ArticlePDF Available

Bitcoin: The Longest Running Mania -Tulips of the 21st Century?

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Almost four centuries later, the Dutch tulipmania of the 17th century is always mentioned as a mania and used as a reference point in the aftermath of contemporaneous economic and financial crises since the late 1990s. Studies investigating what drove the tulip speculation throughout 17th and 18th centuries ignored market fundamentals, which we believe were the driving forces in Bitcoin price speculation and the ensuing crash. Bitcoin mania is far from a true madness, the increased frequency in its boom-and-bust cycle since 2017 comes from the cryptocurrency market's extreme reactionary mode to any good or bad news from regulators and central banks (the Fed and ECB in particular) as well as security issues related to cyberattacks. In a matter of several months, the price of Bitcoin skyrocketed from $
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Bitcoin: The Longest Running Mania Tulips of the 21st Century?
Dr. John Taskinsoy a
ABSTRACT
Almost four centuries later, the Dutch tulipmania of the 17th century is always mentioned as a mania
and used as a reference point in the aftermath of contemporaneous economic and financial crises
since the late 1990s. Studies investigating what drove the tulip speculation throughout 17th and 18th
centuries ignored market fundamentals, which we believe were the driving forces in Bitcoin price
speculation and the ensuing crash. Bitcoin mania is far from a true madness, the increased frequency
in its boom-and-bust cycle since 2017 comes from the cryptocurrency markets extreme reactionary
mode to any good or bad news from regulators and central banks (the Fed and ECB in particular) as
well as security issues related to cyberattacks. In a matter of several months, the price of Bitcoin
skyrocketed from $2,000 in April 2017 to the intraday high of $20,089 on December 17, 2017. The
potential Bitcoin bubble occurred in the end of 2017, Bitcoin price surged from $5,600 to $20,089 in
October December 2017 and crashed in January 2018.
Keywords: Bitcoin; Asset Price Bubbles; Booms and Busts; Tulipmania; Blockchain
JEL classification: D84, E32, E44, G01, G12, G38, O40, R31
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
a Corresponding author email address: johntaskinsoy@gmail.com
Faculty of Economics & Business Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas), 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia.
2
1.0 Introduction
Sizable booms and busts in this decade
1
have rekindled the debate on the resemblance of the Bitcoin
mania to that of the Dutch tulipmania of 1634-37 (i.e. first recorded speculative bubble) and the U.S.
dot.com phenomenon of 2000-01, both of which were brief as opposed to the Bitcoin mania which is
going strong despite its erratic price fluctuations. Nonetheless, a sizable body of economists would
agree that all three manias appear as cases of a speculative mania; however, Garber (1989) believes
the extremely high prices reported for rare bulbs and their rapid decline, reflects normal pricing
behavior in bulb markets and cannot be interpreted as evidence of market irrationality, so it was not
a mania. Garber’s view that tulipmania was based on fundamentals was criticized by Kindleberger
(1978). In the literature, Bitcoin mania is used interchangeably with synonyms “speculative mania”,
“Ponzi scheme”, “speculative bubble”, or “irrational exuberance”
2
(Samuelson, 1957; Garber, 1989).
3
Bubbles (in equity and debt markets, assets, commodities, or cryptocurrencies) usually form through
changes in investor behavior underpinned by rational or irrational expectations of a rapid escalation
of asset prices (see Brunnermeier, 2008; Evans, 1991; West, 1984). Every financial/economic bubble
follows a boom-bust cycle (see Shiller, 1987), and at the end of a bubble, pessimism enters the market
causing some investors to sell off their positions (profit-taking), which may turn into a sizable market
correction or even a crash if panicked investors start selling assets at any price in a herd mentality
4
(Calvo & Mendoza, 1997; for centuries of folly, see Reinhart & Rogoff, 2009; Kindleberger, 1978). The
patterns of a bubble-formation show similarities throughout financial history as explained by Minsky
(1992) in his paper titled “The Financial Instability Hypothesis which identifies five stages in a credit
boom; (i) displacement (awareness), any paradigm-shifting event (i.e. advent of the Internet, financial
innovation as in mortgage-backed securities); (ii) boom (asset-mania), opportunistic and optimistic
investors enter the market causing a noticeable surge in daily volumes; (iii) euphoria (extraordinary
valuations in prices), even ordinary people become avid buyers; (iv) profit taking, pessimism enters
the market; (v) panic, asset prices plunge as capital flight to quality (safety) occurs.
1
Paradigm-shifting developments since the late 1990s (i.e. Internet, mortgage-backed securities, shadow banking, digital
revolution. blockchain, cryptocurrencies, etc.) have posed serious challenges to global financial stability and the resultant
financial crises have caused sizable disruptions in the supply of credit. Contemporaneous crises since the 1990s have made
financial booms-and-busts more frequent, longer lasting and more disruptive. Interested readers can check out Taskinsoy
(2007; 2008a, b, c; 2012a, b, c; 2013a, b; c; 2018a, b, c, d; 2019a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, u, v, w).
2
During the Clinton administration, the term “irrational exuberance” was first coined by the former Fed Chairman by Alan
Greenspan in a 1996 speech, "The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society". Later, the economist Robert
Shiller has used irrational exuberance as the title of his book published in 2000.
3
After Facebook’s official announcement of its Libra cryptocurrency project, President Donald J. Trump slammed Bitcoin
and Libra by tweeting “I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is
highly volatile and based on thin air”.
4
Flight-to-quality before, during, or after a financial crisis can be substantially disruptive if orchestrated in a herd mentality.
3
Asset price bubbles whether based on rational or irrational future expectations of growth occur when
prices of assets and commodities deviate significantly from their intrinsic values (e.g. Lambertini et
al., 2010); further, bubbles can turn into speculative or mania if prices are fueled by speculation rather
than basic fundamentals. In that regard, Garber (1989) argues that tulip bulbs
5
had no intrinsic value
and were not a vital agricultural commodity (i.e. easily reproduced with unlimited quantity), thus the
relevant price movements of rare and unique tulip bulbs were based on market fundamental theories
of asset pricing. Although a rare single Semper Augustus bulb was sold for as high as 6,000 guilders
(Mackay, 1852), which equaled a skilled worker’s 20 years of wages (see Table 1); the results of the
Garber’s (1989) study indicate that the tulipmania may have been a brief speculation and a potential
bubble, but not “obvious madness” (Garber, 1990). With additional demand in France along with the
new entrance of non-professional buyers in the market, prices of bulbs quickly rose in 1635 and a
bubble was formed when prices of common bulbs surged for a month (January February 1637).
Table 1: Guilder Prices of Tulip Bulbs (1637, 1722, and 1739)
January 2, 1637
February 5, 1637
1722
1739
Admirael de Man
18
209
----
0.10
Gheele Croonen
0.41
20.5
0.025*
Witte Croonen
2.2
57
0.20*
Switsers
1
30
0.05
---
Semper Augustus
2,000+
6,290
----
0.10
Zomerschoon
----
480
0.15
0.15
Admirael van Enchuysen
----
4,900
0.20
----
Fama
----
776
0.03*
----
Admirael van Hoorn
----
65.5
0.10
----
Admiral Liefkens
----
2,968
0.20
----
Source: Garber (1989)
* Sold in lots of 100 bulbs; + This price was based on July 1, 1625.
1.1 Comparing Tulip and Bitcoin Manias
While tulip is a commodity, Bitcoin is analogous to a commodity; nevertheless, both are produced by
farmers (miners (nodes) for bitcoins) who work and make decisions independently. The production
of each requires energy, for instance growing tulip bulbs need lots of sun and minting of bitcoins via
a digital mining process uses vast amount of electricity. For a cost effective and efficient production,
individual tulip producers may decide to join cooperatives; in the case of Bitcoin, miners can reduce
processing time and energy use by joining mining pools. Although rare and very unique tulip bulbs
(i.e. Semper Augustus) were used to exchange for various consumer goods, land, or even a luxurious
house (Table 2); Bitcoin on the other hand is a cryptocurrency as a medium of exchange and accepted
5
The first tulip bulbs and seeds were sent from the Ottoman Empire to Vienna in 1554, but the botanist Carolus Clusius and
his work at the University of Leiden made the tulip gain popularity around 1590s.
4
by thousands of merchants and individuals. Despite inconsistency in the recorded tulip price data
from the 1930s, Garber (1989) characterizes the data as a “blend of apples and oranges"; at the peak
of tulipmania on February 5, 1637 a single bulb of the Semper Augustus was valued at 6,219 guilder
(Figure 1), would have been about $80,362
6
- for conversion from euro to dollar, €1 = $1.11 is used,
which is a lot more than Bitcoin’s peak price of $19,666 on December 17, 2019 (Figure 2).
Table 2: Basket of Goods Allegedly Exchanged for a Single Bulb of the Viceroy
Price
Goods
Price
448
Four tons of beer
32
558
Two tons of butter
192
480
1,000 lbs. of cheese
120
240
A complete bed
100
120
A suit of clothes
80
70
A silver drinking cup
60
2,500 Dutch guilders (florins)
Source: Wikipedia
Source: Garber (1989)
Figure 1: The Price Surge of Semper Augustus (1923-1937)
6
According to the International Institute of Social History, one florin in 1637 had the purchasing power of €11.51 in 2016.
5
Source of data https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/price/
Figure 2: The Price Surge of Bitcoin (2016-2017)
True that the Dutch speculation has been quite a legend, but we share the view of Garber (1989) that
there was not enough evidence with accurate and consistent data to suggest that the tulip speculation
qualifies to be a mania; if it were in fact, a sizable body of economists would have made references to
the tulipmania in the pre-WWII academic literature. Although Mackay (1852) makes reference to the
tulipmania, his work is incomplete and his price analysis of various tulip bulbs compares as Garber
(1989) described “apples and oranges”, which resulted in a serious misalignment in prices (i.e. tulip
prices at the peak of the speculation (February 1637) were compared with prices two centuries after
the tulip collapse). Even Kindleberger (1978) did not discuss about the tulipmania in his book whose
title starts with the word “Manias” because the event and the resultant crash was not instigated by
either misguided and misaligned monetary decisions or policy errors. Just like the tulipmania in the
early 1600s, the dot.com phenomenon of 2000-01 (the Internet bubble), the mortgage debacle of
2006, the global financial crisis of 2007-08, and the Bitcoin mania are examples of speculative asset
prices and markets in which they operate are driven by herd mentality or fads (Calvo, 1997; Shiller,
1987; Shiller & Pound, 1986; Caamerer, 1987). A great majority of economic and financial crisis are
banking related (Reinhart & Rogoff, 2009) and are explainable by the economic fundamentals such
as inflation, unemployment, interest rates, monetary policies (expansive or contraction of the money
supply) by central banks (Azariadis & Guesnerie, 1986; Shell & Stiglitz, 1967).
Many economists view Bitcoin as a speculative asset class, not a currency; due to its extreme volatility,
Bitcoin’s likelihood of becoming a global reserve currency is almost impossible. This paper compares
the movements of prices of Tulips and Bitcoin during and after the alleged mania.
6
2.0 Literature Review
The financial crisis literature makes reference to three manias throughout four centuries of history;
the most famous one of them is the Dutch tulipmania (1634-37) in Holland even though economists
including Garber (1989) and Kindleberger (1978) do not view it as a real madness. Other two manias
were originated in the UK. Canal Mania (1790-1810) occurred in England (Dyos & Aldcroft, 1969); by
1793, a speculative frenzy resulted in a twentyfold increase in canal building schemes (see Mitchell,
1975); as a result, the amount of capital authorized skyrocketed, increased more than thirty times
(e.g. Acheson et al., 2009; Gayer et al., 1953). Railway Mania of the 1840s took place in the UK and
Ireland; at its peak in 1846, close to 300 Railway Acts were passed by the British Parliament but only
two-thirds were built, some of these railway companies later collapsed (i.e. insufficient capital) or
acquired (or merged) plus few of them were set up to divert investors’ money fraudulently into non-
railway operations (see Bryer, 1991; Ellis, 1954; Glynn, 1994; Harding, 1848; Smith, 1848).
Two hundred years after the alleged tulipmania, Mackay (1841, 1852) had described the UK Railway
Mania of the 1840s as “another delusion”
7
. The old question of whether the Dutch tulipmania was a
real mania or was based on market fundamentals is still debated among economists and scholars to
this day. The tulip-bulb craze strongly underpinned by “the madness of crowds” (Mackay, 1841) was
not a mania (Garber, 1989; 1990), it was more of a speculation that caused tulip fever; in turn, frenzy
speculators right before the collapse in February 1637 created an illusion of crowds that turned even
non-professional and poorer investors into avid buyers; however, following a month of speculative
bull market, the tulip bubble (i.e., craze, fever, madness, mania) ended by investors who understood
crowd and mob psychology, or herd mentality (Dreman, 1977; Dash, 1999; Menschel, 2002).
Economic and financial bubbles
8
(speculative or non-speculative), manias (rational or irrational), and
crises follow boom-bust cycles that involve five similar phases (Kindleberger, 1978); (i) displacement
occurs when investors become aware of a paradigm-shifting technology (i.e. blockchain), product (i.e.
cryptocurrencies), financial innovation (i.e. adjustable-rate mortgages), or glut of dollars globally due
to historically low interest rates; (ii) financial or economic boom fostered by increasing optimism of
7
The Scottish journalist Charles Mackay published the book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
in three volumes: "National Delusions", "Peculiar Follies", and "Philosophical Delusions" (Mackay, 1841, 1852).
8
Tipper and See-Saw Time (1621), Tulip mania (Holland) (16341637), South Sea Company (British) (1720), Mississippi
Company (France) (1720), Canal Mania (UK) (1790s1810s), Panic of 1819 (US) (1815-1818), Panic of 1837 (US) (1834-
1837), Specie Circular of 1836 (US), Railway Mania (UK) (1840s), Panic of 1857 (US), Melbourne Australia land and real
estate bubble (18831889, crash in 189091), Encilhamento ("Mounting") (Brazil) (18861892), US farm bubble and
crisis (19141918, crash 19191920), Roaring Twenties stock-market bubble (US) (19211929), Florida speculative
building bubble (US) (19221926), Poseidon bubble (Australia) (19691970), Gold and Silver bubble (19761980), the
dot-com bubble (US) (19952000), Japanese asset price bubble (19861991), Asian financial crisis (East & Asia Pacific)
(1997), United States housing bubble (20022006), China stock and property bubble (20032007), the 2000s commodity
bubbles (20022008), and cryptocurrency bubble (20112018); see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble.
7
future prospects draws investors to enter the market which forces asset prices to rise, speculators
jumping on the bandwagon results in a further increase in asset prices; (iii) euphoria (Exuberance)
instigated by the delusion (or illusion) of crowds causes asset prices to go through the ceiling, at this
stage capricious investors act on the basis of irrational behavior and both psychological and economic
forces determine asset prices; (iv) profit-taking is usually the early warning sign of a potential crash,
those investors and speculators who understand mob psychology get out of market in time before the
bubble bursts, and “those who are unable to resist being swept up” are always “the consistent losers”
(Garber, 1989); (v) panic (crash) causes asset prices to plunge (free fall), maybe even faster than they
initially rose (for longer discussion and more extensive review, see Brunnermeier, 2008; Caamerer,
1987; Calvo & Mendoza, 1997; Dreman, 1977; Samuelson, 1957; Azariadis, 1981; Mackay, 1841; Dash,
1999; Kindleberger, 1978; Shell & Stiglitz, 1967; Shiller, 1987; Shiller & Pound, 1986; Smith, 1848).
The literature on causes and implications of bubbles has grown enormously since the late 1990s,
which provided us with many synonyms to differentiate one bubble from another; as such, financial
bubble, asset bubble, price bubble, economic bubble, property bubble, stock market bubble, housing
bubble, commodity bubble, real estate bubble, technology bubble, etc. (Abreu & Brunnermeier, 2003).
What is a bubble? Although each bubble has its own unique dynamics fortified by a confluence of
fundamental and psychological forces (driving or contributing), an economic or financial bubble (the
term "bubble" emerged with the 17111720 British South Sea Bubble) can be described as a situation
(environment) in which asset prices substantially exceed their intrinsic values that are determined
by market-driven fundamentals (Kindleberger & Aliber, 2005; King et al., 1993; Garber, 1990, 2000;
Malkiel, 2007; Shiller, 2005). Bubbles usually have a negative connotation, but they can form without
irrational investor behavior, speculation, or exuberance (to gain an understanding of bubbles and
financial crises, see Allen & Gale, 1998, 2000, 2007; Blanchard & Watson, 1982; Brunnermeier, 2001).
Non-speculative bubbles are argued to be rational, in other words, they form on the basis of market
fundamentals not through psychological forces or the delusion of crowds. We have already mentioned
previously that our interpretation of the tulipmania is consistent with Garber (1989), we share his
view that the tulipmania might have been many things (i.e. craze, fever, speculation, fad, irrational
behavior, and exuberance), but was not a mania; we argue the same for Bitcoin mania, which was not.
Garber argues that the market for tulip bulbs was stable until 1634 due to limited access by non-tulip
growers; by 1635, non-professional traders entered the market plus the futures market developing
in 1636 allowed fractional trading by poorer people (whole tulip bulbs were too expensive for them),
these along with the additional demand from France drove the speculation. Just like the tulip bubble,
similar developments played a pivotal role in the formation of the Bitcoin bubble (2011-18); Bitcoin
8
was not very volatile until the end of 2016 because the cryptocurrency market was in infancy stages
and was mainly limited to small groups of Bitcoin miners (nodes), investors/enthusiasts (Table 3).
Table 3: Historical Corrections of Bitcoin (BTCUSD)
No
Correction
start date
Correction
end date
# Days in
correction
Bitcoin high
price $
Bitcoin low
price $
Decline
%
Decline
$
1
8 Jun 2011
15 Dec 2011
185
31.00
2.00
-94%
29.00
2
12 Jan 2012
27 Jan 2012
16
7.38
3.80
-49%
3.58
3
17 Aug 2012
19 Aug 2012
3
16.41
7.10
-57%
9.31
4
6 Mar 2013
7 Mar 2013
2
49.17
33.00
-33%
16.17
5
21 Mar 2013
23 Mar 2013
3
76.91
50.09
-35%
26.82
6
11 Apr 2013
12 Jun 2013
60
266.34
70.00
-74%
196.34
7
19 Nov 2013
19 Dec 2013
30
1,242.00
600.00
-52%
642.00
8
5 Jan 2014
11 Apr 2014
95
1,000.00
440.00
-56%
560.00
9
16 Sep 2014
29 Mar 2015
200
465.86
252.74
-46%
213.12
10
30 Nov 2013
14 Jan 2015
411
1,163.00
152.40
-87%
1,010.60
11
10 Mar 2017
25 Mar 2017
16
1,350.00
891.33
-34%
458.67
12
25 May 2017
27 May 2017
3
2,760.10
1,850.00
-33%
910.10
13
12 Jun 2017
16 Jul 2017
35
2,980.00
1,830.00
-39%
1,150.00
14
2 Sep 2017
15 Sep 2017
14
4,979.90
2,972.01
-40%
2,007.89
15
8 Nov 2017
12 Nov 2017
5
7,888.00
5,555.55
-30%
2,332.45
16
17 Dec 2017
22 Dec 2017
5
19,783.06
13,800.00
-31%
5,983.06
17
22 Dec 2017
5 Feb 2018
14
13,800.00
6,200.50
-55%
7,599.50
18
5 Sep 2018
16 Dec 2018
100
7,361.46
3,236.27
-56%
4,125.19
19
17 Dec 2017
16 Dec 2018
365
19,783.06
3,236.27
-84%
16,547.79
20
27 Jun 2019
15 Dec 2019
195
13,017.12
7,116.28
-45%
5,900.84
Source of data: https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-crash-the-history-of-bubble-bursts
2.1 The Perceived Image of Bitcoin Mania
Bitcoin originated in cyberspace as a network of electronic cash but diffused into investors only in the
middle of 2010. Bitcoin practically began its arduous journey to stardom with the price of $0.00 since
its intrinsic value (if any) was arbitrarily negotiated between nodes (miners) and Bitcoin enthusiasts
(Wallace, 2011). With establishment of the first Bitcoin exchange BitcoinMarket.com (now defunct),
a bitcoin user swapped 10,000 BTC for an order of two pizzas
9
from Papa Jones in Florida USA (see
Kristoufek, 2015; Phillips & Gorse, 2017). Just like the tulip’s immediate acceptance “...by the wealthy
as a beautiful and rare flower, appropriate for the most stylish gardens(Garber, 1989), Bitcoin as the
first successful cryptocurrency, created by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto (a pseudonym), was
accepted and trusted by people for its enormous future prospects (Nakamoto, 2008; as currency, see
9
The most pricy pizzas ever bought (i.e. 10,000 BTC at $19,873 each (December 17, 2017) would have been $198.7 million).
