Cryptocurrencies, the best-known example of which is Bitcoin, were first developed in the 1990s. Their inventors’ aim was to use cryptographic techniques to allow users to exchange value anonymously without reliance on third parties, such as banks or governments.
Early examples were complex and were, in practice, dependent on existing currencies. One of the breakthrough ideas behind Bitcoin and the current generation of cryptocurrencies is that they are generated by performing complex computations, known as “mining”. This means that their value derives from computational effort, so they don’t rely on their association with an existing currency to retain value.
Today, Bitcoin is mostly used as an investment vehicle, especially in China, where other investment opportunities are limited. But Bitcoin enthusiasts had hoped it would become an electronic currency for everyday transactions. That has not happened, in part because the computation required by a Bitcoin transaction means it is not ideal for use on smartphones and other mobile devices.
Instead, the mobile payment niche has been colonised by peer-to-peer tools such as Venmo, new merchant services such as Square and Stripe, and the contactless payment technologies built into modern chip credit cards and tools such as Apple Pay and Android Pay.
Other issues hampering Bitcoin’s viability as money rather than an investment commodity include technical characteristics that limit the possible scale and volume of Bitcoin transactions, in-fighting among developers, and security concerns that have made it hard to trust the exchanges that serve as the link between cryptocurrencies and old-school money. Without that trust, Bitcoin and its relations have struggled to break out of their niche.
An upcoming change to the technical infrastructure that underpins Bitcoin will halve the number of new Bitcoins that can be minted. This has triggered a flurry of trading activity but is also likely to further limit the use of Bitcoins as a transactional currency.
In the beginning, the innovative design of Bitcoins piqued the interest of both the technology sector and the financial services industry, but their focus has since shifted to the blockchain, the distributed ledger that records Bitcoin transactions. Proponents say that the blockchain—or a system built on the same principles—has the potential to support a range of applications, from securely transacting deeds of ownership to automating legal contracts.
One example is Ethereum. Although it uses a cryptocurrency called Ether as the basis of its transactions, Ethereum’s purpose is to allow users to draft “smart contracts” that can be programmed to trigger digital transactions once agreed conditions can be met. Microsoft recently launched a blockchain cloud service based on Ethereum and a suite of developer tools to help programmers write smart-contract applications. (A recently reported security breach at an organisation with an estimated US$50m-plus holding in Ether shows that this platform is not immune from its own trust issues.)
In light of Bitcoin’s shortcomings as a transactional currency and Ethereum’s use of the blockchain as a platform for smart contracts, do cryptocurrencies have a future as an alternative to traditional money? That will depend on what people do with these smart contracts and how they manage the transparent shared ledgers that are at the foundation of these new financial technologies.
At the moment, though, it’s a stretch to call them money. Instead, they are better understood as tools for making and moving money.
Could cryptocurrencies still become a popular alternative to traditional forms of money? Share your thoughts on the Future Realities LinkedIn group, sponsored by Dassault Systèmes.
Sponsored by: