Skip to main content

Weathering With You: An Agorist Perspective

If someone asked you what your favorite emotion was, how do you think you’d answer? For many people, I suspect they would answer “Happiness”, “Joy'', or some variant of exclusively positive emotion. Someone may think more meticulously and answer with “Contentment”, which while a positive emotion has a lot of nuance attached to it. However my answer to that question is what I feel others would consider more orthodox: Bittersweet. Pleasure accompanied by suffering, not exactly most people’s first pick but from my perspective pain is necessary in order to enjoy the pleasure that life gives you. Perhaps I'm over-romanticizing but there’s something to desire from looking back fondly at times where you were hurting and seeing yourself in a better place in the present. Perhaps you finally have moved on from “The one who got away” and can look back on those times with fondness. Perhaps you are sharing stories of a friend or family member at their funeral and though they may never w

Bitcoin Maximalism: A House Divided





Based on the response to The Economics of Bitcoin Maximalism, it's become clear that not only is the maximalist community divided, but that the competing factions are speaking entirely different languages altogether.

I’ve separated the Bitcoin maximalists into several camps based on their ideologies.




The Saifedean School

Approximately half of the bitcoin maximalist community is at least wise enough to accept the validity of regression theorem. However, they falsely claim that the utility requirement of regression theorem is satisfied by its role as a store of value. This fiction was made popular by Saifedean Ammous in The Bitcoin Standard.

I’ve debunked this claim on several occasions (check out this recent episode of the CoinSpice podcast) by reiterating the Austrian position on the secondary functions of money. That is to say, money’s use as a store of value is secondary to, and dependent upon its ability to function as a medium of exchange. In other words, the reserve demand for money is derived from its exchange demand, not the other way around.


The Nick Szabo School

The other half of the bitcoin maximalist community boldly rejects the store of value claim; nor will they concede Bitcoin’s utility is p2p cash (as Satoshi said it was), since this would force them to sympathize with chains that enjoy lower transaction fees. However, by denying any utility of all cryptocurrencies, the Szabo school is forced to dispense with the regression theorem altogether.

In other words, since they’re unable to identify the initial use-value of Bitcoin, they throw the baby out with the bath water and scrap the entire theory. Nick Szabo once called me a dogmatist for defending the Austrian position. Guy Swann from the Cryptoconomy podcast, recently claimed here that regression theorem is a Keynesian idea!





The underlying problem with this line of thinking is that Mises described the regression theorem specifically to remove a circularity from the economic corpus.

As he explains in Chapter 8 of his Theory of Money and Credit:

“The money prices of today are linked with those of yesterday and before, and those of tomorrow and after.”

And,

“To trace back the value which money has today to that which it had yesterday to that which it had the day before, and so on, is to raise the question of what determined the value of money in the first place.”

According to the Austrians, that determining factor was the commodity’s utility. Gold & silver were, for example, initially utilized for decorative or ornamental purposes. By denying this utility requirement, maximalists are unable to explain the origins of money and thus, fail  to understand the nature of money entirely.

At minimum, it's incumbent upon anyone denying regression theorem to resolve this circularity since they’re reintroducing it to the economic literature. In this, the Szabo school and it’s adherents fail to even make an attempt.




The Fence Sitters

Some of the more vocal fence sitters include Michael Goldstein and Vijay Boyapati, but in truth, almost every maximalist pays homage to both Ammous and Szabo without understanding that their ideas are diametrically opposed to one another and are fundamentally mutually exclusive, let alone factually incorrect

This only serves to reinforce the idea that maximalists are either emotionally beholden to an incorrect position, or lack a solid foundation in economics altogether.


Bonus: The Craig Wright School

Ironically, the best argument I've heard for Bitcoin maximalism comes from the notorious BSV proponent, Dr. Craig Wright. In this episode of The Agora, he urged me to think of Bitcoin as a protocol like TCP, rather than as money. Although this explanation certainly makes sense in the framework of a metanet, it isn't as useful for cypherpunk and agorist purposes as a general currency is.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About Global Warming

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools. Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary. Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compound

The Counter-Economics of COVID

In March 2020 - some say earlier, but by March 2020 at latest - the banking had sector collapsed. In response, coronavirus was manufactured as a scapegoat to justify the liquidity injection necessary to keep the Federal Reserve’s ponzi scheme alive. The State’s narrative would henceforth be: ‘Since all businesses were shut down, an unprecedented amount of money must be printed and distributed to the public.’ Milton Friedman’s helicopter money had come to fruition. But like a junkie chasing his initial high, the Fed had become immune to the effects of monetary stimulus. Each injection requiring a stronger, more potent dose of cheap & easy money. Less than two years later, and the effects of that stimulus have now waned & the banksters are poised to pull off another heist. As the business cycle continues to ebb and flow until the day of final reckoning, the State can be expected to behave in an increasingly erratic fashion. Like a cornered cat, or a fish out of water, the State

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom