A cryptocurrency with volatility can't be used as money

[Dncer]

I'm just reading an article in the newspaper. Klaus W. Wellershoff (a last chief in UBS Bank) says that's impossible to use a currency with volatility as money. If the value of the money decrease, that means the value of the merchandise decrease. For example : if you buy a flat with bitcoin and few years later the bitcoin value decrease... Your flat lose his value as well.

What do you think about this argument?

[1714139610]

1714139610

[1714139610]

1714139610

[1714139610]

1714139610

[1714139610]

1714139610

[amishmanish]

I'm just reading an article in the newspaper. Klaus W. Wellershoff (a last chief in UBS Bank) says that's impossible to use a currency with volatility as money. If the value of the money decrease, that means the value of the merchandise decrease. For example : if you buy a flat with bitcoin and few years later the bitcoin value decrease... Your flat lose his value as well.

What do you think about this argument?

This sounds pretty nonsensical. Real estate is an asset class in itself. How does it matter if you bought it with bitcoin or something else. The value of the flat will depend on the overall outlook of the real estate market.
It would be better if you can provide a link to the article because it seems like you are misreading something.

Although the argument that a cryptocurrency with too much volatility cannot be used as money has its merits but the volatility seems to matter only because we are comparing the value of bitcoin against fiat. In a scenario where bitcoin is actually working as currency, there will be need  for a set of indices standardized by calculating amount of common goods that, say, 1 BTC should buy. Such an exercise would either need regulatory intervention or bitcoin adoption would have to go widespread with merchants deciding this value governed by free-market competition.
This is when volatility would not really matter.

[hugeblack]

Let's ignore the real estate value of your apartment and assume it has a fixed price; it means that you bought it for $10,000:
In 2013 considering that the value of the Bitcoin $ 100: you need 100BTC to buy an apartment.
In 2017 assuming that the value of the Bitcoin $ 1000: you need 10BTC to buy an apartment.
Today, assuming that the value of the Bitcoin $ 10,000: you need 1BTC to buy an apartment/flat.
I agree with you that the price of the Bitcoin is variable, but it tends to go bullish that means its value increases over the days than paper money.

[Fuhre]

in fact I'm not too familiar with your question, man! we all know that the bitcoin value is designed to fluctuate, if you buy goods with bitcoin and at any time the bitcoin price goes down, the goods purchased with the bitcoin will not go down. simple, the price of the goods or the fiat does not depend on the bitcoin price itself.

[xuan87]

Yes it's true, if the volatility is too high then its not suitable to be used as currency, imagine one apple cost 1 BTC today the next day it can caused 0.8 BTC and the next day it cost 1.1 BTC, it will make the owner hard to set the price and predict the profit, but if the volatility is within months then I think it is still okay, crypto currencies need to be mass adopted so the volatility is not too high

[Naman1111]

Yeah I agree, If the currency is too volatile then it can be used as a currency. I think this asset class market needs to be matured more so that its less volatile. With mass adoption and new stablecoins like DAI it will be less volatile. Also, developments like ETFs and more exchanges around the globe will make the BTC less volatile. Also, I think the whole cryp;to is too dependent on BTC , its dominance needs to come down to like 20% .

[gabmen]

Of course it can't. Though for person to person transactions and exchange, it's applicable. Both parties should be aware of dealing with a volatile value exchange and if both are i agreement then it shouldn't be a problem.

[Direwolve735]

Of course it can't. Though for person to person transactions and exchange, it's applicable. Both parties should be aware of dealing with a volatile value exchange and if both are i agreement then it shouldn't be a problem.

I agree that a currency with high volatility can`t be used as money. But in the case of the crypto currency, which has many other advantages, and which people want to use as money, this problem can be solved. One possible solution to the problem of volatility is to tie the crypto currency to gold at a fixed rate. This will require the consensus of the crypto community and the sponsor who is ready to make the physical gold market at an agreed price in the crypto. This kind of crypto, backed by gold, may even become a global reserve currency, especially if it was supported by the countries who are looking for ways out of the current hegemony system of the USA dollar.

[Ridwan Fauzi]

Someone who suffers a loss then he will talk it over to someone else, but if someone who gets a profit then he will be silent. Bitcoin prices are rapidly changing, everyone or a company that receives bitcoin as a means of payment they must know first. With problems like this that accept payments with bitcoin, they have agreed with bitcoin characters, so as when prices fall he will accept the consequences but if bitcoin prices go up they will feel the benefits. Profits that are not owned by the other means of payment, paper money/national money can only be used as a means of payment while bitcoin has two different functions.

[jseverson]

The thing he conveniently forgot to mention is that volatility works both ways. If you use fiat to buy Bitcoin, then it rallied, then your fiat gained value, did it not? Still, the core issue is that it's not stable, which makes it inherently risky. You can use it as money, but it's not too ideal, considering you could lose or gain money whenever you make a transaction.

Either way, Bitcoin's value is predicted to stabilize as adoption grows -- the larger the market, the harder it is to make waves. It's hardly perfect for purchases right now, but it should be in the future.

[hase0278]

if you buy a flat with bitcoin and few years later the bitcoin value decrease... Your flat lose his value as well. What do you think about this argument?

