DOCSLIB.ORG

Anonymity-Driven Demand for Cryptocurrency: Theory and Policy Implications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anonymity-Driven Demand for Cryptocurrency: Theory and Policy Implications Anonymity-Driven Demand for Cryptocurrency: Theory and Policy Implications Sophie L. Zhou* 20th April 2021 Latest version available HERE Abstract Anonymity-seeking individuals prefer cryptocurrencies for online payments, but due to know-your-customer requirements on cryptocurrency exchanges, they resort to peer-to-peer markets for purchasing cryptocurrencies. I develop a search-theoretic model capturing this phenomenon. The model allows demand for cryptocurrencies to be governed by both consumption and speculative motives, and matches empir- ical observations of Bitcoin velocity and peer-to-peer transaction share. Allowing currency competition, I show that anonymity renders fiat-money-based e-payments and cryptocurrencies imperfect substitutes. Lowering the fiat money inflation rate is insufficient for eliminating cryptocurrency demand, and raising the participation cost on cryptocurrency exchanges becomes necessary. I further analyze the optimal participation cost on cryptocurrency exchanges, weighing up the benefit of financial inclusion against the cost of illicit activities often associated with anonymity. JEL codes: E41, E42, E44, E26 Keywords: Cryptocurrency, anonymity, monetary search, currency competition *Deutsche Bundesbank Research Centre, Wilhelm-Epstein-Straße 14, 60431 Frankfurt am Main, Ger- many. Email: [email protected]. A previous version of this paper was circulated under the title: Anonymity, Secondary Demand, and the Velocity of Cryptocurrency. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Deutsche Bundesbank or the Eurosystem. I would like to thank Randall Wright, Aleksander Berentsen, Sjak Smulders, Reyer Gerlagh, Florian Sniekers, Patricio Dalton, Jens Pr¨ufer,Burak Uras, Roberto Robatto, Lukas Altermatt, Hugo van Buggenum, and seminar participants at the 2019 and 2020 Summer Workshop on Money, Banking, Payments and Finance, University of Basel, Toulouse School of Economics, Tilburg University, University of Amsterdam, Sveriges Riksbank, and Deutsche Bundesbank for their helpful comments and suggestions. This research was made possible through financial support from PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. All errors are my own. 1 1 Introduction The spectacular price surges of Bitcoin in recent years has put the once esoteric blockchain- based electronic money into the spotlight, and stimulated much public interest in cryp- tocurrencies. Policymakers around the world have recognized the large potential of this technology, both for increasing financial inclusion of the estimated 1.7 billion currently under- and unbanked worldwide, and for improving the efficiency of cross-border payments (G7, 2019). As central banks start to probe the idea of central bank digital currencies (Barontini and Holden, 2019), private entities such as Facebook are also attempting to launch their own cryptocurrencies. This latter development, however, has raised the alarm and ignited a wave of debates concerning the various risks cryptocurrencies pose to soci- ety due to the lack of adequate regulatory frameworks, especially at the global scale. To benefit from the potential of this new technology while limiting its risks, it is important to understand if and how cryptocurrencies differ (from the perspective of consumers) from conventional, government-issued (fiat) currencies, and what such differences imply for the various concerns raised in the ongoing debate. One oft mentioned feature that sets cryptocurrencies apart from existing electronic payment means is their transactional anonymity. Created in 2008 by Nakamoto(2008), Bitcoin, the original and most prominent cryptocurrency, is designed as a peer-to-peer electronic currency that makes use of cryptographic protocols for settlement and record keeping. As such, Bitcoin and subsequent cryptocurrencies unite the anonymity of cash with the convenience of online payments. This transactional anonymity coupled with cryp- tocurrency's online and cross-border nature attracts various groups of individuals ranging from criminals, oppressed minority groups, vulnerable citizens in authoritarian regimes, to more privacy-concerned individuals in financially developed regions.1 Indeed, anonymity and privacy concerns have been found by various studies to be im- portant for the choice of payment means. Akhter(2012) establishes that privacy concerns negatively affect the amount of money consumers spend online. Balgobin et al.(2017) show that the presence of non-bank online payment means capable of preserving financial privacy from banks and retailers increases online consumption. Using both survey data and the transaction information of German consumers, von Kalckreuth et al.(2014) demonstrate 1The anonymity and cross-border nature of cryptocurrencies has motivated the LGBT Foundation, the largest LGBT health and community services charity in the UK, to launch its own token as a way of empowering the community while allowing its members to stay anonymous. In Venezuela, citizens are using Bitcoin to evade strict financial controls of an authoritarian regime (Cifuentes, 2019; Hernandez (2019)). Schuh and Shy(2016) find privacy concerns to be important reasons for consumers adopting cryptocurrencies, while Borgonovo et al.