Another unbelievable story goes like this; a Norwegian man (Kristoffer Koch) bought 5,000 BTC for $26.60 in 2009 (paid
$0.0053 per bitcoin, worth almost $100 million as of Dec. 17, 2017). In terms of value, Kevin’s story is the most amazing
one, who bought 259,684 BTC for about $3,000 in 2011 (which would have been worth over $5 billion on Dec. 17, 2017).
9
Baek & Elbeck, 2015; Bartos, 2015; Blundell-Wignall, 2014; Bouoiyour & Selmi, 2016; Cermak, 2017;
Ciaian et al., 2016; Chiu & Koeppl, 2017; David, 2014; for evolution of money, see Davies, 2002).
Beginning in 2011, non-miners (nodes) entered the Bitcoin trade in noticeable numbers, attributable
to the establishments of now-defunct BitcoinMarket.com (March 2010) and a Japanese-based Bitcoin
exchange Mt. Gox (July 2010) along with the milestone achievement of Bitcoin taking parity with US
dollar (BTCUSD) in the first quarter of 2011. As a result, Bitcoin experienced its first boom-bust cycle,
the price of bitcoin rose from $1 in April 2011 to $31 in June 2011 before losing 94% of its value and
collapsing back to $2 in December 2011 (see Table 1). As Garber (1989) indicated, “the market was
for durable bulbs, not flowers”; besides the rare Semper Augustus bulb (i.e. peaked at 6,290 guilder
right before the crash) common tulip bulbs were sold at much lower prices and some bulbs had no
value, and according to Garber, this was understandable and explainable on the basis of market
fundamentals (i.e. demand and supply of rare varieties); using Garber’s analogy, the cryptocurrency
market was for Bitcoin (i.e. the first successful entry to the market, and very rare), many common (i.e.
altcoins) cryptocurrencies were at much lower prices, plus many altcoins either had no value or
market fundamentals pushed them out of competition (i.e. they became obsolete and disappeared).
Garber (1989) said that rare
10
tulip bulbs (also called piece goods) always had high prices as these
were traded by “members of the middle classes and capitalized workers”, but they got even higher at
the end of 1636 when a slew of non-professional buyers entered the market; Garber argues that this
along with the college
11
future markets and a change in rules to include the trading of common bulbs
fueled speculation which only lasted a month before collapsing on February 5, 1637 (for the timing
of unfolding events, see Posthumus, 1926, 1929; Doorenbos, 1954; Flood & Garber, 1980). In the case
of Bitcoin, it had practically $0.00 value when it was launched on SourceForge (January 9, 2009) and
its mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto (2008) made the world’s first cryptocurrency transaction
three days later (January 12, 2009) by sending 10 bitcoins to a computer programmer Hal Finney (i.e.
Nakamoto is argued to have mined one million bitcoins before he disappeared from the public eye).
The price of bitcoin was stable until the end of 2010, hovered around $0.01; but the price skyrocketed
(i.e. $31 in June 2011) when the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) along with WikiLeaks decided
to accept bitcoins in January and June 2011 respectively (Taskinsoy, 2018a; 2019k, l, m, p, q, r, s, t, u),
however bitcoin’s first bubble popped when the EFF stopped accepting bitcoins in June citing legal
and lack of regulation concerns; consequently bitcoin price plummeted from peak of $31 to low of $2
during June December 2011. The period of 2012-16 was the age of expansion (see Figure 3).
10
The rare bulbs (piece goods) included; Semper Augustus, Admirael Liefkens, Admirael van der Eyck, and Gouda.
11
Traders met in groups at various places called “colleges”, these were like the roots of modern-day bourse/exchange.
10
Source: Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/
Figure 3: Bitcoin Statistics
11
Despite the bursting of Bitcoin’s first price bubble in 2011, the emergence of other cryptocurrencies
(i.e. altcoins) sprouted like wild mushrooms and the resultant increased amount of publicity
12
(good
or bad) made Bitcoin become a household name by 2016. In the first six years after Bitcoin’s release,
the following events in addition to what has already been mentioned previously had contributed to
its survival and huge success as well as its extreme volatility; the Bitcoin Foundation was established
in September 2012; Bitcoin payment processor Coinbase reached the milestone of selling $1 million
worth of bitcoins in February 2013; by the mid-2013, processing delays caused by BitInstant and Mt.
Gox prompted OkCupid and Foodler to accept bitcoins for payment; with the fast spread of Bitcoin,
some countries (i.e. China) banned Bitcoin from trading or exchanges from operating (Table 4); by
end 2013, Bitstamp became the largest Bitcoin exchange in Europe (see Figure 4); in early February
2014, then the largest Japanese based Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy protection.
Table 4: Adoption Progress of Bitcoin Worldwide
Advocates
Developing
Fence-sitters
Hostile
Banned
United States
Russia
Germany
Brazil
Iceland
Switzerland
Cyprus
Austria
Hungary
China
Singapore
Portugal
Belgium
Latvia
Bangladesh
Canada
Norway
Greece
Turkey
Nigeria
Luxembourg
Poland
Lithuania
Lebanon
Bolivia
Australia
Slovenia
Mexico
Thailand
Venezuela
Japan
Italy
Colombia
Uganda
Ecuador
Denmark
France
Argentina
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Indonesia
Finland
Ireland
Malaysia
Sweden
Laos
Taiwan
Spain
Vietnam
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Israel
Papua New Genie
Ukraine
South Africa
Fiji
Estonia
Czech Republic
India
Kazakhstan
Bhutan
South Korea
Pakistan
Philippines
Iran
Chile
Zimbabwe
Croatia
Kenya
Source of data: https://blogs.thomsonreuters.com/answerson/world-cryptocurrencies-country/
Notes: 1) advocates (governments take steps to legalize, promote, and drive a parity); 2) developing (progress has
been made, but still some barriers exist); 3) fence-sitters (the wait-and-see mode, no actions are taken either to ban
or regulate cryptocurrencies); 4) hostile (many measures are taken to curtail the popularity of cryptocurrencies,
but people are not banned from trading or exchanges from operating); and 5) banned (cryptocurrencies are
outlawed in these countries, people who get caught are subject to fines, sanctions, or prosecution).
12
In January 2012, Bitcoin was featured in the CBS legal drama “The Good Wife” in the third-season episode "Bitcoin for
Dummies". Also in 2014, a documentary film The Rise and Rise of Bitcoinwas released.
12
Source: Adapted from Bitcoinist; https://bitcoinist.com/turkey-cryptocurrency-europe-owners/
Figure 4: Cryptocurrency Owners (%)
Cryptocurrencies are not regulated in Turkey, therefore it is one of the fastest growing markets for
Bitcoin and other popularly traded cryptocurrencies; according to a survey (see Figure 4), out of 100
people surveyed, 18 of them said to own Bitcoin or other digital coins. The Turkish government along
with its Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (abbreviated as BDDK in Turkish) however do
not recognize Bitcoin as well as altcoins as a legal tender similar to fiat currencies. Over the years,
Turkey’s position regarding Bitcoin has improved from “hostile” (i.e. Table 4) to wait-and-see mode;
for this reason, the BDDK has not taken any action to ban or regulate Bitcoin. Nonetheless, the BDDK
has issued press releases on the topic to warn the public on potential risks involving Bitcoin plus over
4,000 altcoins. The law on Payment and Securities Reconciliation Systems, Payment Services, and
Electronic Money Institutions
13
provides legal information concerning matters related to how
cryptocurrencies are used, surveilled, and supervised (e.g. LLC, 2018). Geopolitical tensions coupled
with unfavorable macroeconomic environment put Turkey among the top ten countries
14
with most
Bitcoin holders. In fact, following the speculative attacks on Turkish lira and the ensuing currency
crisis in August 2018, Turks now own twice more bitcoins than the European overall average of 9%
(i.e. about one in five people in Turkey own Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies).
13
Ödeme ve Menkul Kıymet Mutabakat Sistemleri, Ödeme Hizmetleri ve Elektronik Para Kuruluşları Hakkında Kanun
[Law on Payment and Securities Reconciliation Systems, Payment Services, and Electronic Money Institutions] (June 20,
2013), No. 6493, 28690 RESMÎ GAZETE [OFFICIAL GAZETTE] (June 27, 2013),
http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/06/20130627-14.htm (Turkey).
14
The United States (also has 25% of the total number of active nodes), Romania, the Czech Republic, China, Spain, Poland,
Turkey, Japan, Switzerland, and South Korea. https://usethebitcoin.com/10-countries-with-the-most-bitcoin-hodlers/
13
Neither the tulipmania nor the Bitcoin mania was a real mania, but the similarities between the two
events are just strikingly astounding; but what separated Bitcoin mania from tulipmania was that the
tulip speculation (craze, fever, or delusion of crowds) disappeared after the crash in February 1637
while Bitcoin is still going very strong despite more than a dozen of sizable price corrections. Although
Bitcoin passed the $1,000 mark for the first time on 28 November 2013, it achieved the biggest critical
milestones during 2017; for example, on 10 December 2017
15
, Bitcoin futures opened for trading on
the Cboe Futures Exchange (CFE), and a week later on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). Just
like in tulipmania (January - February 1637), inauguration of futures trading in The U.S., innumerable
non-professional traders entering cryptocurrency markets globally (increasing delusion or illusion of
crowds), and overly exaggerated Bitcoin publicity in all media channels available to consumers made
the price of bitcoin skyrocket in just days (peaked at intraday high of $20,089 on December 17, 2017)
before crashing in January 2018 (i.e. by March 2018, bitcoin price plunged below $6,000).
Garber (1989) explains with historical references why he believes the tulipmania was nothing more
than an isolated speculation that did not result in economic distress in Netherlands. If it were in fact
a true mania, economists in that period would have studied its implications on the broader economy;
on the contrary, Netherlands economic performance in the aftermath of the tulip collapse takes very
little notice of its impact (if any). Garber argues that ...the longer-term price rise occurred only in the
rare bulbs, no significant agricultural resources were devoted to expand their cultivation. Garber
admits that the increasing speculation in rare bulbs included the common bulbs only by the end of
1636, but the extraordinary rises in these prices had trivial effect on resource allocation because the
common tulip bulbs were already harvested and were in the ground in September 1636 before surge
in prices of the common bulbs. Garber cited the following studies to prove his point; Rich & Wilson
(1975) did not mention tulipmania in the 17th century Dutch economic history, which was described
as a century of economic growth and financial resilience; Cooper (1759) bothers to mention the event
only in one sentence while Schama (1987) only interprets what was previously written before.
Another great resemblance between the Dutch tulipmania of the 17th century and the Bitcoin mania
of the 21st century is their inconsequential impact on the broader economy. Although the levels of
speculation were significantly more severe in Bitcoin than tulipmania, but their sudden collapse and
the duration it took were almost identical, i.e. extraordinary price rises in each event occurred in the
last month of the year (December 1636 and 2017 respectively) and were followed by unprecedented
price falls in just several days (Taskinsoy, 2018a). In a matter of several days in December 2017, the
15
Of course two decisions in 2016 paved the road for 2017; in March 2016, Japan recognized cryptocurrencies as having a
function similar to real (fiat) money, and in early 2017, Russia announced its plans to legalize the use of cryptocurrencies
such as bitcoin. In some exchanges, trade volumes had increased more than 1,000%.
14
price of bitcoin doubled from $10,000 to intraday high of $20,089 on December 17, 2017; at its peak,
the aggregate cryptocurrency market cap stood at massive $830 billion ($321 billion of that belonged
to Bitcoin alone). By the onset of January with the arrival of the New Year (2020), Bitcoin underwent
the biggest price correction since its inception in January 2009 that triggered a massive sell-off in all
cryptocurrencies. In one year (December 2017-2018), over $700 billion of wealth evaporated, $250
billion of which belonged to Bitcoin investors; interestingly, global investors during the Asian crisis
of 1997-98 lost $700 billion ($30 billion by Americans), and US President Clinton called described the
crisis as a major glitch (e.g. Nanto, 1998). As of 17 December 2019, after a recent price correction
again (i.e. the price of bitcoin was $13,017 on June 27, 2019), the combined cryptocurrency market
cap is $179 billion and Bitcoin’s market cap is $121 billion (67.6% of the market share).
Source: World Bank
Figure 4: United States GDP (2017)
As it was observed during the 17th century Dutch tulipmania, massive losses arose from the Bitcoin
crash (December 2017 January 2018) did not have noticeable impact on the broader US economy
in 2018; conversely, the U.S. GDP expanded in 2018 (2.9%) compared with that of 2017 (2.4%).
3.0 Conclusion
Bitcoin mania (fever) of the 21st century in many aspects formed and collapsed similar to the Dutch
tulipmania of the 17th century. While bubbles can be identified in advance or not is hotly debated in
the literature since the late 1990s, there is a consensus among mainstream economists that economic
and financial bubbles are not beneficial; as observed repeatedly during the Asian crisis of 1997-98,
the dot.com crisis of 2001-02, and the global financial crisis of 2008; the bursting of the bubble and
15
the ensuing crash (i.e. possibly a recession, crisis, or depression in the aftermath) devastated the U.S.
economy and the world. Because the recurrence of the high-magnitude boom-bust cycles in the new
millennium, investors worldwide have lost over $30 trillion, and as a result of this mindboggling
impact, about 1% of the world population (as many as 70 million people) was pushed into poverty.
As Garber (1989) explained in detail with historical references that the tulipmania hardly had any
direct impact on Netherlands economy in the 17th century, we believe that both tulip and Bitcoin
manias had indirect impact on investing and spending behaviors (habits) because people (investors)
during periods of bubbles are ushered spending more and taking greater risks (in economics, this is
explained by the wealth effect). The contemporaneous crises since the late 1990s are a constant
reminder of this effect; during the property and housing booms in East Asia & Pacific and many
advanced nations including the United States, those people who felt richer on paper tended to spend
more (they went into unstoppable spending extravaganza); but when the music stops (i.e. bursting of
the bubble), same spenders in boom come to full stop in spending (i.e. severe contraction), hindering
economic growth which may lead to a recession, crisis, or depression.
This paper investigated the nature of the markets during both the tulipmania and Bitcoin mania; for
the former event, our conclusion is consistent with Garber (1989) study that there was no sufficient
evidence to suggest that the tulip bulb speculation during 1634-37 was a mania (or madness). We
agree with Garber that a brief bubble was created in the end of 1636 underpinned by increased level
of speculation with the common tulip bulbs entering the market in November 1636. We also drive to
the same conclusion in the case of Bitcoin mania which occurred almost identical as the tulipmania
(i.e. influx of altcoins into the market instigated further speculation which resulted in extraordinary
rises in prices of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies). But almost four centuries later, the tulipmania
was resurrected as Bitcoin mania in the 21st century; only time will witness if Bitcoin will continue
its dominance or disappear like the highly fashionable rare tulip bulbs of the 17th century.
16
References
Abreu, D. & Brunnermeier, M. K. (2003). Bubbles and Crashes. Econometrica, 71(1), 173204.
Acheson, G. G, Hickson, C. R., Turner, J. D. & Ye, Q. (2009). Rule Britannia! British Stock Market Returns,
18251870. J. Economic History, vol. 69, no. 4, December, pp. 11071137.
Allen, F. & Gale, D. (1998). Optimal Financial Crises. Journal of Finance, 53(4), 12451284.
Allen, F. & Gale, D. (2000). Bubbles and Crises. The Economic Journal, 110(460), 236255.
Allen, F. & Gale, D. (2007). Understanding Financial Crises. Clarendon Lectures in Finance. Oxford
University Press.
Azariadis, C. & Guesnerie, R. (1986). Sunspots and Cycles. Rev. Econ. Studies 53 (October): 725-37.
Baek, C., & Elbeck, M. (2015). Bitcoins as an Investment or Speculative Vehicle? A First Look. Applied
Economics Letters, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 3034.
Bartos, J. (2015). Does Bitcoin Follow the Hypothesis of Efficient Market? International Journal of
Economic Sciences 4: 10-23.
Blanchard, O. J. & Watson, M. W. (1982). Bubbles, Rational Expectations and Financial Markets. In
Crises in the Economic and Financial Structure: Bubbles, Bursts, and Shocks, ed. by P. Wachtel.
D.C. Heath & Company.
Blundell-Wignall, A. (2014). The Bitcoin Question: Currency versus Trust-Less Transfer Technology.
OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions, (37), 1.
Bouoiyour, J., & Selmi, R. (2016). Bitcoin: A Beginning of a New Phase? Economics Bulletin, 36, 1430
40.
Brunnermeier, M. K. (2001). Asset Pricing Under Asymmetric Information: Bubbles, Crashes.
Technical Analysis, and Herding. Oxford University Press.
Brunnermeier, M. K. (2008). Bubbles. In Palgrave Macmillan, eds. The New Palgrave Dictionary of
Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Bryer, R. A. (1991). Accounting for the Railway Mania’ of 1845: A Great Railway Swindle? Accounting,
Organizations and Society, vol. 16, no. 5/6, pp. 439486.
Calvo, G. & Mendoza, E. (1997). Rational Herd Behavior and the Globalization of Securities Markets.
Mimeo, University of Maryland.
Caamerer, C. (1987). Bubbles and Fads in Asset Prices: A Review of Theory and Evidence. Manuscript.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, April.
Cermak, V. (2017). Can Bitcoin Become a Viable Alternative to Fiat Currencies? An Empirical Analysis
of Bitcoin’s Volatility Based on a GARCH Model. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Ciaian, P., Rajcaniova, M. & Kancs, D. (2016). The Digital Agenda of Virtual Currencies: Can Bitcoin
Become A Global Currency? Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol.
14(4), pp. 883-919, November.
Chiu, J. & Koeppl, T. (2017). The Economics of Cryptocurrencies—Bitcoin and Beyond. Queen’s
Economics Department Working Paper 1389.
Cooper, J. P. (1759). New Cambridge Modern History. Vol. 4. The Decline of Spain and the Thirty Years
War, 1609-48159. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970. d'Ardene, Jean-Paul. Traite des
tulipes. Avignon: Chambeati.
17
Dash, M. (1999). Tulipomania. Random House: New York.
David, Y. (2014). Is Bitcoin a Real Currency? An Economic Appraisal. New York University Stern
School of Business and National Bureau of Economic Research.
Doorenbos, J. (1954). Notes on the History of' Bulb Breeding in the Netherlands. Euphytica 3
(February 1954): 1 -11.
Dreman, D. N. (1977). Psychology and the Stock Market. Investment Strategy beyond Random Walk.
New York: AMACOM.
Dyos, H. J. & Aldcroft, D. H. (1969). British Transport. Leicester University Press.
Ellis, H. (1954). British Railway History: An Outline from the Accession of William IV to the
Nationalization of Railways, 2 vols., George Allen and Unwin.
Evans, G. (1991). Pitfalls in Testing for Explosive Bubbles in Asset Prices. American Economic Review,
81(4), 922-30.
Flood, R. P. & Garber, P. M. (1980). Market Fundamentals versus Price-Level Bubbles: The First Tests.
J.P.E. 88 (August 1980): 745-70.
Garber, P. M. (1989). Tulipmania. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Jun., 1989), pp. 535-
560. The University of Chicago Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1830454.
Garber, P. M. (1990). Famous First Bubbles. Journal of Economic Perspectives 4(2): 35-54.
Garber, P. M. (2000). Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias, Cambridge: MIT
Press, ISBN 0-262-07204-1.
Gayer, A. D., Rostow, W.W. & Schwartz, A.J. (1953). The Growth and Fluctuations of the British
Economy, 17901850: An Historical, Statistical, and Theoretical Study of Britain’s Economic
Development, 2 vols., Oxford Univ. Press.
Glynn, J. J. (1994). The Development of British Railway Accounting: 18001911. pp. 327342 in R. H.
Parker and B. S. Yamey, eds., Accounting History: Some British Contributions, Oxford Univ.
Press.
Harding, W. (1848). Facts Bearing on the Progress of the Railway System. J. Statistical Society of
London, vol. 11, no. 4, Nov., pp. 322343.
Kindleberger, C. P. [1978, 1989, 1996). Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crisis. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Kindleberger, C. P. & Aliber, R. (2005). Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises (5th
ed.), Hoboken: Wiley, ISBN 0-471-46714-6.
King, R. R., Smith, V. L., Williams, A. W. & van Boening, M. V. (1993). The Robustness of Bubbles and
Crashes in Experimental Stock Markets. In Day, R. H.; Chen, P. (eds.). Nonlinear Dynamics and
Evolutionary Economics. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-507859-6.
Kristoufek, L. (2015). What Are the Main Drivers of the Bitcoin Price? Evidence from Wavelet
Coherence Analysis. PLOS ONE, 10(4).
Lambertini, L., Mendicino, C. & Punzi, M. (2010). Expectation-Driven Cycles in the Housing Market.
Center for Fiscal Policies Working Paper, no 01.
LLC (The Law Library of Congress) (2018). Regulation of Bitcoin in Selected Jurisdictions. The Law
Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center, law@loc.gov, http://www.law.gov.
18
Mackay, C. (1841). Memoirs of Popular Delusions and the Crowd Psychology, Economic Bubbles,
History. Richard Bentley, London.
Mackay, C. (1852). Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. 2d ed. 2
vols. London: Office Nat. Illustrated Library.
Malkiel, B. G. (2007). A Random Walk Down Wall Street (9th ed.), New York: W. W. Norton, ISBN 0-
393-06245-7.
Menschel, R. (2002). Markets, Mobs & Mayhem. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ.
Minsky, H. (1992). The Financial Instability Hypothesis. The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard
College; Working Paper No. 74 (May).
Mitchell, B. R. (1975). European Historical Statistics 1750-1970. London University Press, 581-584.
Nanto, D. K. (1998). The 1997-98 Asian Financial Crisis. CRS Report for Congress, February 6.
Phillips, R. C, & Gorse, D. (2017). Predicting Cryptocurrency Price Bubbles Using Social Media Data
and Epidemic Modelling. IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence.
Posthumus, N. W. (1926). Die Speculatie in Tulpen in de Jaren 1636 en 1637. Parts 1-3. Economisch-
historiscjha arboek 12 (1926): 3-19; 13 (1927): 1-85; 18 (1934): 229-40.
Posthumus, N. W. (1929). The Tulip Mania in Holland in the Years 1636 and 1637. J. Econ. and Bus.
Hist. 1 (May 1929): 434-55.
Reinhart, C. M. & Rogoff, K. S. (2009). Banking crises: An equal opportunity menace. NBER Working
Paper No. 14587.
Rich, E. E. & Wilson, C. H. (1975). The Cambridge Economic History of Europe. Vol. 4. The Economy of
Expanding Europe in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Vol. 5. The Economic
Organization of Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1975, 1977.
Samuelson, P. A (1957). Intertemporal Price Equilibrium: A Prologue to the Theory of Speculation.
Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 79, no. 2 (1957): 181- 219.
Schama, S. (1987). The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden
Age. New York: Knopf, 1987.
Shell, K. & Stiglitz, J. E. (1967). The Allocation of Investment in a Dynamic Economy. Q.J.E. 81
(November 1967): 592-609.
Shiller, R. J. (1987). Fashions, Fads and Bubbles in Financial Markets. In Knights, Raiders and Targets:
The Impact of Hostile Takeover, edited by Jack Coffee. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Shiller, R. J. (2005). Irrational Exuberance (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-
691-12335-7.
Shiller, R. J. & Pound, J. (1986). Survey Evidence on Diffusion of Interest among Institutional Investors.
Discussion Paper no. 794. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ., Cowles Found., May.
Smith, A. (1848). The Bubble of the Age; Or, the Fallacies of Railway Investment, Railway Accounts,
and Railway Dividends, 3 editions, Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper.
Taskinsoy, J. (2007). World Waters, Effects of Global Warming on Water. Istanbul Aydin University,
ABMYO Journal 2 (8), pp. 107-120, October (ISSN 1306-3375).
Taskinsoy, J. (2008a). Productivity. Istanbul Aydın University ABMYO Journal, Vol. 3(9), pp. 11-24,
January, ISSN 1306-3375.
19
Taskinsoy, J. (2008b). Water Management and Privatization. Istanbul Aydin University, ABMYO
Journal, 3 (10), pp. 19-34, April (ISSN 1306-3375).
Taskinsoy, J. (2008c). The Effects of Higher Education on Wages: Evidence from Turkey. Istanbul
Aydin University, ABMYO Journal, Vol. 3(12), pp. 91-107, October, ISSN 1306-3375.
Taskinsoy, J. (2012a). Relevancy of Corporate Financial Policies and the Profit Maximization View of
Islamic Banks. Journal of Social and Development Sciences, Vol. 3(6), pp. 184-193, June, ISSN
2221-1152.
Taskinsoy, J. (2012b). The Investment Rate of Return (IRR) to Tertiary Education in Turkey. Journal
of Education and Vocational Research, Vol. 3(5), pp. 154-164, May, ISSN 2221-2590.
Taskinsoy, J. (2012c). The Return of Investment on Tertiary Education in Malaysia. Journal of
Education and Vocational Research, Vol. 3(6), pp. 183-192, ISSN 2221-2590.
Taskinsoy, J. (2013a). Rigorous Capital Requirements under Basel III: Possible impact on Turkey’s
financial sector. Journal of WEI Business and Economics, Vol. 2(1), pp. 1-30, April.
Taskinsoy, J. (2013b). Basel III: Road to Resilient Banking, Impact on Turkey's Financial Sector. LAP
LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 237 pages, ISBN 13: 978-3-659-30696-9.
Taskinsoy, J. (2013c). Economic & Ecological Implications of Hydraulic Fracturing. West East Journal
of Social Sciences, Vol. 2(1), pp. 11-39, April.
Taskinsoy, J. (2018a). Bitcoin Mania: An End to the US Dollar’s Hegemony or another
Cryptocurrency Experiment Destined to Fail? (December 1, 2018). Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3311989 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3311989.
Taskinsoy, J. (2018b). Effects of Basel III Higher Capital and Liquidity Requirements on Banking
Sectors across the Main South East Asian Nations. International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research (IJSER), Vol. 9(4), pp. 214-37, April, ISSN 2229-5518.
Taskinsoy, J. (2018c). The Cost Impact of Basel III across ASEAN-5: Macro Stress Testing of Malaysia’s
Banking Sector. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 369 pages, ISBN-13 978-613-9-90012-1.
Taskinsoy, J. (2018d). A Macro Stress Testing Framework for Assessing Financial Stability: Evidence
from Malaysia. Journal of Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies (JAFAS), Vol. 4(3), July, ISSN
2149-0996
Taskinsoy, J. (2019a). Ever More Financial Instability notwithstanding the Basel Standards and the
IMF’s Financial Sector Assessment Program (February 4, 2019). Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3328473 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3328473.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019b). Turkish Lira A Fiat Currency that Resembles the Volatility of
Cryptocurrencies: The Effects of Exchange Rate Volatility on Turkish Economy (February 15,
2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3335545 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3335545.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019c). The Transition from Barter Trade to Impediments of the Dollar System: One
Nation, One Currency, One Monopoly (March 6, 2019). Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3348119 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3348119
Taskinsoy, J. (2019d). Stress Testing Made Easy: No More US Banks Stumbling and Facing Public
Embarrassment Due to the Federal Reserve’s Qualitative Objection (March 17, 2019). Available
at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3354018 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3354018.
20
Taskinsoy, J. (2019e). Typology of Stress Testing: Microprudential vs. Macroprudential Stress Testing
of Risk Exposures (March 28, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3361528 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3361528.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019f). Pure Gold for Economic Freedom: A Supranational Medium of Exchange to
End American Monetary Hegemony as the World’s Main Reserve Currency (April 25, 2019).
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3377904 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3377904.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019g). Asian Miracle, Asian Tiger, or Asian Myth? Financial Sector and Risk
Assessment through FSAP Experience: Enhancing Bank Supervision in Thailand (May 9,
2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3385337 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3385337.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019h). Higher Capital and Liquidity Regulations of Basel Standards Have Made Banks
and Banking Systems Become More Prone to Financial and Economic Crises (June 9, 2019).
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3401378 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3401378.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019i). A Delicate Moment in Turkey’s Economic Transition: Can Turkey Survive
Mounting Economic Problems without the IMF’s Bailout Package? (June 22, 2019). Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3408520 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3408520.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019j). We Need No Dime from the IMF: Is This a Temporary Illusion or Can the
Turkish Economy Recover from the Current Recession without the IMF Loans? (July 9, 2019).
