La monnaie et le Bitcoin, ce qu'il faut comprendre quand on parle de monnaie et le stockage de valeur ... où quand on souhaite épargner et non perdre la valeur de son épargne.
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/its-not-about-the-technology-its-about-the-money/In general, there is always an individual cost to accepting money, even when the use of money is very widespread.
If I work in exchange for money, how do I know that money will still be valuable by the time work is out and I am ready to do my shopping? If I work for something I can directly consume then at least I can get some utility out of it no matter what.
But if I accept something whose main use is as a medium of exchange, then I am depending on there being future people willing to accept that money later.
Cette partie tend à remettre la monnaie dans son fondamental :
The interesting thing about the tradeoff of optionality versus commitment is that changes in the overall use of money in an economy can change the nature of that tradeoff for an individual person. The more demand for money there is, the less risky it is for an individual person to hold money. If you were the first person to sell goods or labor for money, then you would probably look insane or immensely stupid to bet that other people would want this stuff in the future. On the other hand, if many people are using money, then you are merely depending on there not being a hyperinflationary event in the immediate future. In that case, you might look insane or stupid for worrying about such a remote possibility at all.
In short, money becomes more useful the more people use it. This may seem like a very obvious conclusion given how many words I took to arrive at it, but it has some funny implications that are hard for a lot of people in Bitcoin to accept because they have money riding on a presumption that the opposite is true. As more people begin to hold money, the rational response of everyone else is to try to hold more than they already have. Everyone, therefore, will try to increase his cash balance at the same time, and they will do this by bidding larger amounts of other goods in exchange for it. In other words, all prices tend to go down, and money becomes more valuable. Effectively, everyone ends up with more money, except that they end up with more valuable units of money rather than higher sums of it; and furthermore they end up with larger fractions of their portfolio in money as well.
On arrive à l'équilibre économique du sujet ici :
What would a self-sustaining bubble look like? Naturally, there must be a limit to the growth of money.
As the value of money increases, eventually the individual benefits of holding more of it will go down. This happens as the market cap of currency becomes a larger and larger fraction of the whole economy. There are only so many errors that the economy produces for a cash-holder to take advantage of.
The economy becomes saturated with money once there are enough investors sitting around with piles of money such that they are able to catch all the errors that are worthwhile. At that point it is no longer individually beneficial to hold more money even if the value of money has gone up.
This prevents the value of money from going up further until more people or businesses are added to the economy.
