TL;DR Bitcoin has very little in the way of anti-inflation superpowers if it ever became used as money, so it is not a great argument to make for the adoption of Bitcoin.
Today I was on a Twitter Spaces (thank you
@quickswapDEX for having me) where I got into a protracted debate with someone over whether Bitcoin would solve any inflationary pressures we see today or in recent history.
I, of course, championed the view that Bitcoin DOESNâT inoculate an economy from inflation.
Unfortunately, the shortest true statement in economics is longer than the time you can reasonably allot on a podcast or Twitter Spaces. So letâs lay out the argument here.
Assertion: Bitcoin is designed in a way that would prohibit inflation/devaluation that we see in money today.
First, letâs step back and figure out what we mean by âmoneyâ - since this is the core of how Bitcoin maximalists misunderstand how the financial system operates.
Is the banknote (whether USD or GBP or won or yen or rupees) in your wallet money? Yes.
Is the balance in your bank account also money? Unless you live in an economy where physical cash is the only medium of exchange, then yes.
This is where Bitcoin-as-an-inflation-cure breaks down.
Most money is of the second type listed above - that is, it is demand deposits in banks and other financial institutions. Swapping out all currency in the world to move to a BTC standard doesnât change that, nor would it change that fractional reserve banking is how most money is created. Physical bills and coinage are a relatively small part of the money supply.
Crucially, because deposits and deposit-like balances are the majority of the money supply, this is also where inflation generally occurs.
Now, letâs assume a major economy switched to Bitcoin as their currency. All taxes are due in BTC, all prices are in BTC, the preferred method of payment is via BTC. And your bank account is converted from USD/GBP/whatever to BTC.
Hooray! Weâve instantly brought inflation down to 0.8% per year! Or have we?
Remember that most inflation in a developed economy is not driven by minting physical coinage and cutting physical bills. And tokenized BTC is the equivalent.
Most of the money supply is made up of liquid credit products that are considered cash or near-cash. Bank accounts are the most familiar example.
So what happens? More BTC supply is created via fractional reserve lending.
Bitcoin maximalists can decry âpaper Bitcoinâ all they want, but that would not change that most of this new world running on a Bitcoin standard would still be dealing primarily in âpaper Bitcoinâ, nor would reality allow those maximalists to opt out of any ensuing inflationary periods.
For those who are still skeptical, I would urge them to familiarize themselves with periods of inflation under metallic money standards - not through more supply of the gold/silver, but through the development of deposits and credit instruments on top.
Song China, Europe 1500-1600 (messy because Spain also expanded the metal supply), early 1700s France, Napoleonic-era Britain, 1920s US/UK
Money supply is a squirrelly thing. It evolves on its own, and while we like to pretend that central banks can control it, they mostly just reserve the right to rekt the money. Most money is NOT made by central banks, which are relatively recent inventions.
Thereâs $15 trillion of dollars created by banks that are outside the US banking system. BTC does not have some way to prevent this sorcery where the Fed couldnât.
There is no special reason to believe a world on a Bitcoin standard would prevent bouts of inflation as the credit cycle creates more money supply.