(2018) confirm in an experimental setting that privacy matters significantly for the choice of payment instrument. To date, an accurate estimate of the relative importance of the different usages of cryptocurrencies does not exist. Take illicit use of crytpocurrencies as an example, Foley et al.(2019) estimate that approximately 23% of the total dollar value of transactions is associated with illegal activities, while according to the Crypto Crime Report by Chainanalysis (a blockchain analysis company), the share of Bitcoin economic value flowing into darknet markets has been less than 1% since 2016 (Chainalysis, 2019). 1 that the desire for anonymity is a significant factor in explaining the high usage rate of cash in Germany,2 even when controlling for payment habits. Schuh and Shy(2016) find privacy concerns to be important reasons for consumers adopting cryptocurrencies. In an experimental setting, Borgonovo et al.(2018) confirm that privacy matters significantly for the choice of payment instrument. In the case of cryptocurrencies, however, what is often overlooked is that this intended anonymity is severely limited by the presence of know-your-customer (KYC) requirements on existing cryptocurrency exchanges. Recognized by regulators as Money Service Busi- nesses, cryptocurrency exchanges are subject to existing banking regulations, requiring them to check and document the identities of their users (FinCEN, 2013).3 This restric- tion means that for those keen on preserving their online anonymity, seeking second-hand purchases of cryptocurrencies on decentralized platforms becomes a more logical choice. LocalBitcoins, a veteran peer-to-peer Bitcoin trading site active in over 1600 cities in over 240 countries and territories, is a prominent example of such anonymous platforms, through which individuals can meet in person to carry out cryptocurrency trades.4 Motivated by these observations, this paper seeks to answer the following questions: how does anonymity-motivated trading affect cryptocurrency demand and usage, and what are the implications for the effectiveness and optimality of policies aiming at regulating cryptocurrency demand? This paper addresses these questions by analyzing cryptocurrency demand and spending behavior in a search-theoretic model in the tradition of Lagos and Wright(2005). This framework is most suitable here, since it makes explicit the frictions that render a medium of exchange essential and gives a micro-foundation to money, yet is quite tractable. The standard model has a two-subperiod structure: a frictionless market opens in the first subperiod where agents balance their money holding, and a frictional market opens in the second subperiod where money is needed for goods purchases. In the spirit of that model, I interpret the frictional market as the online goods market and cryptocurrency the electronic money used, and the frictionless market as the primary cryptocurrency market. Importantly, however, I modify the standard model with three key extensions. 2Using payment diary surveys from Austria, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States, Bagnall et al.(2016) show that Austria and Germany, relative to other countries in the sample, are cash intensive, with large cash balances (two times greater than in other countries) and large average withdrawal amounts. 3The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Trea- sury, considers cryptocurrency exchanges Money Service Businessess, and subjects them to existing banking regulations related to KYC, Anti-Money Laundering (AML), and Counter-terrorist Financing (CFT), see FinCEN(2013). The KYC requirements are expected to further intensify from this point. In June 2019, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an inter-governmental AML/CFT standard-setting body, issued new guidelines to require cryptocurrency businesses in roughly 200 countries to verify the identities of anyone sending or receiving more than $1,000 worth of digital assets (FATF, 2019). Recommendations of the FATF are recognized as international standards and endorsed by over 180 countries. 4As of June 2019, LocalBitcoins no longer permits cash trading. Other peer-to-peer platforms including LocalCoinSwap, Paxful, and Bisq,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Motion Record of the Trustee (Returnable
    - 32 - cryptocurrency business. In its investigation and review of text and email communications, the Monitor noted that certain TPPs were instructed by Mr. Cotten to provide limited information to the financial institutions in relation to the intended use of the account and its association with the cryptocurrency industry to limit scrutiny by the financial institutions. 80. The Monitor identified a number of accounts that were frozen or closed subsequent to the financial institution becoming aware of the nature of the underlying transactions. The Monitor’s investigation indicates that frequently, Quadriga’s approach to addressing financial institution queries into the nature of the account usage was often to simply move on to another financial institution to avoid further questioning. 