Bitcoin isn´t a Currency per Definition!
Axel Weber, Chairman of the Swiss UBS and former Head of Germany´s central bank, stated that Bitcoin doesn´t fulfill all criteria of a currency and can therefore not be seen as one. In Detail he stated that...
"... the important function of a currency is, it’s a means of payment, it has to be generally accepted, it has to be a store of value and it’s a transaction currency. Bitcoin is only a transaction currency."
Back in 2015 he already criticized Bitcoin heavily and said it would be meant to fail due to the fact that there is no lender of last resort. While reading through the lines, that means Bitcoin doesn´t allow anyone to create new money out of nowhere to e.g.
Do we need a change in Definition?
Looking at the Definition itself I don´t think the Definition has to be updated as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are able to achieve all the criteria. As soon as they are generally accepted the trading volume will be so high that the price doesn´t move any more than the exchange rates do today and will make them a store of value.
As it´s used for transactions already we can ignore that criteria for now. But there is the one thing a currency got to fulfill in order to be accepted and that´s the possibility for the officials to create huge additional amounts, whenever they might need it. They don´t state it officially but in my opinion that´s definitely a criteria for them.
As soon as Bitcoin will be accepted and used as a general currency the banks will loose their influence on the people and therewith their power over us. That being said it should be logical that many well known bankers want to stop it as they are afraid of the change as they don´t know what role they´d play in future.
What´s your opinion?
Will Bitcoin become a generally used Currency?
