bitcoin's valuation. See our discussion on twitter: <br /><br />https://twitter.com/KoenSwinkels/status/869626386427805696<br /><br />With a Rembrandt, there is a discrete "thing" to enjoy. You can't just buy 0.001 of a Rembrandt. With bitcoin, what constitutes owning enough bitcoin to be able to feel what the narrative tells us to feel? If 0.00001 is enough, and there are 5 billion people in the world, then there is only demand for 5000 bitcoins.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-21051402133485094972017-06-05T14:39:50.080-04:002017-06-05T14:39:50.080-04:00Thanks for another reply, JP.
"People are l...Thanks for another reply, JP. <br /><br />"People are lured back into a falling market because they want to hold the asset for its non-monetary role. And they do so because the market is pricing that asset below its non-monetary value. These people, who are engaging in a sort of arbitrage (i.e. this is a force of nature), are consumers or value investors. Their buying props up the asset's price, serving as a platform off of which non-monetary value can be re-established. <br /><br />You need this class of participants to establish a platform. Speculators are trend followers, they typically don't buy assets that are plunging in value. And for those who want to hold liquid media of exchange, they don't like volatility."<br /><br />Maybe I misunderstand you here but this seems to portray speculators as quite dumb. Or dumber than the consumers and value investors anyway. <br /><br />They apparently don't realize that the reason the asset's price is going up is because consumers and value investors are buying it because it had been priced lower than justified by its non-monetary value. <br /><br />To the extent that the speculators drive up the price beyond that justified by the non-monetary role they are apparently simply mistaken (they mistakenly think the non-monetary value justifies the higher price) or they set in motion a bubble in a way that is structurally similar to the case of a $0 non-monetary value gaining a positive monetary value (e.g. bitcoin). <br /><br />In the former it is in any case difficult to see how sustainable non-monetary value can be created in such an accidental way if there are no speculators buying because they expect the asset to gain monetary value in the future.Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-77633884469027529032017-06-05T13:50:17.348-04:002017-06-05T13:50:17.348-04:00The really magical part is not that it can be tran...The really magical part is not that it can be transmitted electronically; it's that it can be transmitted electronically without requiring trusting a third party. *That* is what's world changing. It's a solution to a long standing problem of computer science that many thought was unsolvable. And allows something that has literally never been possible in the history of the world (transmission of value at great distance without trust).Vijayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376645525363126901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-76816539274929880962017-06-05T12:58:06.742-04:002017-06-05T12:58:06.742-04:00What about if you had a Type A asset, but there wa...What about if you had a Type A asset, but there was a structural reason why you couldn't have a buyer's strike, i.e. there was a permanent need among some people to make censorship free transactions? If Bitcoin is the best digital currency to make these transactions -- by dint of having the largest market cap and the deepest, most liquid pool -- would that change your assessment?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18141796662733222293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-41611706120497518512017-06-05T11:56:22.701-04:002017-06-05T11:56:22.701-04:00Vijay, great quote. I tweeted it out yesterday.