81. The Monitor’s investigation also identified many “cash” transactions where certain Users repeatedly funded their Accounts with large cash deposits. The Monitor has been advised that this involved the User physically handing cash in the form of legal tender to a representative of Quadriga. As an example, the Platform recorded $12.1 million of “In person Payments” received from one User through a series of nineteen (19) cash transactions over a 5-month period. The Monitor has been unable to verify how or if these cash deposits were appropriately deposited into the Quadriga treasury system through TPP accounts or other accounts. The Monitor has also reviewed communications which appear to indicate that Mr. Cotten sometimes credited a User’s account with a deposit with the understanding that the User would deliver cash at some point in the future. The deposits, once credited to the User’s Account, were subsequently used by the User to trade and remove Cryptocurrency off Platform.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (Release No. 34-80729; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-06) May 19, 2017 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 On January 25, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 9, 2017.3 On March 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.5 On April 6, 2017, the Exchange filed with the Commission Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On April 21, 2017, the Commission published notice of Amendment No. 1 and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79955 (Feb. 3, 2017), 82 FR 10086 (Feb. 9, 2017). 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    [Show full text]
  • Bitcoin Reveals Exchange Rate Manipulation and Detects Capital Controls
    Bitcoin Reveals Exchange Rate Manipulation and Detects Capital Controls G.C. Pieters∗ Trinity University, Economics Dept, 1 Trinity Place, San Antonio, Texas, 78212. Abstract Many countries manipulate the value of their currency or use some form of capital control, yet the data usually used to detect these manipulations are low frequency, expensive, lagged, and potentially mis-measured. I demonstrate that the price data of the internationally traded cryptocurrency Bitcoin can approximate unofficial exchange rates which, in turn, can be used to detect both the existence and the magnitude of the distortion caused by capital controls and exchange rate manipulations. However, I document that bitcoin exchange rates contain problematic bitcoin-market-specific elements and must be adjusted before being used for this purpose. As bitcoin exchange rates exist at a daily frequency, they reveal transitory interventions that would otherwise go undetected. This result also serves as verification that Bitcoin is used to circumvent capital controls and manipulated exchange rates. Keywords: Bitcoin; Exchange Rates; Black Market; Unofficial; Financial Integration; Capital Controls JEL Codes: F30, F31, F38, E42, G15, O17 ∗Corresponding author Email address: [email protected] ( G.C. Pieters) 1I am grateful for helpful comments and suggestions from Christoffer Koch and participants at the 2016 International Trade and Finance Association Conference and 2017 Liberal Arts Macroeconomics Workshop. 1. INTRODUCTION This paper is a contribution to timely, high-frequency, accurate measurement of unofficial exchange rates, de facto exchange rate regimes, and de facto capital controls. While policies that result in manipulated exchange rates|such as capital controls|may seem like a problem that distorts the trade and finance flows of only a few countries, Calvo and Reinhart(2002) found that governments display fear of floating: officially declaring they allow their exchange rates to float (a de jure floating regime), while still actively manipulating their exchange rates (a de facto managed regime).
    [Show full text]
  • Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies Law Enforcement Investigative Guide
    2018-46528652 Regional Organized Crime Information Center Special Research Report Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies Law Enforcement Investigative Guide Ref # 8091-4ee9-ae43-3d3759fc46fb 2018-46528652 Regional Organized Crime Information Center Special Research Report Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies Law Enforcement Investigative Guide verybody’s heard about Bitcoin by now. How the value of this new virtual currency wildly swings with the latest industry news or even rumors. Criminals use Bitcoin for money laundering and other Enefarious activities because they think it can’t be traced and can be used with anonymity. How speculators are making millions dealing in this trend or fad that seems more like fanciful digital technology than real paper money or currency. Some critics call Bitcoin a scam in and of itself, a new high-tech vehicle for bilking the masses. But what are the facts? What exactly is Bitcoin and how is it regulated? How can criminal investigators track its usage and use transactions as evidence of money laundering or other financial crimes? Is Bitcoin itself fraudulent? Ref # 8091-4ee9-ae43-3d3759fc46fb 2018-46528652 Bitcoin Basics Law Enforcement Needs to Know About Cryptocurrencies aw enforcement will need to gain at least a basic Bitcoins was determined by its creator (a person Lunderstanding of cyptocurrencies because or entity known only as Satoshi Nakamoto) and criminals are using cryptocurrencies to launder money is controlled by its inherent formula or algorithm. and make transactions contrary to law, many of them The total possible number of Bitcoins is 21 million, believing that cryptocurrencies cannot be tracked or estimated to be reached in the year 2140.
    [Show full text]
  • IRS, Will You Spare Some Change?: Defining Virtual Currency for the FATCA
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 50 Number 3 Spring 2016 pp.863-911 Spring 2016 IRS, Will You Spare Some Change?: Defining Virtual Currency for the FATCA Elizabeth M. Valeriane Valparaiso University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth M. Valeriane, IRS, Will You Spare Some Change?: Defining Virtual Currency for the FATCA, 50 Val. U. L. Rev. 863 (2016). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol50/iss3/10 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Valeriane: IRS, Will You Spare Some Change?: Defining Virtual Currency for t IRS, WILL YOU SPARE SOME CHANGE?: DEFINING VIRTUAL CURRENCY FOR THE FATCA I. INTRODUCTION The founding father commemorated on the one-dollar bill said, “[t]o be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”1 Although the quote relates to war, we adopt the underlying message as it relates to law. Arguably, creating law is the most effective means of resolving future legal disputes, especially issues that emerge when applying yesterday’s law to the ever changing norms of today’s society. Cryptocurrency, a type of electronic money, presents many legal issues as this new medium of currency has found its way into the world’s economy.2 Not to be confused with other digital currency, such as game awards or airline miles, cryptocurrency is not confined to a defined 1 George Washington, President, State of the Union Address (Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Bitcoin Financial Regulation: Securities, Derivatives, Prediction Markets, and Gambling Jerry Brito [email protected]
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 2014 Bitcoin Financial Regulation: Securities, Derivatives, Prediction Markets, and Gambling Jerry Brito [email protected] Houman B. Shadab New York Law School Andrea Castillo Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Commercial Law Commons, and the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation 16 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 144 (2014-2015) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. 144 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV [Vol. XVI THE COLUMBIA SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW VOL. XVI STLR.ORG FALL 2014 ARTICLE BITCoIN FINANCIAL REGULATION: SECURITIES, DERIVATIVES, PREDICTION MARKETS, AND GAMBLINGt Jerry Brito*, Houman Shadab,** and Andrea Castillo*** The next major wave of Bitcoin regulation will likely be aimed at financial instruments, including securities and derivatives, as well as prediction markets and even gambling. While there are many easily reglated intermediaries when it comes to traditional securities and derivatives, emerging bitcoin- denominated instruments rely much less on traditional intermediaries such as banks and securities exchanges. Additionally, the block chain technology that Bitcoin introducedfor thefirst time makes completely decentralized markets and exchanges possible, thus eliminating the need for intermediaries in complex financial transactions. In this Article we surey the type of financial instruments and transactions that will most likely be of interest to regulators, including traditional securities and derivatives, new bitcoin-denominatedinstruments, and completely decentralized markets and exchanges.
    [Show full text]
  • Cryptocurrency: a Primer for Policy-Makers
    August 2019 Cryptocurrency: A Primer for Policy-Makers Zack Gold and Megan McBride Approved for public release. Unlimited distribution. CRM-2019-U-020185-Final Abstract This primer is an effort to address a gap in knowledge about cryptocurrencies and the cryptocurrency ecosystem among the policymaking community and advance the understanding of cryptocurrencies and consideration of their national security implications. Cryptocurrencies are strictly digital currencies, are typically overseen by a decentralized peer-to-peer community, and are secured through cryptography. We use clear, non-technical language to describe complex concepts and demystify overly technical terms in order to explain the technical and economic aspects of cryptocurrency, why they are used, and the benefits and drawbacks to cryptocurrencies compared to conventional currencies—like the US dollar. We conclude by considering some cryptocurrency-related issues of which greater exploration would benefit US national security. This document contains the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the sponsor or client. Distribution Approved for public release. Unlimited