Over the last week, the price of Bitcoin crashed from around $2,400 to $1,800 on fears of a so-called hard fork also known as a bitcoin split, which is to say the bitcoin split in two due to software upgrades at the end of the month that would create competing marketplaces.
Potential and actual forks have roiled cryptocurrency prices regularly since the introduction of Bitcoin in 2009. The problem with most reporting of these events is that it treats cryptocurrencies as different from physical currencies, and a fork as a complicated technological disaster.
After a fork, a currency exists in two or more incompatible forms. Two of the biggest forks for the U.S. dollar occurred in 1963 and 1971.
In 1963, the U.S. passed the badly conceived Interest Equalization Tax on purchases of foreign securities by taxpayers. London banks quickly created “eurodollar” deposits, dollar deposits outside the U.S. banking system, which were not subject to the tax.
A eurodollar is kind of like a dollar, except that it is not supported by the U.S. When there is more faith in banks than governments, eurodollars carry a lower interest rate than regular dollars because they are less subject to American jurisdiction. But when banks are troubled, eurodollars carry higher rates because the eurodollar banks might be unable to redeem deposits. In 2008, when that possibility became real, the Federal Reserve supported eurodollars.
In 1971, the Reserve Primary Fund was formed. It was organized via a loophole in mutual fund rules, not as a money substitute. Regulators fought these funds for years before embracing them in the early 1980s. Purchase of money market shares was kind of like depositing money in a bank, except that the money market funds paid much higher rates, and except that the deposit had no official support. Nevertheless, in 2008, the government decided to support money market funds. Money market deposits are counted as dollars in the money supply according to M2, the most widely used measure.
Obviously neither of these forks, nor many smaller forks over the years, led to the abandonment of the dollar. The fact that London banks or U.S. fund managers could create their own versions of dollars without Fed oversight didn’t cause problems. 7 It made dollars more valuable because different flavors worked better for different purposes.
Cryptocurrencies have the opposite problem. Fear of forks makes it difficult to make routine technical changes. This conservatism is one of the factors fueling the growth of tokens that can be easily designed and updated to meet transactional needs, while tying their values to older cryptocurrencies, much like modern physical currencies began by tying their values to gold.
The fear of forks springs from a deeper fear that cryptocurrency values will unravel quickly to zero. Sure, this could happen, but it happens all the time with physical currencies as well.
There were at least 140 physical currencies in the world 100 years ago. Most evaporated without significant payment to holders. The Swiss franc was the best performer with only a 75 percent loss in value, followed by the dollar with a 95 percent loss and the pound at 98 percent. Only a handful of other currencies have any value at all.
A 95 percent depreciation over a century is only a 3 percent loss per year, yet it is the rule, not the exception, that currencies evaporate due to hyperinflation, government default or expropriation, or a losing a war. People do not use them because they have faith in their long-term survival, but because they can facilitate transactions today.
A Bitcoin split is far better protected against those four risks than any physical currency. The only thing it lacks is the imprimatur of a government — or anything else. Does that give it a 3 percent chance of crashing to zero over the next year? That would put it around the historical loss from the best physical currencies. A 10 percent chance would make it roughly as risky as an average currency. Clearly, cryptocurrencies have far more short-term volatility in value than most physical currencies, but my estimate is that well-designed ones have much better chances of surviving a century — or being bought out at significant value — than the average physical currency.
Bloomberg Prophets Professionals offering actionable insights on markets, the economy and monetary policy. Contributors may have a stake in the areas they write about.
- Not to be confused with the euro currency introduced in 1999.
- Eurodollars and “euro” versions of other currencies have grown to become major currencies in their own right. Also, many other currencies exist in incompatible “onshore” and “offshore” versions.
- This is a risk distinct from bank credit problems. Even a solvent foreign bank might not be able to get dollars because it is not supported by the Fed.
- That could be taken as an argument that the fork no longer exists.
- Banks were limited to paying a maximum 2 percent per year, and in most cases zero, while in the late ’70s inflation would go over 2 percent per month.
- With the exception of the Reserve Primary fund specifically; also, newer dollar substitutes such as SIVs, auction rate preferred and conduits, after much debate, were not supported. Afterward, regulations fundamentally changed.
- A more colorful fork was created in the 1950s in Las Vegas when residents started using casino chips as money, but this particular fork was shut down in the early 1980s.
- The other surviving currencies come from Canada or Scandinavian countries; or are linked to the dollar or the pound; or are currencies like the Cuban peso and Venezuelan bolivar that have lost nearly all value.
- People who used the dollar as a store of value could have held short-term government obligations to make back a good part of that loss.
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Max Berley at email@example.com
Image credit:- Photographer: Roslan Rahman/AFP/Getty Images