September 6, 2021 Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editor’s Note: The following excerpt is adapted from The Gold Standard: Retrospect and Prospect edited by Peter C. Earle and William J. Luther.

Bitcoin proponents differ in the extent to which they expect the upstart cryptocurrency to circulate in the future. Some see the potential for bitcoin to replace the dollar. Others think bitcoin might serve as the primary currency for cross-border commerce, while reasonably well-managed national currencies like the dollar continue to circulate domestically. Still others expect bitcoin use will be largely limited to countries like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Argentina, where national currencies have been mismanaged in the past. But most have some notion of widespread bitcoin adoption in mind.

The market capitalization of bitcoin suggests there is some chance it will achieve widespread adoption in the future. Peter Hazlett and I have argued that the market capitalization of bitcoin conveys the extent to which bitcoin is useful for making transactions today or is expected to be useful in the future. As events suggest bitcoin is more likely to replace the bolivar (Venezuela’s currency) or capture market share in global remittances from Western Union or otherwise be more widely used in the future, people are willing to pay more for bitcoin today. The market capitalization rises as a result. On the other hand, when events suggest bitcoin is less likely to be used so widely in the future, people are willing to pay less for bitcoin today and the market capitalization declines. 

At present, the market capitalization of bitcoin is on par with that of many national currencies. There are around 18.8 million bitcoin in circulation today worth around $50,000 each, for a total market capitalization of roughly $0.93 trillion. For comparison, the market capitalization of the U.S. dollar is around $5.25 trillion. The market capitalization of the Chinese renminbi is $1.4 trillion, while that of the Canadian dollar is only $0.352 trillion. Since bitcoin is not widely used today, its market capitalization suggests those placing their money where their mouth is think it will be more widely used in the future.

Are they right? Perhaps. But those expecting widespread adoption would do well to recognize that bitcoin faces at least four obstacles: network effects, government opposition, a suboptimal supply constraint, and limited transactions capacity. In this essay, I discuss the network effects problem.

Network Effects

It is important to recognize that bitcoin faces entrenched incumbents. Since we are already using monies, choosing to use bitcoin means choosing to use some incumbent money less. It is a portfolio allocation decision. One wishes to hold a given percentage of her wealth in highly liquid assets to make transactions. Prior to adopting bitcoin, she is only holding some incumbent money (e.g., dollars, euros, baht, etc.). Increasing the allocation of bitcoin in her portfolio means decreasing the allocation of the incumbent money. This is a problem for bitcoin because network effects favor the status quo.

The demand for money is unlike the demand for many goods and services in an important way. I like cheeseburgers. Perhaps you like cheeseburgers as well. A lot of people like cheeseburgers. But the extent to which I enjoy taking a bite of a medium-rare, freshly-ground brisket burger with bacon and cheddar is completely unrelated to anyone else’s enjoyment of cheeseburgers. That is not the case with monies. We use money to transact with other people. If more of my trading partners choose to use a particular money, that money becomes more useful to me. My demand for a particular money, in other words, depends on my trading partners’ demand for that money, and vice versa. We do not just care about the characteristics of the money. We also care about its network of users.

Incumbent monies, like the dollar, enjoy a large network of users. Virtually everyone in the United States––and many outside its borders––will happily accept dollars today. Upstart monies, like bitcoin, do not have such a large network. Only a few people accept it. 

Suppose everyone independently recognized bitcoin to be superior to their incumbent money. Would recognizing that fact induce them to switch to bitcoin? Not necessarily. Perhaps they would be willing to switch if they were convinced a sufficient number of their trading partners would switch as well. But, absent such assurances, the safest strategy is to continue using the money you and your trading partners have been using. And that inertia can sustain the status quo, even if the available alternative is superior.

The coordination problem inherent in choosing which money to use is similar to that involved in choosing whether to drive on the left or right side of the road. In the abstract, it probably does not matter much whether we all drive on the left side or we all drive on the right side. The important thing is that we all drive on the same side! In the United States, we drive on the right side of the road. But suppose a highly-respected think tank were to circulate a very well-designed and well-written study to every American that clearly indicated driving on the left side of the road is superior to driving on the right side of the road. We might all recognize that driving on the left side would be better. But, even setting aside the legal issues, it would be foolish to start driving on the left side of the road before anyone else does. Absent coordination (and, likely, a change in the laws), we would continue to embrace the status quo.

Much the same could be said about monies. No one wants to use a money that no one else uses. Few people are willing to switch to a money that few people are using. Even if everyone were to recognize that bitcoin is superior to incumbent monies, they might continue using those monies if they are not convinced other people will switch as well.

I have explored the network effects problem more formally elsewhere. But the key takeaway is straightforward. It is not enough for bitcoin to be better than the available alternatives. It must be sufficiently better to warrant the costs of switching, which includes the costs of coordinating that switch with others. The network effects problem is not an insurmountable obstacle. There are steps entrepreneurs can take to help reduce the network effects problem. It is, nonetheless, an obstacle bitcoin must overcome to achieve widespread adoption.

William J. Luther

William J. Luther

William J. Luther is the Director of AIER’s Sound Money Project and an Associate Professor of Economics at Florida Atlantic University. His research focuses primarily on questions of currency acceptance. He has published articles in leading scholarly journals, including Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Economic Inquiry, Journal of Institutional Economics, Public Choice, and Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. His popular writings have appeared in The Economist, Forbes, and U.S. News & World Report. His work has been featured by major media outlets, including NPR, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, TIME Magazine, National Review, Fox Nation, and VICE News.

Luther earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics at George Mason University and his B.A. in Economics at Capital University. He was an AIER Summer Fellowship Program participant in 2010 and 2011.


Selected Publications

Cash, Crime, and Cryptocurrencies.” Co-authored with Joshua R. Hendrickson. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (Forthcoming).

Central Bank Independence and the Federal Reserve’s New Operating Regime.” Co-authored with Jerry L. Jordan. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (May 2022).

The Federal Reserve’s Response to the COVID-19 Contraction: An Initial Appraisal.” Co-authored with Nicolas Cachanosky, Bryan Cutsinger, Thomas L. Hogan, and Alexander W. Salter. Southern Economic Journal (March 2021).

Is Bitcoin Money? And What That Means.”Co-authored with Peter K. Hazlett. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (August 2020).

Is Bitcoin a Decentralized Payment Mechanism?” Co-authored with Sean Stein Smith. Journal of Institutional Economics (March 2020).

Endogenous Matching and Money with Random Consumption Preferences.” Co-authored with Thomas L. Hogan. B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics (June 2019).

Adaptation and Central Banking.” Co-authored with Alexander W. Salter. Public Choice (January 2019).

Getting Off the Ground: The Case of Bitcoin.Journal of Institutional Economics (2019).

Banning Bitcoin.” Co-authored with Joshua R. Hendrickson. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (2017).

Bitcoin and the Bailout.” Co-authored with Alexander W. Salter. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (2017).

The Political Economy of Bitcoin.” Co-authored with Joshua R. Hendrickson and Thomas L. Hogan. Economic Inquiry (2016).

Cryptocurrencies, Network Effects, and Switching Costs.Contemporary Economic Policy (2016).

Positively Valued Fiat Money after the Sovereign Disappears: The Case of Somalia.” Co-authored with Lawrence H. White. Review of Behavioral Economics (2016).

The Monetary Mechanism of Stateless Somalia.Public Choice (2015).


Books by William J. Luther

Get notified of new articles from William J. Luther and AIER.

Related Articles – Cryptocurrency, Economic Education, Financial Markets