“Cryptocurrencies”‘ inherent illogic illustrated

May we point, as a quick reminder of how impor­tant it is to train – and pos­si­bly force – one­self to think log­i­cal­ly espe­cial­ly in mat­ters of finan­cial sig­nif­i­cance, to this find with respect to a gen­tle­man named Joe Rogan, often referred to as the world’s most suc­cess­ful pod­cast­er, or more specif­i­cal­ly, to anoth­er gen­tle­man “explain­ing” Bitcoin to said podcaster:

The dif­fer­ence between Bitcoin and Ethereum is that in Bitcoin there will only be 21 mil­lion, it can­not be changed,” Curry explained. “It can­not be inflat­ed, and you can­not say the same for Ethereum.

We have, thus, an asser­tion that Bitcoin be scarce and there­fore valu­able, in the same sen­tence that acknowl­edges that, with Ethereum as an exam­ple, there are already more than one so-called “cryp­tocur­ren­cies” in exis­tence, which can quite appar­ent­ly be cre­at­ed at will, if so desired also with more or less the same char­ac­ter­is­tics as Bitcoin itself, so that the sen­tence, when ana­lyzed, destroys the very sense it aims to convey.

The sim­ple syl­lo­gism is, of course:

  1. “Cryptocurrencies” as an “asset class” are not scarce because any sort and num­ber of them can be cre­at­ed by any­one at any time.
  2. Bitcoin belongs to the “asset class” of “cryp­tocur­ren­cies”.
  3. Therefore, Bitcoin is not scarce.

We have dis­cussed this before, but we found it astound­ing that the world’s most suc­cess­ful pod­cast­er, who should be expect­ed to com­mand sig­nif­i­cant­ly above-aver­age intel­li­gence, appears to “swal­low” such a self-destruc­tive state­ment with­out objection.

We are remind­ed by the cryp­to craze of the time-proven wis­dom say­ing “Don’t fight the FED”, yet in the sense that while the FED is cer­tain­ly a pow­er­ful insti­tu­tion, even it can nev­er be as pow­er­ful as log­ic itself, being the core of every­thing in exis­tence includ­ing the FED, which leads to an even more imper­a­tive moni­tion to not fight log­ic hop­ing even remote­ly that one may pre­vail in the long run, as at least in the long run every­one test­ing his luck will lose this fight with­out exception.

An in-depth analy­sis of why “cryp­tocur­ren­cies” may well be “cryp­to-” but by no means qual­i­fy as cur­ren­cies in the mean­ing of mon­ey we shall leave to a sep­a­rate arti­cle. A grat­i­fy­ing­ly lucid and con­cise analy­sis of “cryp­tocur­ren­cy” fal­lac­i­es by a (shall we say: very) high­ly promi­nent (actu­al) econ­o­mist, an analy­sis with an expectably marked econo­met­ric lean­ing, can be found here in the meantime.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on vk
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print

Leave a comment / join the discussion