Crypto: My Part In Its Downfall

I was asked to talk about cryptocurrencies to the 49^th Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop. I decided that my talk would take the form of a chronology, so I based the title on a book by the late, great comic Spike Milligan. It became Crypto: My Part In Its Downfall¹.

Below the fold is the text, with links to the sources.

The Stablecoin Saga Continued

In The Stablecoin Saga I discussed the first of Datafinnovation's two series on (meta)stablecoins, about the mystery of where the backing for coins like USDT is. Now, below the fold, it is time to look at their second series, mostly about tracing the flows of stablecoins using data from their blockchains.

The Stablecoin Saga

Starting in August, Datafinnovation has posted two series of posts about (meta)stablecoins, the first about Tether's reserves and the second about tracing flows of stablecoins. Below the fold, primarily for my own understanding, I try to summarize the first. I plan to return to the second in a subsequent post.

No Actual People Were Harmed In The Making Of This Market

FTX Token

The modus operandi of the crypto-bros in responding to criticism and calls for regulation is to talk about "innovation" and gaslighting about hypothetical future benefits, to deflect attention from the actual current costs of their favorite technology (see also autonomous vehicles). Below the fold I point out an egregious example of the genre.

Matt Levine's "The Crypto Story": Part 2

The first part of my discussion of Matt Levine's The Crypto Story covered the first two of its four chapters:

1. Ledgers, Bitcoin, Blockchain, in which he lays out the basics of Bitcoin's technology.
2. What Does It Mean?, in which he discusses generalizations of Bitcoin, such as Ethereum.
3. The Crypto Financial System, in which he discusses financial technologies such as exchanges, stablecoins and DeFi.
4. Trust, Money, Community, in which he discusses the social and societal impacts.

Below the fold, I go on to look at the last two chapters. They are shorter than the first two, and my expertise is less in these areas, so there is less to write.

Non-Fungible Token Bubble Lasted 10 Months

Although the first Non-Fungible Token was minted in 2014, it wasn't until Cryptokitties bought the Ethereum blockchain to its knees in December 2017 that NFTs attracted attention. But then they were swiftly hailed as the revolutionary technology that would usher in Web 3, the Holy Grail of VCs, speculators and the major content industries because it would be a completely financialized Web. Approaching 5 years later, it is time to ask "how's it going?"

Below the fold I look at the details, but the TL;DR is "not so great"; NFTs as the basis for a financialized Web have six main problems:

1. Technical: the technology doesn't actually do what people think it does.
2. Legal: there is no legal basis for the "rights" NFTs claim to represent.
3. Regulatory: much of the business of creating and selling NFTs appears to violate securities law.
4. Marketing: the ordinary consumers who would pay for a financialized Web absolutely hate the idea.
5. Financial: like cryptocurrencies, the fundamental attraction of NFTs is "number go up". And much of the trading in NTFs was Making Sure "Number Go Up". But, alas "number go down", at least partly because of problem #4.
6. Criminal: vulnerabilities in the NFT ecosystem provide a bonanza for thieves.

Impossibilities

I'm starting to see a series of papers each showing that some assertion about the cryptocurrency ecosystem that crypto-bros make can't be true. I wrote about the first one I noticed in Ethereum Has Issues, but I have since seen several more. Below the fold I briefly review them, I'll update this post if I see more to maintain a chronological list of these research results.

The Exchange You Can Trust

One of the many ironies about "decentralized, trustless" cryptocurrencies is that they are neither decentralized nor trustless. Since in practice you can neither buy nor sell real goods using them, you need to trust an exchange to convert fiat to cryptocurrency and vice versa. Exchanges range from those you definitely shouldn't trust, such as Binance, through somewhat less sketchy ones such as Kraken (now being investigated for sanctions busting) to Coinbase, which presents itself as a properly regulated, US based exchange that is totally trustworthy.

But recently cracks have been appearing in their façade of respectability, big enough that even the New York Times has noticed. The Humbling of Coinbase by David Yaffe-Bellany and Mike Isaac summarizes the situation:

Coinbase rose to prominence as one of the first major crypto companies, a gateway to the chaotic world of digital assets for amateur investors. But as it has grown from plucky start-up to publicly traded company, its status as an industry leader has been threatened by a series of missteps and a steep decline in the crypto market over the last six months.

Below the fold I probe into some of these cracks.