&...Vijay, great quote. I tweeted it out yesterday.<br /><br /><i>"and one special, magical property:<br />- can be transported over a communications channel"</i><br /><br />Maybe I am jaded, but I don't transportation over a communications channel a being magical.<br /><br />We have been developing new ways to circulate value for millenia. Metal --> coins --> paper --> book-entry --> digital-->crypto<br /><br />I don't see why the next technological development in this chain suddenly means we can escape from what Nakamoto calls the "traditional qualifications for money." JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-65579660940870982532017-06-05T11:29:32.054-04:002017-06-05T11:29:32.054-04:00"But to what market? The market for the asset...<i>"But to what market? The market for the asset in its non-monetary role or the market for the asset in its monetary role?<br /><br />We are talking about the latter but why would the asset's non-monetary role lure the buyer back into the market for its monetary role? "</i><br /><br />People are lured back into a falling market because they want to hold the asset for its non-monetary role. And they do so because the market is pricing that asset below its non-monetary value. These people, who are engaging in a sort of arbitrage (i.e. this is a force of nature), are consumers or value investors. Their buying props up the asset's price, serving as a platform off of which non-monetary value can be re-established. <br /><br />You need this class of participants to establish a platform. Speculators are trend followers, they typically don't buy assets that are plunging in value. And for those who want to hold liquid media of exchange, they don't like volatility. JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-81291147264127550902017-06-04T14:09:44.087-04:002017-06-04T14:09:44.087-04:00"No, I believe we have the same definition. I..."No, I believe we have the same definition. I think of it as that extra value that an individual ascribes to a good because they expect that someone will accept it in the future. Whether that person is expected to do so at a higher price (i.e. the motives are speculative) or at the same price ( i.e. the motives are monetary) doesn't matter."<br /><br />This is probably a good point. Will have to think about it some more.<br /><br />"More later. Am having problems keeping up with the pace here given other duties."<br /><br />Serves you right for posting about bitcoin!<br /><br />;-)Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-947281028059275012017-06-04T09:57:04.431-04:002017-06-04T09:57:04.431-04:00"btw, I realize now that we don't mean th..."btw, I realize now that we don't mean the same thing by moneyness. For you it concerns only the degree to which an asset functions as a medium of exchange (its liquidity premium) while for me (and I think Vijay) it also includes its function as a store of value (though the exact nature of the causal and conceptual relations between these two functions is not very clear to me at this point). "<br /><br />No, I believe we have the same definition. I think of it as that extra value that an individual ascribes to a good because they expect that someone will accept it in the future. Whether that person is expected to do so at a higher price (i.e. the motives are speculative) or at the same price ( i.e. the motives are monetary) doesn't matter.<br /><br />More later. Am having problems keeping up with the pace here given other duties.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-90724597195183591092017-06-03T17:54:54.372-04:002017-06-03T17:54:54.372-04:00Some unclear and freewheeling thinking on explaini...Some unclear and freewheeling thinking on explaining the store of value function and its relation to the medium of exchange function: <br /><br />With assets such as works of art, old wines, old coins etc the same game-theoretic mechanism is at play but embedded in a context of social, cultural, aesthetic, epistemic norms, traditions, values, practices and narratives that explain, contribute to, justify or rationalize the value that is stored. The store of value function of an original Rembrandt is ultimately based on the expectation of the buyer that he can sell it later at a sufficiently high price. <br /><br />This expectation is embedded in and justified by its aesthetic value (as described and argued for by experts), its place in history, in both a historical and art historical narrative, its uniqueness (collectible value) etc. <br /><br />So these help drive the necessary game-theoretic mechanism (expectations of future value) that is responsible for its store of value function. <br /><br />The store of value function of a bitcoin on the other hand seems more nakedly based in or constituted by that game-theoretic mechanism alone. It is less obvious how bitcoin was embedded in aesthetic, social, cultural norms, values, practices that explain or rationalize its value and hence justify the expectation of sufficiently high value in the future that its bootstrapping success depended on and that it will need to survive and grow. <br /><br />(But such things did play some role (e.g. libertarian idealism, subversiveness, beauty of the concept etc) and may continue to evolve to further embed bitcoin in social, cultural, aesthetic contexts and help it to grow further and sustain it.)<br /><br />Maybe another such context is that of market practices, in the form of bitcoin’s role as a medium of exchange. While typically the store of value function of bitcoin is explained by its current and expected future medium of exchange function, maybe bitcoin’s use as a medium of exchange is better seen as more on a par with the cultural etc factors mentioned above in the context of explaining the store of value function of works of art. <br /><br />So then it would be not so much the overriding, determining factor that explains its store of value function (as how I think you see it) but one of the elements that embed bitcoin and help fuel and sustain the primary game-theoretic mechanism responsible for its store of value function. Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-82206366415996230242017-06-03T17:49:29.066-04:002017-06-03T17:49:29.066-04:00"The larger issue is this: can an asset remai..."The larger issue is this: can an asset remain relatively close to its fundamental value when an analysis of that asset's distribution shows that most people are holding it simply to sell in the future? I don't see why not. For instance, I can find financial assets that stay very close to fundamental value even though most people who are holding are doing so for speculative motives. "<br /><br />I think it's possible too (and the analogy you make with passive investing is an intriguing one). And I think it's also possible that on the basis of the demand by people holding it to sell in the future an asset's value goes and stays much higher than justified by its non-monetary use alone. Bubbles are real and some bubbles are sustainable.<br /><br />btw, I realize now that we don't mean the same thing by moneyness. For you it concerns only the degree to which an asset functions as a medium of exchange (its liquidity premium) while for me (and I think Vijay) it also includes its function as a store of value (though the exact nature of the causal and conceptual relations between these two functions is not very clear to me at this point). <br /><br />Moneyness being bubbliness may make more sense in the latter than in the former conception of moneyness. Bubbliness essentially comes down to the game-theoretic mechanism Vijay described. Something has bubble value when people value it for no other reason than that they expect other people to value it (at a sufficiently high level) in the future. Bubbliness is bootstrapping and possibly sustaining a store of value function out of thin air. This can happen either as something added to an already valuable asset or as an asset’s sole value.<br />Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-21252651205524222372017-06-03T17:31:08.726-04:002017-06-03T17:31:08.726-04:00Thanks for your thoughtful replies JP. As a quick ...Thanks for your thoughtful replies JP. As a quick aside I found it interesting to discover today that Satoshi Nakamoto had basically the same perspective as Koen and I. See quote below. The essence I think is that first value comes from scarcity (fungibility/verifiability help too). After that the value is almost completely game theoretic and path dependent. For a commodity like gold, its rather trivial use value can get it to "take off" so to speak, but the altitude it reaches after that has basically nothing to do with how it took off.<br /><br /><br />http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/428/#selection-21.3-51.70<br /><br />As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:<br />- boring grey in colour<br />- not a good conductor of electricity<br />- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either<br />- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose<br /><br />and one special, magical property:<br />- can be transported over a communications channel<br /><br />If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.<br /><br />Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.<br /><br />I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.<br /><br />(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)<br /><br /><br />Vijayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376645525363126901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-44066456916059094112017-06-02T12:57:42.724-04:002017-06-02T12:57:42.724-04:00Let's assume you're right about jewellery....Let's assume you're right about jewellery. <br /><br />The larger issue is this: can an asset remain relatively close to its fundamental value when an analysis of that asset's distribution shows that most people are holding it simply to sell in the future? I don't see why not. For instance, I can find financial assets that stay very close to fundamental value even though most people who are holding are doing so for speculative motives. <br /><br />(If you're interested in finance, the argument I'm making is similar to the one made against one of the more common criticisms of passive investing... that once x% of the market invests passively, stock prices will unwind from their fundamental value and no longer have good signalling power. If I recall correctly, someone wrote a paper that says that only a small percent of market participants need to be investing actively for the market to be efficient).JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-25825432479636152672017-06-02T02:37:45.655-04:002017-06-02T02:37:45.655-04:00"There might be another trader's rule of ..."There might be another trader's rule of thumb that says the opposite i.e. the trend has turned and in falling to $y an important support line has been breached, so the price should go down to $z. And if enough people act on this second rule of thumb they will cancel out the effect of all those speculators basing their trading on the first rule of thumb. We might even get a cascade effect where the first set of speculators are more-than-cancelled out, the resulting price decline setting off a third trader's rule that encourages people to sell, leading to an even lower price and more selling etc. A buyer's strike."<br /><br />Yes, this is entirely possible and not at all unlikely.<br /><br />"It is possible that the first trader's rule of thumb works for a long time, but there is no "force of nature" that dictates it must always work."<br /><br />No doubt.<br /><br />"At some point it will stop working. "<br /><br />You made a bit of a leap there. The fact that it is entirely possible doesn't mean it *will* happen.<br /><br />"Fundamental value, however, is a force of nature. It never stops working. It will always lure people back into the market."<br /><br />But to what market? The market for the asset in its non-monetary role or the market for the asset in its monetary role? <br /><br />We are talking about the latter but why would the asset's non-monetary role lure the buyer back into the market for its monetary role? <br /><br />The situation seems to be the same for an asset that has no non-monetary role and an asset that does have a non-monetary role. What matters is whether the buyer is lured back into the market for its monetary role. And with the mechanism you describe having a non-monetary role offers no advantage in that regard. <br /><br />Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.com