While so many are investing vast amount of money into products that can make the digital currency a general use currency, some are still skeptical of the ability to secure the currency which has no financial backing. The 2011 hacking of MtGOX which has been valued at $400 million and the 2015 hacking of the Slovenian exchange, Bitstamp valued at $5 million, is strong argument for the security critics of bitcoin. It adds to another level of business developing around the currency. In February of 2015, the bitcoin exchange, Coinbase, announced an insured exchange. The first step of its kind for the currency. The previous summer, the New York Department of Financial Security announced BitLicense, a dedicated set of regulations for bitcoin companies. These two major developments may be the reassurances that institutional investors and hedge fund companies need to get onboard with bitcoin use. Investments from the New York Stock Exchange and the United Service Automobile Association to the development of the insured bitcoin exchange are yet another step in validating the currency for use and investing by larger entities. The venture, at its very base though, must remain profitable for those in the business of mining for bitcoin. If the valuation would drop and then continue to only get lower, it becomes dangerous to the security of bitcoin as a viable currency. It becomes exorbitantly expensive for the miners in that scenario. As long as there is incentive to continue to mine, most investors in the field are not overly concerned about the lack of mining operations. Currently there are 14,242,250 mined coins in circulation at the current projected rate, most analysts have mining for bitcoin projected to last into the year 2140.
The finite number of bitcoins possible to be mined; however, for some again adds to the feasibility of the bitcoin really moving into the realm of fiat currency with the banking of major institutions and banks. “Bitcoins finite supply means that its price should go up, and keep going up. So if if you have dollars that are losing a little value to inflation every year and Bitcoins that are gaining it, which one are you going to use to buy things with? The question answers itself, and it raises another. Why would this ever change? Unless you can’t buy something online with dollars – like drugs – you’d always want to use your dollars instead. Buying things with Bitcoin would be like cashing out your Apple stock in 1978 to go grocery shopping even though you have plenty of actual cash lying around.” (O’Brien 2015). This possible reality creates a cycle that would mean the value of the bitcoin could never actually increase, because no one really wants to spend them. Instead, bitcoins are always being held pending a huge valuation due to the lack of supply. The lack of spending them in turns lessens their value. The theory works directly against the concept of the bitcoin as a currency.
Within the vein of this theory also lies a question that other industries are looking to borrow from the design behind bitcoin currency. If the fundamental idea behind the currency is to transfer an item that has a perceived monetary value to another through the blockchain system which validates the transaction, thereby removing the need for financial institutions to be involved, then why could the system be used to transfer other types of assets? That is exactly the question that is pushing some financial institutions to look at developing their own blockchain system so as to not become the dinosaur of the financial realm, but rather to cut service costs and still keep customers involved through cheaper services, but probably not free services. Like the security questions involved in keeping bitcoin held safely by a third party, the stealing of the formation of blockchain technology for asset transfers via the internet raises concerns for the long-term viability of the emerging currency. “The future might not be in Bitcoin, but it should to its technology.” (O’Brien 2015).
The inception of the idea is agreed genius by admires of software design, economic theory and free money libertarian politics. The money invested into the pursuit of the intangible currency is real money and has generated huge profits for hardware developers. Likewise the money venture capitalists have put forth to back companies that may be able to bring the bitcoin to the masses in an easy-to-use though likely not understandable way is very real money as well. With all the money, time and effort poured into the currency, proponents would say it cannot fail. However, the infancy of the developing technology and underlying support of this as a currency leaves many in the financial and economic industry still too skeptical to bet on the currency to be in existence for the long term. One thing is certain, the technology that is at the core of bitcoin will forever change how all players involved in the world of finance look at how money and other assets are moved from one owner to another.
– Luis Villamonte