Or why Bitcoin and its variants are risky assets.
It’s fair to say that virtual currencies need block chain. Block chain is an essential or necessary innovation behind such currencies. That block chain is not sufficient becomes obvious when we consider the question of how many virtual currencies can exist.
This is pretty much a question in institutional economics. It would be like asking which fiat currency would dominate global transactions.
Ronald Coase’s transaction-cost theory of the firm probably has the answer.
The dominant virtual currency is the one with the least transactions cost. While trust is an unmeasurable element that reduces transactions cost, transaction cost can itself be measured.
There are other factors along with trust that augur well for the dominant virtual currency. Among these factors are:
It should have ‘standing’ with central banks if only because they issue legal tender, whereas virtual currencies are not.
Its value in terms of the dominant fiat currencies must be reasonably stable. For now, the leading virtual currency, Bitcoin, fails.
Also equally important is transparency in its creation and modification. It seems that users of a virtual currency will need at least an unwritten constitution that lays out the fundamental laws of the community of users, even if they wish to be as ‘decentralized’ as possible. Again, here, Bitcoin fails, as can be seen with the ongoing ‘fork’ controversy over Segwit2.
CONCLUSION. It’s too soon right now to say that Bitcoin is here to stay.