- The technically impressive feat cryptos have achieved is that, with a few caveats, they’re not just scarce (quantity available < quantity conceivably desired) but have a fixed maximum quantity. This is different from USD and even gold, which can be extracted and gathered to an unknown degree.
To be honest, i do not see it very different. Gold became precious commodity due to its “declared” scarcity. Scarcity is a theoretical finitude in the sense that all you have to agree to is that the amount of gold that can be found in nature is not limitless. Humans probably began mining gold using primitive tools, but to dig for or mine more quantities would require more complex technologies or computational power. The more advanced are the tools for mining, the higher the impact on the shared environment. It is no coincidence that AUS is one of the most polluting nations on earth due to its booming mining industry.
- Finitude and scarcity is not broadly considered to be a necessary condition for the perception of value. “Non-rival” goods (things where my consumption doesn’t interfere with yours) abound. Just as an example, people like looking at the night sky. Not quite perfectly non-rival, but digital goods, being almost free to copy and use, are similarly perceived as valuable. A dhamma talk on YouTube can be heard by as many people as desire to hear it, and they will likely get value out of it. One of the dangers of web3, highlighted by this talk, is that NFTs + DRM could limit the creation of this kind of value. Imagine if, for example, only 100 people at a time ever had the right to watch a certain film.
Non rivalry has to do with exclusivity, which divides space into private (ownership) and common (public property). The non-rivalry of looking at the sky makes the sky a public property where two humans with two separate bags of skin can equally perceive it without getting into conflict over it. Value is not separate from a sense of lack. If someone has problems with his/her eyes, they would still need an eye surgery to access the public property of night sky. This brings us to another distinction or definition, which is desirability. The individual experience is exclusive but not necessarily desirable, such as in the case of sickness and old age. It is observed through the public sphere, but associated with negative value. The family institution, which is the cornerstone for conventional way of life is based on the same concept of exclusivity, or what became to be known as monogamy.
The point Bhante was making there was really about adoption. If all you care about with BTC is it’s value in USD, not what you can buy with it, it seems like you’re not thinking about it as a currency.
However to address your concern, what makes the USD “more real” are the institutions backing it up. The court system, sales / purchase orders, and employment agreements.
El Salvador is an interesting case here, because they dollarized and then adopted BTC. It is my understanding that the courts are still considered broadly incompetent (ie if someone owes you X, you wouldn’t reasonably expect the courts to find that you are owed X, and then even if they did, you wouldn’t expect to courts to bring about the transfer of the dollar or btc value of X to you from the person who owes you), but that most major business, including international trade, is conducted in USD. This is, broadly speaking, because of the network of USD commerce. If I’m selling in USD, I can turn around and buy in USD. Or, as business is more commonly actually practiced, if I already bought something in USD, I need to sell something in USD.
This is, I think, what Bhante is referring to as the beneficial element of trust in our current monetary system.
As far as i remember, the USD was subject to the gold standard until the 1970s before it became floated, or declared as any other commodity subject to the market forces of supply and demand. The proponents of cryptos would argue that having more institutions backing it is a process in the making. If we take the moral aspect into consideration, institutional backing is more relevant to making it legal that moral, considering that imposing laws is done by force of central governments. Many would argue that the relationship between the value of USD and the US military-might are inseparable. There are also theories that explain the relationship between the value of USD and petrodollar, and the subsequent humanitarian and environmental impacts of maintaining this value.
My main take from Bhante’s talk is that getting-rich-fast-schemes are not conducive to peace. When certain conventions became well-established, we better follow them mindfully minimizing the damage we cause to ourselves and others. Reinventing the wheel, as with the case of cryptos, seem to indicate passion towards what is harmful.