Calls For Cryptocurrency Regulation

On 8^th July 2022 Lael Brainard, Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve governors gave a speech entitled Crypto-Assets and Decentralized Finance through a Financial Stability Lens in which she writes:

Distinguishing Responsible Innovation from Regulatory Evasion
New technology often holds the promise of increasing competition in the financial system, reducing transaction costs and settlement times, and channeling investment to productive new uses. But early on, new products and platforms are often fraught with risks, including fraud and manipulation, and it is important and sometimes difficult to distinguish between hype and value. If past innovation cycles are any guide, in order for distributed ledgers, smart contracts, programmability, and digital assets to fulfill their potential to bring competition, efficiency, and speed, it will be essential to address the basic risks that beset all forms of finance. These risks include runs, fire sales, deleveraging, interconnectedness, and contagion, along with fraud, manipulation, and evasion. In addition, it is important to be on the lookout for the possibility of new forms of risks, since many of the technological innovations underpinning the crypto ecosystem are relatively novel.

The G20's Financial Stability Board followed with FSB Statement on International Regulation and Supervision of Crypto-asset Activities making a similar pitch for regulation. As did the European Central Bank with Decentralised finance – a new unregulated non-bank system?. Paul Krugman asks the right question in Crypto Is Crashing. Where Were the Regulators?:

Traditional banking is regulated for a reason; crypto, in bypassing these regulations, [Lael Brainard] said, has created an environment subject to bank runs, not to mention “theft, hacks and ransom attacks” — plus “money laundering and financing of terrorism.”

Other than that, it’s all good.

The thing is, most of Brainard’s litany has been obvious for some time to independent observers. So why are we only now hearing serious calls for regulation?

Below the fold I argue that these calls are both very late, and are couched in self-defeating language.

More Metastablecoins

My most recent post was on the metastability of "algorithmic stablecoins", as amply demonstrated by the UST/LUNA pair on May 8^th. This post is about the other kind of stablecoin, ones like Tether that claim to be backed by reserves at least as valuable as their "market cap". For different reasons, these also turn out to be metastable. Below the fold, I explain.

Metastablecoins

Source

Ever since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in late 2008, central banks have kept real interest rates close to, and for much of the time below, zero. Around the beginning of this year it started to become obvious that the end of the era of "free money" was approaching, and that interest rates were going to go up. That real interest rates haven't yet risen much above zero is because of the rampant monopolization of the US economy; companies with market power have seized on the supply chain crisis and the Russian invasion of Ukraine to raise prices and thus the inflation rate.

Source

Given this flood of "free money" since the GFC, investors bid up the price of assets such as the technology stocks in the NASDAQ index. In The tech sector teardown is more catharsis than crisis by John Thornhill writes:

There is certainly a strong argument that the extraordinary boom in tech stocks over the past decade was largely fueled by the unprecedented low-interest-rate policies in response to the global financial crisis of 2008. With capital becoming a commodity, it made sense for opportunistic companies such as Uber to grab as much cash as VC firms would give them to “blitzscale” their way to market domination.

This madcap expansion was accelerated by funding provided by a new class of non-traditional, or tourist, investors, including Masayoshi Son’s SoftBank and “crossover” hedge funds such as Tiger Global.

Below the fold, I look at how this is now all unwinding.

Cryptocurrency Weekend

It appears that this last weekend was "cryptocurrency weekend" for the mainstream media. The Washington Post and Bloomberg each had three big articles on the topic. Below the fold I comment on them.

Shadow Banking 2.0

Source

Prof. Hilary Allen of American University Washington College of Law has a very important 27-page essay entitled DeFi: Shadow Banking 2.0?. In it, she details a whole other set of externalities that, being beyond my limited understanding of banking and finance, I didn't discuss in my EE380 Talk. Prof. Allen summarizes her work:

TL;DR: DeFi is neither decentralized, nor very good finance, so regulators should have no qualms about clamping down on it to protect the stability of our financial system and broader economy.

Her arguments are supported by a less detailed, slightly earlier paper, DeFi risks and the decentralisation illusion by Sirio Aramonte, Wenqian Huang and Andreas Schrimpf of the Bank for International Settlements. Below the fold I comment on both of them.

Stablecoins Part 2

I wrote Stablecoins about Tether and its "magic money pump" seven months ago. A lot has happened and a lot has been written about it since, and some of it explores aspects I didn't understand at the time, so below the fold at some length I try to catch up.

Stablecoins

I have long been skeptical of Bitcoin's "price" and, despite its recent massive surge, I'm still skeptical. But it turns out I was wrong two years ago when I wrote in Blockchain: What's Not To Like?:

Permissionless blockchains require an inflow of speculative funds at an average rate greater than the current rate of mining rewards if the "price" is not to collapse. To maintain Bitcoin's price at $4K requires an inflow of $300K/hour.

I found it hard to believe that this much actual money would flow in, but since then Bitcoin's "price" hasn't dropped below $4K, so I was wrong. Caution — I am only an amateur economist, and what follows below the fold is my attempt to make sense of what is going on.