Is Jack Dorsey a Bitcoin hero?

Jack Dorsey is a curious character. The combination of his business success with a somewhat eccentric lifestyle pretty much guarantees media and public interest in him. He may not be as well known as Mark Zuckerberg, but he’s probably more easily identifiable by the public than the Google guys for example. Plus, he does often look as if he might have had a lead role in Pirates of the Caribbean, or some other Hollywood production. However, what in my opinion is most interesting about him is the role he has played in promoting cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin.

Dorsey is not only a co-founder of Twitter, he also launched Square, a mobile payments company that is hot on crypto. Dorsey is known to be a massive Bitcoin supporter, and has vowed to help Bitcoin develop as a global currency though Square. However, he is not a Bitcoin bull — he has a diverse crypto portfolio and is always upfront about that. Square’s spokesperson told Forbes, “it’s “only a matter of time until instant, low-fee bitcoin payments are as common as cash used to be.”

And to speed this along, Dorsey’s Square Crypto division is working on a kit that should help to integrate the Lightning Network with Bitcoin wallets. Lightning is a layer-two solution built on top of the Bitcoin network that makes payments faster and cheaper, and speed and cost are key elements of taking Bitcoin mainstream.

Until now there has been a problem with scaling Bitcoin for everyday payments, and this has slowed down adoption. Dorsey wants to supercharge the leading crypto’s throughput, which is why Square announced its Lightning Development Kit (LDK) to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, although it was definitely no coincidence.

As Gerelyn Terzo writes at CCN, “What Dorsey’s crypto division plans to do is give developers greater flexibility with Bitcoin and Lightning technology that in a nutshell comes down to streamlining bitcoin wallets.”

Essentially, the Lightning Network can potentially process millions of transactions per second, which is massive compared with Visa’s 45,000 transactions per second.

Dorsey deal with the volatility issue

Improving the speed and cost of Bitcoin transactions is one thing, but merchants are reluctant to accept the cryptocurrency because of its volatility. Dorsey and Square have a solution for that as well.

Square has been granted a patent that enables users to conduct fiat-to-crypto transactions. The customer can pay in bitcoin and the merchant can instantly convert it to U.S. dollar or any currency.

Basically, Dorsey is laying the foundations of an infrastructure for widespread Bitcoin use, because with instantaneous payments that can be converted into any currency, both customers and merchants have no reason to deny Bitcoin as a payment option.

If Dorsey and Square achieve this, they will surely be hailed as Bitcoin heroes. Unless you’re a Bitcoin hater!

 

Who will be Top Dog in Digital Currencies?

Digital currencies have been popping up like daisies over the last several years and there doesn’t seem to be an end to it. Some might say that it would be more accurate to compare them to weeds and that an awful lot of them need to be removed from the cryptocurrency environment.

It is certainly true that there are questions marks over the long-term survival of a significant number of them. Brad Garlinghouse, the Ripple CEO, thinks that around 99% of digital assets will “got to zero”. And there are many others who agree with him, even if they don’t put a precise figure on it.

Now the survival of what I might call the ‘smaller’ coins is even more in question, because central banks are moving into the digital asset arena with their own digital currency, and this will put a lot of pressure on all but the strongest cryptocurrencies.

Mati Greenspan, senior analyst at eToro remarked to Charles Bovaird at Forbes: “At the moment the three biggest currencies in the world are racing to make their fiat digital.” In this race, China is winning, because the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve haven’t put in the effort to keep up. Then we add something like Libra into the mix and for a time it looked like Facebook’s digital coinage had the potential to threaten every other cryptocurrency,. Now, that project looks less certain to be such a major threat.

So what is the likely outcome? Some market observers believe that whatever happens, there won’t be a winner-take-all scenario. Jacob Eliosoff, a cryptocurrency fund manager thinks there will be around 100 widely used cryptocurrencies that will survive. Marouane Garcon, managing director of Amulet said, “There won’t be a single currency because of too many political differences in the world, but just like fiat currencies some will be stronger in value than others.”

Furthermore, bitcoin, which is currently the leading digital currency, may not be the ultimate winner, but it is likely to be in the winning group. Jake Yocom-Piatt from Decred had this to say: “Instead of a large amount of capital and attention spread across many currencies, we will increasingly see that same capital and attention spread across a smaller number of SOVs, leading to a corresponding increase in their value.”

Who do you think will win the race to be Top Dog in this race? The central bank coins, stablecoins like Libra, or bitcoin and its peers?

Bitcoin heads towards its teen years

On the 31st October 2019 Satoshi Nakamoto’s baby turned 11 years old. It’s quite remarkable to think that in two years time the white paper that changed the world will be a teenager.

Of course more people are preoccupied with Halloween on this day, at least in Europe, and the UK delayed its Brexit as well for the second or third time (everyone is losing count), which grabbed the news headlines. However, it is somewhat sad to see that after 11 years, the mainstream media still ignores Bitcoin, and all the celebrations were left to the crypto-focused press.

The original white paper is only nine pages long and opens with a remarkably humble statement: “I’ve been working on a new electronic cash system that’s fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.” Some might say that this is the understatement of the century, because the author makes it sound as if it is mundane, and yet 11 years on we know its potential to create billionaires, as well as spawning an entire crypto industry now filled with a host of altcoins, as well as goodness knows how many fintech startups related to cryptocurrency.