distribution. Cover image credit: “Photo of a mobile phone with a Bitcoin Cash wallet, Bitcoin whitepaper by Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin.com pen.” BitcoinXio, Apr. 15, 2018. Approved by: August 2019 Jonathan Schroden, Research Program Director Special Operations Program Center for Stability & Development Strategy, Policy, Plans, and Programs Division (SP3) Request additional copies of this document through [email protected]. Copyright © 2019 CNA. All rights reserved Executive Summary In 2017, the value of one Bitcoin skyrocketed to more than $20,000. Media coverage increased, and even people who did not join the investment frenzy became aware of so-called “cryptocurrencies.” Despite this familiarity, few actually understand cryptocurrencies and the implications they may have on US interests, from global finance to national security to good governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Advertencias De La Cnmv: Lista De Otras Entidades
    ADVERTENCIAS DE LA CNMV: LISTA DE OTRAS ENTIDADES Denominación de la Entidad Página web de la entidad DAVALOR CONSULTORÍA ESTRATÉGICA Y TECNOLÓGICA, SL bestaker.com DEBAR GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, SL debargi.es LANZAME CAPITAL, SL lanzame.es COMUNITAE, SL comunitae.com CIRCULANTIS, SL circulantis.com FINANZAREL SL finanzarel.com PRIVALORE INMUEBLES SL privalore.es MICROWD INVERSIONES, S.L. microwd.es PARQUES SOLARES DE NAVARRA parquessolaresdenavarra.com INVERSION EMPRENDEDORA, SL inverem.es LOANBOOK CAPITAL, SL loanbook.es INVESLAR FINTECH, SL inveslar.com HOUSEGAGE INVESTORS & PROPERTIE, SL housegage.es COINBASE UK, LTD coinbase.com KUCOIN LIMITED CO. kucoin.com LOCALBITCOINS OY localbitcoins.com LOCALETHEREUM localethereum.com LOCALBITCOINCASH.ORG localbitcoincash.org CHANGELLY changelly.com SHAPESHIFT AG shapeshift.io HUOBI GLOBAL LIMITED huobi.pro COINPAYMENTS coinpayments.net DOOGA LTD. cubits.com CRYPTOMKT SPA cryptomkt.com XAPO xapo.com/es BITCOINFORME S.L. bit2me.com CHIP CHAP PAYMENTS, S.L. chip-chap.com ALPARI LTD alpari.com/es/beginner/glossary/bitcoin-exchange MONKEYCOIN C.A. monkeycoin.exchange ORIONX SPA orionx.io (Latinoamérica) BITINKA LTD bitinka.com.ar (Latinoamérica) Este listado informa de entidades que no cuentan con ningún tipo de autorización ni están registradas a ningún efecto en la CNMV y que podrían estar realizando algún tipo de actividad de captación de fondos o prestando algún servicio de naturaleza financiera. La lista no es exhaustiva y deriva principalmente de ejercicios de búsqueda y análisis en internet y redes sociales. La inclusión en la lista no implica pronunciamiento alguno sobre la conformidad o no con la normativa vigente de la posible actividad de las correspondientes entidades. Página 1 BITLISH LTD bitlish.com LIVECOIN livecoin.net EXMO FINANCE LLP exmo.com/es ALLCOIN allcoin.com COINFALCON LTD coinfalcon.com CRC MARKETS LTD xbtce.com BEING INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation.Pdf
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Flexible Models for Secure Systems A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science by Sarah Meiklejohn Committee in charge: Professor Mihir Bellare, Co-Chair Professor Stefan Savage, Co-Chair Professor Sam Buss Professor Massimo Franceschetti Professor Daniele Micciancio 2014 Copyright Sarah Meiklejohn, 2014 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Sarah Meiklejohn is approved and is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Co-Chair Co-Chair University of California, San Diego 2014 iii EPIGRAPH Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. Pablo Picasso iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page . iii Epigraph . iv Table of Contents . v List of Figures . vii List of Tables . ix Acknowledgements . x Vita................................................................. xii Abstract of the Dissertation . xiii Chapter 1 Introduction . 1 1.1 Scope and Purpose. 3 1.2 Organization . 5 Chapter 2 Background and Notation . 7 2.1 Digital Signatures . 8 2.2 Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Proofs . 8 Chapter 3 Key-Versatile Signatures . 12 3.1 Key-versatile signatures . 20 3.2 RKA-secure signatures from RKA-secure OWFs . 30 3.3 Joining signature to encryption with no public-key overhead . 37 3.4 KDM-secure storage . 48 Chapter 4 Anonymity in Bitcoin . 70 4.1 Bitcoin Background. 73 4.1.1 Bitcoin protocol description . 74 4.1.2 Participants in the Bitcoin network. 76 4.1.3 Bitcoin network statistics . 77 4.2 Data Collection . 80 4.2.1 From our own transactions . 80 4.2.2 From other sources .