That wont be the case since if it is, then the value of daily necessities shouldn't go up as well when fiat is inflated. One good example is how my grandparents was able to buy a snack with cola for 0.25 in philippine peso in the past, while we in the present day can buy the same brand of cola and snack that they can have bought for 0.25 php in the past for 25 philippine peso. That proves as to how fiat currency can also be volatile at times. The product retains it's value, but the currency doesn't.

[HeRetiK]

I'm just reading an article in the newspaper. Klaus W. Wellershoff (a last chief in UBS Bank) says that's impossible to use a currency with volatility as money. If the value of the money decrease, that means the value of the merchandise decrease. For example : if you buy a flat with bitcoin and few years later the bitcoin value decrease... Your flat lose his value as well.

What do you think about this argument?

I get the volatility argument in general, but that example is pretty weird if not downright dumb.

When the value of a money decreases it means that its purchasing power decreases. This means that -- ignoring deprecation -- the value of a commodity stays the same, while the price -- as measured in the money in question -- increases. That's what happens during inflation. Not only that, it's pretty much the prototypical symptom of inflation.

To make this example more absurd real estate has served -- more or less effectively -- as a hedge against devaluating currencies for decades. Exactly because it doesn't lose its value as much as the money that was spent when purchasing it. Ignoring real estate bubbles, obviously.

If that really is this guy's line of thinking -- and if he's somewhat representative for his peers -- than no wonder that the traditional banking system is in the state it is.

[Btcwashu]

I'm just reading an article in the newspaper. Klaus W. Wellershoff (a last chief in UBS Bank) says that's impossible to use a currency with volatility as money. If the value of the money decrease, that means the value of the merchandise decrease. For example : if you buy a flat with bitcoin and few years later the bitcoin value decrease... Your flat lose his value as well.

What do you think about this argument?

I get the volatility argument in general, but that example is pretty weird if not downright dumb.

When the value of a money decreases it means that its purchasing power decreases. This means that -- ignoring deprecation -- the value of a commodity stays the same, while the price -- as measured in the money in question -- increases. That's what happens during inflation. Not only that, it's pretty much the prototypical symptom of inflation.

To make this example more absurd real estate has served -- more or less effectively -- as a hedge against devaluating currencies for decades. Exactly because it doesn't lose its value as much as the money that was spent when purchasing it. Ignoring real estate bubbles, obviously.

If that really is this guy's line of thinking -- and if he's somewhat representative for his peers -- than no wonder that the traditional banking system is in the state it is.

We can still considered as a money the currency have the volatile value its because even the price itself going up and down the value are still there, you can still convert it into fiat money. Some crypto currencies now can be used as a payment system like bitcoin and if we say a payment you can also call it as a money. Bitcoin can pay the foods and shelter through online transactions.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If the value of the money decrease, that means the value of the merchandise decrease.

I think it's the reverse--if the value of, say, fiat decreases the price of good goes up.  I'm thinking of hyperinflation situations in particular, where the price of stuff can go up crazy amounts.  You've seen those wheel barrels with Zimbabwe dollars in them, right?  Well yesterday it cost 100 dollars to buy X, whereas today it costs 10,000 dollars for X.  The value of the money went down quite a bit, and as a result the price of X is high.

The example of buying a flat I think is correct--if the flat was valued in bitcoin only.

As far as volatility being an impediment to bitcoin being a currency, I agree with that as well.  When it's going up, that encourages hoarding of it, and when it goes down you can't spend it fast enough.  You can still use it as money, of course, but the volatility is definitely a negative attribute as far as that's concerned.  But that also makes it great for trading.

[max fray]

Fiat money can also be highly volatile.
The Ukrainian hryvnya fell more 4 times after the beginning of war in 2014 (from 8 to current 27 hryvnyas per dollar).
And yeah, due to that my flat has become 40% cheaper comparatively to when I bought it in 2011.
I think sooner or later BTC's price will normalize (it's still young and demonstrates all the "illnesses" of an adolescent) and everybody would be able to use it as a traditional currency.

[Harlot]

I am not sure if that is what they meant. Let me give you the same example but replace it with Fiat currency, and a few years that Fiat currency lose value does that mean the flat loses value as well? Of course not that flat has its own value to begin with that is why their is such thing as appreciation and depreciation on properties as well as things. There is no sense if Bitcoin is volatile, once you bought that product you wouldn't care what price Bitcoin is as that product has its own value.

[suvo05]

when we talk about the fiat currency then we set a boundary, within that boundary that particular fiat is acceptable and the fiat has less volatility. But when we talk about the crypto-coins then it has no boundary. Similarly, if you choose a fiat of a country and compare with other then it could also be very much volatile.

[coingrowth]

yes cryptocurrency is an asset but more than a currency we cant reply  as payment system we can use as long-term storage of value and asset just like gold and land and bonds

[MCVXYZ]

I think you didn't understand it properly or your example is incorrect(I mean situation if its not valued in bitcoin(as I understand))  ..So when you buy a flat there is no connections with bitcoin,its just a payment method and not investment object.In my opinion today there are too many similar examples related to this,but you forgot that behind the money there is the real economy and behind the  bitcoin just a revolutionary idea of applying cryptography to cash,this is the difference between bitcoin and money in this situation.

[BillCoin]

Cryptocurrency market suffers from volatility for the only reason, the market is still too young and the market cap is really low compared to other virtual assets, so the volatility level is pretty much fair for this market cap level.
Until the price of bitcoin will stabilize around a price range, it's going to be volatility as it is being used by only a short amount of people.