A groundbreaking white paper

We should never forget just how groundbreaking the bitcoin white paper was. For the first time somebody had delivered a blueprint for an anonymous, trustless, decentralised currency. Of course, it didn’t appear out of nowhere. Fore example, Nakamoto says in his white paper that the proof-of-work protocol was developed from Dai Wei’s B-money thereby ensuring a ‘one CPU one vote’ policy.

Another important aim was to be a deflationary currency. This was achieved by stating that a finite number of bitcoin would be available. In this case 21 million. Fiat currencies by contrast can be printed or minted whenever a central bank/government decides, and that is an inflationary move. Eventually you end up like Venezuela in a state of hyperinflation, if you keep printing money, but your national borrowing keeps growing and there’s nothing to repay it with. Then you see people with notes piled up in a shopping trolley just to buy a loaf of bread. This situation is alien to the bitcoin ecosystem.

Nakamoto had beef with fractional reserve banking

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a fan of the banks that run the global monetary system, precisely because of issues like hyperinflation. But his pet hate was fractional reserve banking. In this system a bank can accept deposits, make loans or investments, but it is only required to “hold reserves equal to only a fraction of its deposit liabilities,” as Martin Young explains at BTC News. The problem with this type of banking is that when the reserves don’t match the money deposited by customers, and there’s an event that creates a domino effect, then the bank collapses and the customers lose their money. Which is exactly what happened in 2008. Let’s not forget that Nakamoto published the white paper only six weeks after Lehmann Brothers spectacular crash.

Eleven years on, bitcoin has become iconic for its many supporters, and hated by a few. It is also true to say that the majority of people worldwide still don’t understand it, and are being fed all kinds of scary stories by the media, which doesn’t encourage them to understand the upside of cryptocurrency.

It may be true that we haven’t yet reached anywhere near the mass adoption figures that the first cypherpunks hoped for, but in another 11 years, I believe that celebrations of bitcoin’s birthday will be more widespread and that it will be more widely accepted. It may even be a lifebelt for many when the next global financial crisis hits us.

Stablecoins: Cop Out Or Compromise

I would call myself a cryptocurrency purist. The reasons why digital assets appealed to me in the first place are their decentralized nature and the fact that the blockchain is ‘trustless’. Furthermore, it is a riposte to the banking community, which for a very long time has controlled us all unchallenged. And then they caused a financial of the collapse of such proportions that stability was ripped away from the average citizen. People lost their jobs, their homes, and there were even worse tragedies.

So when the Bitcoin whitepaper was published in 2009, it felt like a way forward. One of the problems was that the early Bitcoin believers were perceived as being anarchic hackers and the techie equivalent of punk rockers. And yes, some of them were, but there were also technology entrepreneurs like myself who embraced its possibilities.

In the early days, the buzz suggested that the crypto revolution would be an easy process, but of course, we have discovered that it is a rocky road and we are nowhere near mass adoption a decade later. Much of this is attributed to the price volatility, the lack of opportunities to spend crypto and the opposition of regulatory bodies in numerous global jurisdictions.

Along Came Stablecoins

And then along came stablecoins. If cryptocurrency was a sport, the purists were all shouting ‘foul’ and ‘cheat’. What I want to consider in a calm way is this: are stablecoins a cop-out, because they are ‘fake’ crypto’ to some extent? Or are they a compromise that could ultimately open the floodgates to mass adoption of all forms of digital assets?

In respect of a compromise, I’d compare stablecoins to the trainer wheels on a child’s first bicycle. They help the child get used to the idea of balancing on two wheels. Eventually, these ‘stabilisers’ can be removed and the child can progress to the reality of riding a bike without them. Now, even as a purist, I can see the potential advantage of this. I recently met an economics student, a Generation Z crypto enthusiast, who is invested in a small way in digital assets. He happily extolled what he believed would be the benefits of Facebook’s Libra, as just that kind of ‘trainer crypto’ that would enable mass adoption. I don’t put this forward as a conclusive argument for this view of stablecoins, but only as anecdotal evidence about possible public feeling, especially amongst Millennials and Gen Zers.

How else might stablecoins benefit us? I looked up some expert opinion on the topic.

MakerDAO says,

“A successful stablecoin implementation would be a major catalyst for disruption to global financial infrastructure, challenging weak governments and mismanagement of national economies. Furthermore, stablecoins allow for decentralized insurance, prediction markets, transparent credit and debt markets, and create a level playing field between small and large businesses in global finance.”

If MakerDAO is correct in their assertion, then isn’t it the case that stablecoins are performing the same kind of disruptive element crypto purists believed Bitcoin would deliver?

Stablecoin As Cop Out

As you know, stablecoins are tied to fiat currencies such as USD, GBP, Euro, etc. And there are those who believe that is their fatal flaw. What they are saying is that stablecoins are only as good as the asset they are tied to, and the way in which the two assets are tethered. This is a more complex debate. But, if I can simplify it at all, I’d say this: the core problem purists see with stablecoins is that they are still centrally controlled, they can be manipulated by market forces, and they are certainly not ‘trustless’ in the same way that BTC, ETH or LTC are. Some, such as Ben Prentice argues that stablecoins will simply lead us into the same trap as the old order of fiat currencies. He writes, “I believe inflationary fiat currencies where monetary policy is decided by few individual humans is not a sound form of money.”

So, I ask you — what do you think? Do stablecoins have the potential to help people slowly adapt to the decentralized digital assets, or are they a cop out intended to ensure that fiat currencies, controlled by a global elite according to some, remain dominant in the way we make all of our financial transactions?