    [Show full text]
  • Blockchain Technology: Possibilities for the U.S. Postal Service
    Cover Blockchain Technology: Possibilities for the U.S. Postal Service RARC Report Report Number RARC-WP-16-011 May 23, 2016 Blockchain technology allows peers to exchange money directly Executive without the need for a traditional financial intermediary, lowering Highlights the cost and increasing the speed of transactions. However, it is Summary Blockchain technology has the potential to disrupt proving to be much more than a way to transfer monetary value. services that traditionally require intermediaries. At its core, blockchain technology is a way to transfer any kind of information in a fast, tracked, and secure way. Originally created to transfer financial value, specifically within the context of the peer-to-peer The technology is only in the early stages of development and currency known as Bitcoin, blockchain is now viewed it is hard to recognize its full potential at this formative stage. as having the potential to be an efficient and secure However, developers are beginning to explore blockchain way to transfer any kind of information. solutions outside of financial services. These new applications Mainstream banks, governments, and other include property transfers, the execution of contracts, companies are starting to experiment with how authentication services, network and device management, and they can use blockchain technology in financial records management. applications and in new application areas such as property transfers, authentication services, and Despite their novelty, blockchain applications are gaining records management. mainstream traction. Major banks, such as Citibank and JPMorgan Chase, and government entities, such as the U.K. and Because blockchain technology may disrupt areas in which the Postal Service currently does business, Estonian governments and Australia Post, are experimenting it may be wise to begin studying its impact and with how blockchain technology can help them keep better experimenting with its future possibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Equilibrium Bitcoin Pricing
    EconPol 48 2020July WORKING PAPER Vol.4 Equilibrium Bitcoin Pricing Bruno Biais ( HEC Paris), Christophe Bisière, Matthieu Bouvard, Catherine Casamatta, Albert J. Menkveld (EconPol Europe, Toulouse School of Economics, Universite Toulouse Capitole [TSM-Research]) headed by KOF Konjunkturforschungsstelle KOF Swiss Economic Institute EconPol WORKING PAPER A publication of EconPol Europe European Network of Economic and Fiscal Policy Research Publisher and distributor: ifo Institute Poschingerstr. 5, 81679 Munich, Germany Telephone +49 89 9224-0, Telefax +49 89 9224-1462, Email [email protected] Editors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest Reproduction permitted only if source is stated and copy is sent to the ifo Institute. EconPol Europe: www.econpol.eu Equilibrium Bitcoin Pricing Bruno Biais∗ Christophe Bisi`erey Matthieu Bouvardz Catherine Casamattax Albert J. Menkveld{k July 10, 2020 Abstract We offer an equilibrium model of cryptocurrency pricing and confront it to new data on bitcoin transactional benefits and costs. The model emphasises that the fundamental value of the cryptocurrency is the stream of net transactional benefits it will provide, which depend on its future prices. The link between future and present prices implies that returns can exhibit large volatility, unrelated to fundamentals. We construct an index measuring the ease with which bitcoins can be used to purchase goods and services, and we also measure costs incurred by bitcoin owners. Consistent with the model, estimated transactional net benefits explain a statistically significant
    [Show full text]
  • The Ontological Sociology of Cryptocurrency: a Theoretical Exploration of Bitcoin
    University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2016 The Ontological Sociology of Cryptocurrency: A Theoretical Exploration of Bitcoin Omar Eliud Villarreal Robledo University of Central Florida Part of the Sociology Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Villarreal Robledo, Omar Eliud, "The Ontological Sociology of Cryptocurrency: A Theoretical Exploration of Bitcoin" (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 5119. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5119 THE ONTOLOGICAL SOCIOLOGY OF CRYPTOCURRENCY: A THEORETICAL EXPLORATION OF BITCOIN by OMAR ELIUD VILLARREAL ROBLEDO M.S. Florida Atlantic University, 2013 B.B.A. Inter-American University, 2000 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Sociology in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2016 Major Professor: David Gay © 2016 Omar Eliud Villarreal Robledo ii ABSTRACT For millennia, money has been a basal element of everyday life reality in market-organized societies. Albeit money has changed extrinsically (e.g., form, use, utility) countless of times, some intrinsic characteristics remain the same, i.e., money is reified value. But why? What gives money value? Even more crucial, what is money in the first place? This exploratory study delves into the intricacies of money, in particular the revolutionary 21st century pecuniary techno-phenomenon, a cryptocurrency called Bitcoin.
    [Show full text]