A properly planned good with inherent value as currency can become widely accepted.
I read “Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History” by Gary North on the subway in San Francisco. I struggled to follow North’s argument structure, so below I’ll state the assumptions that North makes, how he fits them together, and the conclusions drawn. Please contest, confirm, and/or supplement both definitions and logic.
North’s argument is dependent on the assumptions he makes. If one assumption is false, the logic fails.
If the definition of money is something that is valuable for its own sake, develops out of market exchanges, and has a predictable exchange rate and the definition of a Ponzi scheme is an investment that does not serve the consumer and Bitcoin is only bought as a capital asset with no intention to be used for exchange then Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.
If you’d like to keep reading, I provide one response to refute each of North’s definitions. Definitely add more in the comments if you have them!
“That which did not function as money before, now functions as money. Something that was valuable for its own sake, most likely gold or silver, becomes valuable for another purpose, namely, the facilitation of exchange…In this scenario, something that had independent value becomes the focus of traders, who find that their ability to buy and sell increases as a result of the use of this commodity. Money develops out of market exchanges. Money was not used for its own sake initially, but it becomes widely used as money as a result of innumerable transactions within the economy…It is the predictability of money’s market exchange rate that makes it money.”
Read more – > https://medium.com/future-tech-future-market/47ecc482617a