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3417431 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3417431.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019k). Facebook’s Project Libra: Will Libra Sputter Out or Spur Central Banks to
Introduce Their Own Unique Cryptocurrency Projects? (July 20, 2019). Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3423453 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3423453.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019l). Is Facebook’s Libra Project Already a Miscarriage? (August 15, 2019). Available
at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3437857 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3437857.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019m). Facebook’s Libra: Big Bang or Big Crunch? A Technical Perspective and
Challenges for Cryptocurrencies (August 29, 2019). Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3445150 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3445150.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019n). Turkey’s Unravelling Economy Resembles the Ottoman Empire’s Financial
Collapse (September 29, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3461216 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019o). A Hiccup in Turkey’s Prolonged Credit Fueled Economic Transition: A
Comparative Analysis of Before and After the August Rout. Journal of Accounting, Finance and
Auditing Studies (JAFAS), Vol. 5(4), October, ISSN 2149-0996. Doi: 10.32602/jafas.2019.37.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019p). This Time Is Different: Facebook’s Libra Can Improve Both Financial Inclusion
and Global Financial Stability as a Viable Alternative Currency to the U.S. Dollar. Journal of
Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies (JAFAS), Vol. 5(4), October, ISSN 2149-0996. Doi:
10.32602/jafas.2019.38.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019q). Blockchain: A Misunderstood Digital Revolution. Things You Need to Know
about Blockchain (October 8, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3466480
or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3466480.
21
Taskinsoy, J. (2019r). Blockchain: Moving Beyond Bitcoin into a Digitalized World (October 17,
2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3471413 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3471413.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019s). Blockchain: An Unorthodox Solution to Reduce Global Warming (October 24,
2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3475144 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3475144.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019t). Bitcoin and Turkey: A Good Match or a Perfect Storm? (October 30, 2019).
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3477849.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019u). Facebook’s Libra: Why Does US Government Fear Price Stable
Cryptocurrency? (November 7, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3482441
or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3482441.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019v). Global Cooling Through Blockchain to Avoid Catastrophic Climate Changes by
2050 (November 29, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3495674.
Taskinsoy, J. (2019w). The Global Competitiveness Index: A Comparative Analysis between Turkey
and G8 Nations (December 8, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3500542.
Wallace, B. (2011). The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin. Wired, November 23.
West, K. D. (1984). Speculative Bubbles and Stock Price Volatility. Financial Research Memorandum
no. 54. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ., December.
... While previous comparisons have been made between Bitcoin and historical bubbles like the tulip mania, this study takes a different approach. Buterin et al. (2020) suggest conceptual similarities between Bitcoin and the tulip bubble, while Taskinsoy (2019) highlights the role of new products in driving both bubbles. Leath (2019) compares Bitcoin's volatility and psychological factors with historical bubbles, albeit with a simpler methodology than ours. ...
... For all these reasons, and with the results obtained, we can conclude that the periods in which Bitcoin has behaved as a bubble bear a strong relationship and similarity with two historical bubbles: the Mississippi bubble and the tulip bubble. These results are aligned with those obtained in other previous studies such as Taskinsoy (2019) or Ha and Lee (2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
A number of financial bubbles have occurred throughout history. The objective of this study was to identify the main similarities between Bitcoin price behavior during bubble periods and a number of historical bubbles. Once this had been carried out, we aimed to determine whether the solutions adopted in the past would be effective in the present to reduce investors’ risk in this digital asset. This study brings a new approach, as studies have previously been conducted analyzing the similarity of Bitcoin bubbles to other bubbles individually, but these were not conducted in such a broad manner, addressing different types of bubbles, and over such a broad time period. Starting from a dataset with 9967 records, a combined methodology was used. This consisted of an analysis of the standard deviations, the growth rates of the prices of the assets involved, the percentage increase in asset prices from the origin of the bubble to its peak and its fundamental value, and, finally, the bubble index. Lastly, correlation statistical analysis was performed. The results obtained from the combination of the above methods reveal the existence of certain similarities between the Bitcoin bubbles (2011, 2013, 2017, and 2021) and the tulip bubble (1634–1637) and the Mississippi bubble (1719–1720). We find that the vast majority of the measures taken to avoid past bubbles will not be effective now; this is due to the digital and decentralized nature of Bitcoin. A limitation of the study is the difficulty in making a comparison between bubbles that occurred at different historical points in time. However, the results obtained shed light and provide guidance on the actions to be taken by regulators to ensure the protection of investors in this digital asset.
... Some research (Hendrickson et al., 2016;Li et al., 2020) has predicted the price of cryptocurrency regardless of many variables such as the dollar price, government support rates, and network security rates. Also, in other studies (Taskinsoy, 2019;Zhu et al., 2017;Huynh, 2021) the effect of one or more variables on the price of the cryptocurrency has been investigated. However, making accurate predictions in a complex and rapid analytical framework is still certainly a challenging issue. ...
... Its price is based on emotions, and market excitement is changing. In this study, we tried to influence the factors expressed in some studies (Zhu et al., 2017;Taskinsoy, 2019;Li et al., 2020;Bariviera, 2017) as well as other factors affecting the price of Bitcoin and its behavior in the future according to the reference modes. The validity of this paper has been obtained to simulate and analyze their behavior in the long run and compare the simulated behavior with the real patterns. ...
Article
Full-text available
Numerous variables are involved in determining the market capitalization and price of cryptocurrencies. So, It is impossible to ignore the feedback of each variable on the other ones. Also, Bitcoin management is challenging due to inter-dependencies and feedback between economic and social drivers. To better understand the dynamics that different variables have on Bitcoin, a system dynamics approach has been developed to investigate the complex interactions between factors related to Bitcoin and paper money and how these factors may affect the stability of Bitcoin. This paper aims to examine the impact of government support for Bitcoin in the future, news and sentiments effect on Bitcoin market price, and the future orientation of Bitcoin. For this purpose, a simulation period is considered from 2017 to 4500 days later. Moreover, In this study, policies have been designed to check the impact of policies on variables in the long term by keeping other variables constant. The results show that if governments support Bitcoin as an official trading currency in the future, the market price of Bitcoin and its trading volume will grow upward and fluctuate so that its market price will go up to about 90 thousand dollars.
... Tulips are a non-essential commodity whose use during the tulip mania was limited to that of a speculative asset and a medium of exchange for consumer products, land, and other luxury items (Taskinsoy, 2019). On the other hand, Bitcoin has established itself as a multi-use tool that falls into various asset classes and offers real-use opportunities, giving it a significant future and threatening to supplant some traditional assets while complementing others. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study examined the literature longitudinally to determine if the correlation between Bitcoin and tulip hysteria is valid. The study's findings indicate that Bitcoin has gradually separated itself from the tulip frenzy. As an electronic payment system and investment instrument, it has integrated itself into the modern financial system, unlike the tulip mania, a strictly speculative bubble with limited utility. Bitcoin's price may resemble the tulip hysteria and other bubbles, but its exploratory price pattern is characteristic of disruptive technologies.
Article
Full-text available
Since ancient times, various psychological techniques such as fear and terror have been deliberately used by entities as non-combat weapons to bring about the enemy’s defeat. An effective use of fear as a weapon can sometimes achieve more than an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. media covers fear stories of some dictators around the world, and the United States government depicts them as evils and injects fear in politics just to gain domestic support prior to embarking on unilateral or multilateral war affairs, i.e. entered WWII by spreading fear of domination or extinction by Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler and Imperial Japan; designed a new post-war dollar-centric monetary order in American view and got the allies to accept it through the fear of greater global instability; created watchdogs such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, and the United Nation to maintain exorbitant privilege and dollar’s hegemony; created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to contain the Soviet influence/spread of communism, which commenced the Cold War era that triggered a race in many fronts (i.e. nuclear arms, space, global dominance, etc.) between two superpowers in a bipolar world; waged war against Iraq (Persian Gulf War in 1991 and Iraq War in 2003) to free the country and the world from Saddam Hussein who the U.S. accused for having/developing weapons of mass destruction (which was proved to be a lie); following the September 11 attacks plotted by the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, launched an invasion of Afghanistan (war on terror) to topple the Taliban and to capture Osama bin Laden; the U.S. intervened in the Syrian Civil War since 2011 aimed at fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. To serve American imperialism and to main the dollar’s hegemony, There seems to be no ending to the United States’ military interventions, proxy wars, and the abuse of sanction power and the use of weaponized dollar as a foreign and security policy. The Cold War may have been successful as a strategy to contain the Soviet influence and its spread of communism, but the United States seems to have no meaningful strategy to contain the fast rise of China which soon may become as the third pole with its unique sphere of influence. A return to the gold standard could be the answer the U.S. is looking to containing China’s economic and military progress.
Article
The price increase in the cryptocurrency market over the past 1 year has resulted in a further increase in the interest of ordinary citizens and amateur investors in digital assets. At the same time, the increase in prices has motivated people to invest in cryptocurrencies. At the moment, the main questions that interest investors are: how are the commissions charged during the purchase and cashing of cryptocurrencies and in what form is tax paid on cryptocurrency income. Considering these factors, the information contained in this article about the commissions charged during cryptocurrency trading and the mechanism of taxation of cryptocurrency income is quite relevant.
Article
Full-text available
Although anthropologists along with historians and academic circles point to no ethnographic evidence to confirm or deny the existence of barter among the prehistoric people in the new Stone Age (the Neolithic epoch during 9000-6000 BC.), the 18th-century Scottish philosopher Adam Smith believed that barter existed, but it was "primitive" and the inefficiency of barter was a precursor to the emergence of money, economy, and economics. Adam Smith was wrong about two things; one was his description of barter and another was the evolution of money and societies, neither of which had moved on a straight line; throughout history, barter trade has coexisted alongside monetary-based economies and it is still with us in the 21st century, but this time around bartering is more efficient thanks to an exponential growth in e-commerce. The contemporaneous crises throughout the 1990s and in the first decade of the millennium have played a role in the extraordinary rise of barter, offsets and non-monetary transactions (NMTs). A series of macroeconomic since the onset of the new millennium has renewed interest in barter trade, which has gained momentum following the September 11 attacks (2001), the burst of the dot.com bubble (2001-02), the Afghanistan War (2001-21), the mortgage (sub-prime) debacle (2006) and the ensuing global financial crisis (2007-08), the sovereign debt crisis (2009-12), the US-China trade war (2018-20), and the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic (2019-22). The US-origin systemic crises in this millennium have cost the world's economies trillions of dollars, yet the United States still continues to intensify sanctions against Russia, China, and Iran. Just to maintain the dollar's "exorbitant privilege", the U.S. has increasingly used threats (political bullying), weaponized the dollar, and abused sanction power as a foreign and security policy. These unorthodox events and policies have renewed interest in barter among poor and developing countries that are; 1) highly indebted with insufficient net foreign reserves; 2) imposed sanctions by the U.S. and the EU; 3) attempting to avoid using dollars in local, regional and international trade; and 4) interested in reducing current account deficit.
