If organizations such as the IMF ever started to acquire bitcoin, I think the effect would be much larger than most people realize.
Modern central banking relies upon the ability of a central bank to create units of account for itself on demand. The ability to create units on demand enables a central bank to stop market forces from functioning during periods when demand for money outstrips supply (which is what happens during deflationary periods or when an economy takes too much debt and collapses). Central banks do this simply by increasing supply out of thin air and providing that new supply to the market. The increase in supply is done to an effect that rebalances supply and demand for money. However instead of letting the market rebalance supply and demand by rewarding savers, central banks rebalance supply and demand by rewarding selected groups.
Given this, the IMF or FED acquiring bitcoin does not provide them the same functionality they have and expect today, for the simple reason that the IMF or FED can not create BTC units on demand. To have today's functionality, they need the ability to create new supply in proportion to market demand during downturns. However doing so: 1) Would quickly drain the IMF's or FED's supply of BTC and 2) The quantity require today to combat downturns outstrips any amount of supply they could acquire (example, the FED increased supply >400% of total supply since 2009, that is not possible in Bitcoin ).
As a result, the only reason for organizations such as the IMF to acquire Bitcoin is to hold it as a reserve asset. The reason this would be more impactful than most realize is central banks acquire reserve assets to permanently hold them, not to sell them into downturns. So if the IMF ever started to acquire bitcoins, it would do so with the intention holding the coins to back its own currency units, and those bitcoins would in effect be removed from daily supply.
I seriously doubt the IMF or FED are interested in acquiring bitcoins though. Sound money mechanics are diametrically opposite to the functionality they exploit today. I expect central banks would only start to acquire bitcoins after everyone else views bitcoins as more valuable than fiat. We're a ways away from that unfortunately
Edit:
To me these statements show the extent of the ideological rot in central banking today, expose a glaring misunderstanding of how markets work, and highlight my points above.
Plassaras essentially said: "If people start to sell fiat and buy bitcoins, then to counter this we need an unlimited quantity of bitcoins to sell into that market demand to offset it and maintain the current BTC/fiat price ratios." This is absurd. He also calls market demand to sell fiat and buy bitcoin a "speculative attack".
The number of things wrong with such a view is astounding .
1) Plassaras does not seem to understand that it is impossible to acquire enough of a hard asset to counter market demand, as you sell the hard asset to support your fiat the market sees this and values your fiat less and less, furthering the "speculative attack".
2) It is the HOLDING of a hard asset that provides value to fiat. By selling the hard asset to "support" your current spot price, you are LOWERING the value of the fiat you are trying to hold up..
3) Plassaras also does not seem to understand that any amount of BTC held to counter market forces, first has to be purchased on the open market. This pre-purchasing would have to at least equal or exceed the counteractive selling they would later require. The pre-purchasing though would itself be the "speculative attack"
4) The selling of fiat for bitcoin (or any hard asset) is not a "speculative attack" but normal market forces placing value on assets. You cannot control market valuation of assets. The fact that Plassaras, Bernake and Yellen think you can is shocking.
I could go on but it is late
Last edited:
