Would be interested in that as well. And I 100% agree that unit of account is the primary hurdle to Bitcoin’s adoption as money.
There’s definitely a chicken and egg problem. I’ve read somewhere that in a Bitcoin economy, businesses will simply update their prices when the value of Bitcoin changes. The problem is that’s just not realistic for anything but goods and services that can be bought today.
I haven’t read Graeber but I understand that he advocated a debt theory of money. To gain adoption as a unit of account, we need people to price their debts in BTC (and any other type of long-dated contract, like wages).
I think the unit of account problem is one of simple competition. When two parties sign a contract, it is in their interest to choose the least risky unit of account that’s available. This means a unit of account whose future value is as certain as possible. Much of international trade is done in dollars for this reason. To gain adoption as money, bitcoin needs a unit of account that is undeniably superior to any alternative.
I can see why Bitcoin denominated debts would be important, since that would also mean well defined Bitcoin denominated payments. Now the lender has a steady defined stream of Bitcoin and the borrow has some consistent Bitcoin costs. It'll be figuring out interest rates on Bitcoin debts that will be very difficult at first.
I'm trying to take some baby steps towards unit of account thinking. For instance, on Fountain, I have a fairly predictable small Bitcoin income and I've preset how much I'm going to stream back to podcasts that have their LN stuff set up.
I've generally been an advocate for dollar-cost-averaging as a strategy for stacking sats. However, this conversation has me thinking about how buying the same amount of Bitcoin every week would provide a defined Bitcoin income.
reply