Article
Full-text available
Turks have been around for several millennia; lived freely as nomadic Turkic tribes, established great empires, but now continues its humble existence as the Republic of Turkey that Atatürk created a century ago from the ashes of the abolished Ottoman Empire. Same as its ancestors, Turkey has often been categorized as a “military nation,” this ratifies the old Turkish idiom “every Turk is born a soldier”. Militarism was at the epicenter of the last Turkish Empire, which (an Ottoman legacy) was inherited when Mustafa Kemal announced the proclamation of the Republic of Turkey on 29 October 1923. A universally accepted full-fledged democracy has been arcane to Turks who had transitioned from a nomadic life in Central Asia to sultanship (1299-1922), to a prototype-democracy (1923-1938), from that to a hybrid-democracy (military tutelage 1938-1997), and now to a 21st-century monarchy with no separation of power between the presidency, the parliament, and the judiciary (autocracy 2003-2023). Recurring military interventions (coup d'états – an Ottoman legacy) almost once every decade (1960, 1971, 1980, 1997, 2007) has earned Turkey the term “coup nation”; naturally, all Islamist-based political parties and their anti-secular ideologies were intimidated by the military’s tutelage. Even early in his political career, Erdoğan knew very clearly that his political career as well as survival (and the longevity) of the AKP government has involved getting a tight grip on the Turkish military, which has never been done since the first coup d'état of 1960. The Justice and Development Party in the leadership of Erdoğan came to power in 2002 following the disastrous Marmara earthquakes of 1999 and the unprecedented economic crisis of 2001; excluding a short period of progress, Erdoğan’s quixotic foreign and monetary policies have been detrimental to the economy and democratic norms. The AKP government (President Erdoğan in particular) has no respect for democracy and is certainly not interested in transparency; just as a king (a sultan) would do under a monarchy, Erdoğan answers to no one while using the public’s money and government resources to extend his power, silence the dissent and control key government branches. It is striking to see that President Erdoğan, who has always denounced military coups as undemocratic, plotted his own version of coups on presidency (on-man show), the parliament (became symbolic), judiciary (its independence compromised), the military (bent to the president’s will), central bank (stripped off its independence), and media (outlets were either shut down or taken over). As the severe Marmara earthquakes and the ensuing economic crisis gave birth to the AKP; similarly, economic meltdown and the massive Turkey earthquakes on 6 February 2023 will lead to the AKP’s demise; of course, hyperinflation, the fastest rise in cost of living, amplified authoritarianism, democratic backsliding, political polarization, irregularities in the rule of law, and ever more erosion in human rights and fundamental freedoms will contribute to its defeat.
Article
Full-text available
The global economy changed dramatically ever since the US dollar ascended to the top position in the early 1940s as the world's main reserve currency. As observed from recent events, the United States is both willing and very capable of taking unimaginable measures to defend American imperialism (primacy) and the dollar monetary hegemony at all costs. Today, there are too many problems in the world, i.e. hunger, war games, poverty, injustice, forced migration (displacement of people), economic and financial hardship, global warming and resultant climate changes; and directly or indirectly, the dollar hegemony and what the United States does to maintain it (i.e. weaponization of the dollar and the abuse of sanction power as a foreign and security policy) has contributed to the abovementioned problems, sometimes as an originator (initiator) and other times as a supporter or intensifier. The proxy wars during the Cold War to curb the Soviet influence, the US military interventions since the 1960s, the Fed-induced systemic crises in the new millennium (dollar glut through quantitative easing or contraction through tight-money policies), COVID-19 health crisis (the novel coronavirus), and repeated U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Turkey, and others have had the implicit goal of serving the interest of the hegemon (i.e. American imperialism and the dollar's hegemony). In the pre-democracy world, to show their loyalty people living in monarchies chanted "long live the king!" as they saluted the monarch (the existing or the new). Now the U.S. government (and the Fed) is chanting "long live the dollar!", but the voices of its biggest supporters (like-minded allies) are more tranquil now than traditionally observed.
Article
Full-text available
In the pre-democracy world, people living in monarchies chanted "long live the king!" as they saluted the monarch (the existing or the new). Now the U.S. government is chanting "long live the dollar!" but the voices of its biggest supporters like-minded allies are more tranquil than traditionally observed. Former president Trump's "America First" agenda underpinned by frequent policy shifts and threats (political bullying) to withdraw from multilateral international treaties has even angered longtime allies and led to a surge in global financial instability. in recent years, the U.S. government's abuse of sanction power, weaponization of the dollar as a foreign and security policy, military interventions (aggressor) have prompted a renewed interest in search for a viable alternative to the dollar, whose dilemma (i.e. inflationary "exorbitant privilege") has made the global financial system more unstable than ever before. As observed from recent events, the United States is both willing and very capable of taking unimaginable measures to defend American imperialism (primacy) and the dollar monetary hegemony at all costs. A similar message was also tweeted by former president Trump, "We have only one real currency in the USA, and it is stronger than ever, both dependable and reliable. It is by far the most dominant currency anywhere in the world, and it will always stay that way. It is called the United States Dollar!" The US elections and the victor Trump administration in December 2016 marked the beginning of a new world order (more barbaric) with deliberate and specific actions to slow down or stop China's accelerated progress economically and militarily. However, economists, historians, and scholars strongly warn that the grand strategy of the United States could be self-defeating due to its deeper engagement in the Russo-Ukraine War. This paper's main conclusion is that the current dollar-dominated global financial system must be reformed immediately to avoid the deadliest viruses and the severest economic and financial crises in the future; in line, supranational currency-possible trinity is the only path to world peace and sustainable global financial stability.
Article
Full-text available
A mysterious creator under the alias Satoshi Nakamoto (a pseudonym) launched the world’s first successful cryptocurrency in early January 2009 which, not only was a historic moment, but was one that cultivated a technology revolution and money’s evolution into a digital form. However, technical issues (inherent flaws) in the design of Bitcoin blockchain, non-technical issues (political backlash, regulatory hurdle, and environmental hazard), plus the opaqueness surrounding the launch of Bitcoin have opened the door for an endless debate, incessant criticism, spurious claims, heated arguments, plethora of articles, and media frenzy contemplating what Bitcoin really is (crypto-asset, commodity, or investment vehicle) or it is not (currency). On the technical side, blockchain that made Bitcoin a household name fails miserably; high latency (8 minutes or more), low transaction throughput (7 per second), low-scalability (mining, proof-of-work based validation using consensus and cryptography), and high energy cost make Bitcoin unfit to compete with new and fast-scalable cryptocurrencies such as Solana’s transaction speed (50,000 per second) or XML’s 0.00001feepertransaction.Althoughtechnicalproblemsarenotwithoutasolution,nontechnicalissuesarenoteasytoresolvebecausetheirresolutiondependsonpoliticians,lawmakers,regulators,andvariousgovernmentagencies(centralbanks,theFedandtheECBinparticular)whochoosetorunheadlongintobacklashtoBitcoinandothercryptocurrencies.OnTuesday(October8,2022),pricesofcryptocurrenciestanked,citingtheindustryshakingcollapseofFTX(secondlargestafterBinance),someevendubbedtheeventasCryptosLehmanmoment.ButerraticpricemovementsisnotsomethingnewinthecryptoindustrywhichhasbeenonarollercoastersinceDecemberof2021,i.e.afterBitcoinpricehitalmost0.00001 fee per transaction. Although technical problems are not without a solution, non-technical issues are not easy to resolve because their resolution depends on politicians, law makers, regulators, and various government agencies (central banks, the Fed and the ECB in particular) who choose to run headlong into backlash to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. On Tuesday (October 8, 2022), prices of cryptocurrencies tanked, citing the industry-shaking collapse of FTX (second largest after Binance), some even dubbed the event as “Crypto’s Lehman moment”. But erratic price movements is not something new in the crypto industry which has been on a roller-coaster since December of 2021, i.e. after Bitcoin price hit almost 68,000 and its market cap 1.24trillion,jitteryinvestorsinahurrybegantocashouttheirheftygains.TheinabilityofFTXsCEOSamBankmanFriedtohandlehisplantosellhiscompany(whichwasregardedasoneofcryptosbluechipcompanies)totherivalcryptoexchangeBinancesetoffawidespreadsellingpanic,asaresult,cryptocurrencymarketshedamindboggling1.24 trillion, jittery investors in a hurry began to cash out their hefty gains. The inability of FTX’s CEO Sam Bankman-Fried to handle his plan to sell his company (which was regarded as one of crypto’s “blue chip” companies) to the rival crypto exchange Binance set off a widespread selling panic, as a result, cryptocurrency market shed a mindboggling 236.7 billion ($81 billion by Bitcoin) in just two days (Tuesday and Wednesday), which by any standard was insanely bonkers.
Article
Full-text available
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (i.e. Basel I, II & III), the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (i.e. Financial Sector Assessment Program), the World Trade Organization, the Bank for International Settlements, the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the European Banking Authority (EBA), Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS), the Financial Services Authority of the UK, the Bank of Japan, the supervisory community and regulators (i.e. domestic and international), practitioners, and bank executives gravely failed to strengthen the global financial stability. On the contrary, financial authorities in many of the advance nations (particularly, the Fed’s expansive policies and the ECB’s reluctance to admit its blindness to the severity of risks that caused near global financial meltdown in 2008) have directly or indirectly contributed to global financial instability. The Global Competitive Index through its twelve pillars is a more complete measurement of financial stability in each country and globally. Analyses throughout this study compared Turkey’s competitiveness rankings with those of the G8 countries. The results show that Turkey’s mean overall ranking is significantly higher than that of Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK; the difference in means was statistically significant. However, even though Turkey’s mean overall ranking was slightly higher than that of Italy, and lower than that of the Russian Federation, nevertheless the difference in means was not statistically significant.
Article
Full-text available
Innumerable factors contributing to global warming is nothing of new, but increased human-induced greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of vast amounts of fossil fuels have pushed the Earth's natural systems (balanced carbon cycle) out of balance causing extreme climate changes in the new millennium. Since 1900, the global mean surface temperature has warmed up approximately +1.0 °C (1.8 °F) above the pre-industrial temperature, nearly half of which has occurred over the past three decades. If no actions are taken immediately in the next decade (by 2030), the global warming may accelerate to the critical +1.5 °C (2.8 °F) by 2050; at that time, extreme weather events may lead to irreversible disruptions to the economy, human health, and the ecosystems. Despite the fact that blockchain became a household name with the launch of Bitcoin in January 2009, its immense unique opportunities are well beyond Bitcoin and altcoins. Blockchain can contribute positively to the efforts of reducing human-induced greenhouse gas emissions therefore global warming by removing trusted third parties (distributed ledger technology), enabling purely peer-to-peer transactions, bringing network participants to transact and interact with each other on the same platform, creating crowd sourced funding, making governance transparent, increasing accessibility to data, making traceability easier, decentralizing the internet, automating various systems remotely located, increasing financial inclusion, finally making identity and private data management highly secure.
Article
Full-text available
US President Donald J. Trump says he is not "a fan of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies", and he does not have to be, but using this premature reason (like a bully) to rage a war against Bitcoin and Libra is ludicrous. Will Trump (or the United States government) try to destroy everything that he dislikes or is not a fan of? Satoshi Nakamoto (pseudonym) designed Bitcoin as public good in mind, but the US dollar serves totally the opposite as it has been increasingly used as a weapon of mass economic destruction. The real issue is, President Trump feels agitated and concerned because Bitcoin and Libra create an undesired situation of diminishing US power. The anonymity aspect of Bitcoin limits Trump's (the US government's) role as the global policeman (i.e. succeeded the UK in 1945). Just to curb Bitcoin's popularity, politicians produce lies, make shortsighted assertions, and publicly share ill-advised thoughts; regardless, Bitcoin mania is nothing like the tulip mania or the dot.com mania, it is with us now and it will continue to forge ahead unabated in spite of doubters, pessimists, doomsayers, skeptics, and disbelievers. At the backdrop of US-China trade war and the regulatory backlash to force Facebook to halt its Libra project, one is compelled to wonder till when the United States will exploit the world's scarce resources and how many more lives will be perished for petrodollar so that the U.S. can continue enjoying the "exorbitant privilege" of dollar hegemony.
Article
Full-text available
There was only Bitcoin in January 2009, but now over 3,000 altcoins are traded; as of October 25, the combined market cap of 3,047 cryptocurrencies is 248billion.Bitcoin(at248 billion. Bitcoin (at 9,285.89) with a market cap of 170billionstilldominates68.4170 billion still dominates 68.4% of the cryptocurrency market. Both market cap figures are significantly below their peaks on December 17, 2017; 830 billion and 321billionrespectively.TheadoptionofBitcoininTurkeyhasseenitsfastestrisesince2016onaccountofthefailedcoupattemptbyafractionoftheTurkishmilitary,theconvictionandsentencingoftheU.S.PastorAndrewBrunsonofterrorrelatedcharges,risinggeopoliticalrisksonaccountofthestrainedUSTurkeyrelations,andTurkeysongoingmilitaryoperationsalongitsbordersandintoSyria.TheconfluenceofdomesticandexternalfactorshavebeenamajorcatalystinpromptingpocketsofpeopleinTurkeytoflocktoBitcoinasasafehavenasset.Cryptocurrenciesareknownfortheirextremevolatility,buttheTurkishlirasplungeinAugust2018madeevenmosterraticvolatilityofcryptocurrenciesseemcalmer.Bitcoininvestors/enthusiastsmustkeepinmindthatthepriceofBitcoinhaswitnessedatotalof16pricecorrections(50321 billion respectively. The adoption of Bitcoin in Turkey has seen its fastest rise since 2016 on account of the failed coup attempt by a fraction of the Turkish military, the conviction and sentencing of the U.S. Pastor Andrew Brunson of terror-related charges, rising geopolitical risks on account of the strained US-Turkey relations, and Turkey's ongoing military operations along its borders and into Syria. The confluence of domestic and external factors have been a major catalyst in prompting pockets of people in Turkey to flock to Bitcoin as a safe-haven asset. Cryptocurrencies are known for their extreme volatility, but the Turkish lira's plunge in August 2018 made even most erratic volatility of cryptocurrencies seem calmer. Bitcoin investors/enthusiasts must keep in mind that the price of Bitcoin has witnessed a total of 16 price corrections (50% or more) in 7 years, and 8 of these have occurred in the last two years. Another substantial price correction, similar to that of December 2017-18 (i.e. price plummeted from almost 20,000 to $3,236), would result in a severe financial catastrophe for Turkish Bitcoin holders.
Article
Full-text available
Global warming is likely to have unimaginable disruptions in every aspect of human life by 2050 if some actions are not taken immediately to reduce its fast acceleration. Since the Industrial Revolution (1900s), the global mean surface temperature has warmed up approximately +0.8 °C (1.4 °F) due to past and ongoing human-induced emissions of greenhouse gasses as a result of burning of fossil fuels. Scientists and environmentalists warn that if nothing is done in the next decade to deal with climate changes, the global warming may accelerate to around 1.5 °C by 2050, which may lead to climate changes with catastrophic consequences. Blockchain is not confined to cryptocurrencies and can help reduce current levels of human-produced carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide resulting from activities involving factory farming, livestock farming, and deforestation which are releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gases that suffocate the atmosphere. This paper looks at blockchain and the planet by examining how a wide range of opportunities offered by this revolutionary technology could be harnessed to address global warming challenges.
Article
Full-text available
Little over a decade has passed since Blockchain gave birth to its prodigy Bitcoin, but Bitcoin despite all the hype (which was referred to as "big bang" by many) failed to become a simple (stable) global crypto-currency for everyday life to enable users worldwide to purchase products/services online, transfer money and conduct business with both individuals and entities within seconds without going through access related issues and financial burden of high transactional costs. Blockchain's close link to Bitcoin has been rather negative on the revolutionary technology to live its true potential, but now it is time for blockchain to move beyond Bitcoin. Blockchain distributed ledger technology (DLT) can be used in many areas that are traditionally under government control. In fact, numerous tools and applications we are so accustomed to using or seeing around could be decentralized via blockchain to create a paperless digitalized world; as a side goal, this could possibly help reduce global warming as well. Internet, marketing (advertisement), asset management, traffic control, utilities (electric, gas, and water) and social security (retirement benefits) can all be decentralized through blockchain to provide more efficient and unrestricted access to personal and public records. Blockchain possesses immense opportunities and has the capacity to take unimaginable forms in the future, but only if regulators, law makers, central banks and other branches of governments allow it to happen.
Article
Full-text available
Blockchain and distributed ledger technology (DLT) are used interchangeably. In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, Bitcoin gave birth to blockchain, or vice versa. A decade has passed since the launch of the first successful cryptocurrency in January 2009 by a mysterious creator under the alias Satoshi Nakamoto. Now along with Bitcoin, 2,915 altcoins are trading with a combined market cap of 222billion,Bitcoinsmarketcapaloneis222 billion, Bitcoin's market cap alone is 150 billion (67.6% of the market). Blockchain's potential is much bigger than Bitcoin; if regulatory uncertainty alleviates, the blockchain's value can easily increase by hundred-fold to 3to3 to 4 trillion dollars by 2030. Although financial sector leads blockchain adoption, blockchain's opportunities in non-financial sectors are immense. In the simplest terms, blockchain is a distributed ledger made up of two parts, blocks containing of data and a chain that holds them together. Blocks are like storage units that store anything of value related to minting coins (i.e. Bitcoin) via a mining process and keeps a chronology of transactions (e-commerce); chain can be metaphorically viewed as a string that holds all the blocks together, created using a consensus algorithm based on proof-of-work (PoW) or proof-of-stake (PoS). Blockchains are often organized into three most common forms; as such, public blockchain (purely peer-to-peer, decentralized and permissionless; any miner (i.e. node) at any time can access the network to add, verify or validate data without restrictions), private blockchain (permissioned, it is controlled by a central authority which grants permission to pre-selected people who can add and verify records), and consortium blockchain (also formed as permissioned, a group of nodes governs all transactions). It is true that blockchain provides anonymity making identities of its users pseudonymous; but contrary to popular belief, blockchain will not possibly solve all our problems and a permissionless blockchain will not guarantee complete privacy since all transactions become visible to all nodes of the network.
Article
Full-text available
Libra cryptocurrency is a new invention; as with any disruptive invention, Libra blockchain presents some risks. Facebook's formal announcement of Libra had the "big bang" effect in the cryptocurrency markets; equally, the industry will witness "big crunch" if Libra sputters out resulting from a failure to receive all appropriate approvals from central banks, regulators, and law makers who are eager to run headlong into backlash to Libra in order to punish Facebook with a troubled past of privacy abuse and exploitation of users' data. Libra's unique features are distinctly different from Bitcoin and over 2,400 altcoins. Although Facebook claims Libra as a permissioned decentralized blockchain, but this is far cry from truth because Libra is a non-mineable cryptocurrency without the need of providing mathematical solutions to double spending problem. Under Bitcoin's permissionless decentralized blockchain without a trusted third party, every new bitcoin is minted through a mining process which starts with a block, and then a ledger comprising timestamped transactions in a chronological order is distributed to all nodes (miners) in the Bitcoin network who check and validate transactions based on consensus before they are added to the end of each coin in its block. As a start, Libra blockchain will be governed by the Libra Association as a de facto central authority, which will initially comprise 28 private founding-members, each of which will act as a validator to ensure Libra's stability. Libra is cost efficient in electricity usage and more consistent than other cryptocurrencies; Libra's superior functionality, higher security, and vast scale due to its user base of nearly 3 billion will eventually make Libra become a viable alternative reserve crypto-currency to the dollar. Libra's proof-of-stake algorithm supported by a new programming language "Move" plus the use of LibraBFT consensus make Libra 1/3 more secure than Bitcoin, Libra can function correctly even if 1/3 of its network fails or hacked. Libra's PoS leads to higher transaction throughput, lower latency, and lower energy cost.