I do hold Bitcoin. But according to CoinMarketCap, there exist some 23,000 cryptocurrencies, with a total "value" of over $1 trillion. Even if we ignore all tokens ("value"-based, like the idiotic $690K Nyan Cat gif; utility-based; security-based, and now the so-called endowment-based Texan Token) and accept only coins on their own blockchain as having value, much of this remnant is still problematic. Though it's a "meme coin," Dogecoin runs on its own blockchain, so does it have value as a cryptocoin? What are the "fundamentals" for such coins – a share of South Sea stock (1720) or tulip bulbs (1637)? If the Regression Theorem of von Mises is right (and maybe for Bitcoin it's not), then none of these cryptocurrencies are money and exist only as speculative instruments.
I'd suppose the question of whether cryptocurrencies pass the Regression Theorem test depends on your interpretation of what constitutes "use-value" and whether the historical aspect of the theorem should be considered applicable in the digital age. These are new forms of assets and commodities, with properties that cover most of the Misesian requirements, but in a manner that is more atemporal. Some purists argue that cryptocurrencies don't strictly meet the criteria. I'd argue we just need a broader, more updated interpretation of use-value. // As far as the long tail of tokens: I always look for unique and useful properties, user network effects, developer community robustness, and other dimensions to avoid buying garbage or scams.
I do hold Bitcoin. But according to CoinMarketCap, there exist some 23,000 cryptocurrencies, with a total "value" of over $1 trillion. Even if we ignore all tokens ("value"-based, like the idiotic $690K Nyan Cat gif; utility-based; security-based, and now the so-called endowment-based Texan Token) and accept only coins on their own blockchain as having value, much of this remnant is still problematic. Though it's a "meme coin," Dogecoin runs on its own blockchain, so does it have value as a cryptocoin? What are the "fundamentals" for such coins – a share of South Sea stock (1720) or tulip bulbs (1637)? If the Regression Theorem of von Mises is right (and maybe for Bitcoin it's not), then none of these cryptocurrencies are money and exist only as speculative instruments.
I'd suppose the question of whether cryptocurrencies pass the Regression Theorem test depends on your interpretation of what constitutes "use-value" and whether the historical aspect of the theorem should be considered applicable in the digital age. These are new forms of assets and commodities, with properties that cover most of the Misesian requirements, but in a manner that is more atemporal. Some purists argue that cryptocurrencies don't strictly meet the criteria. I'd argue we just need a broader, more updated interpretation of use-value. // As far as the long tail of tokens: I always look for unique and useful properties, user network effects, developer community robustness, and other dimensions to avoid buying garbage or scams.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Cambrian-explosion