What is a Bitcoin worth?

Thomas Belsham

The price of Bitcoin is currently around $57,000 (see Chart 1). But what is the price of Bitcoin based on? It’s just a bunch of code that exists only in cyberspace. It’s not backed by the state. There’s no recourse to a central authority. There’s no underlying asset, no stream of income. There’s just the thing itself. But does that mean it has no inherent worth? The code on which Bitcoin is based does give it scarcity value. Only 21 million Bitcoin will ever be created. And that might be worth something. That scarcity is why some people refer to Bitcoin as ‘digital gold’. But the very scarcity on which Bitcoin is based might also be its undoing. Its scarcity may even, ultimately, render Bitcoin worthless.

Chart 1: Bitcoin price in US dollars

Source: Blockchain.com

Satoshi Nakamoto said in his/her/their (the creator or creators remain anonymous) canonical paper, ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System’, that ‘a peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution’. This was the driving force behind Bitcoin: create a payments system outside of the existing official financial architecture – a form of digital money, with no official entity standing behind it, just the strength of the underlying computer code.

Now, so far, Bitcoin has not performed well as money. Quick recap: money issued by central banks, fiat money, acts as a ‘store of value’ – it preserves the spending power of income and wealth, so that you can be confident that a pound, say, will buy about as much in a year’s time as it would today. It’s also a medium of exchange – you can use it as payment. And, largely by dint of satisfying those two criteria, the denomination of money – be it in the form of dollars, pounds, seashells, whatever – tends also to be used as a unit of account (a means of pricing other things in general). Figure 1 shows the traditional functions of money, based on this hierarchy.

Figure 1: Functions of money

Now, Bitcoin is far too volatile to act as a reliable store of value. The average 30-day standard deviation of Bitcoin has been a whopping 3.5% since 2015, four times higher than the S&P 500 over that period. It’s not used widely for payments – just try spending it at your local supermarket. And it’s not used as a unit of account (consider the last time you saw something priced in terms of Bitcoin).

But if there is one thing that Bitcoin was designed to be, it was a unit of account. In Satoshi’s vision for a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, Bitcoin is nothing more, or less, than the unit of account in which transactions are denominated. You can’t have an altogether new payment system, separate from fiat money, without its own unit of account. What is incidental, in the case of traditional forms or money, is fundamental, in the case of Bitcoin (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Functions of Bitcoin

The problem is that, unlike traditional forms of money, Bitcoin isn’t used to price things other than itself. As Bitcoiners themselves are fond of saying, ‘one Bitcoin = one Bitcoin’. But a tautology does not a currency make. Put differently, simply being recorded on a ledger does not render something a unit of account in a general sense – which is the important meaning here – any more than having a record of staff leave balances in the HR system makes a days’ leave a unit of account. ‘One-days’ leave = one-days’ leave’, but that doesn’t make it money. Does it also mean that Bitcoin has no inherent worth?

To understand whether Bitcoin does have inherent value, we need to understand what Bitcoin is. A Bitcoin is a unit, a one, on a distributed ledger – a shared database maintained by multiple participants, with no central repository. The ledger is comprised of a series of batches, or blocks, of transactions, each of which references the block before, in a chain (hence blockchain). If you were to compile all the information stored on the blockchain, you might think of it as like a spreadsheet of accounts. Now, given that anyone can edit their version of the chain, to avoid version-control problems (and cheating), a network of computers (miners) continuously confirms the validity of changes to the ledger, only adding a new block if agreed by a majority.

Importantly, in reaching consensus, new Bitcoins are emitted – currently 6.25 Bitcoins every 10 minutes, approximately. Those Bitcoins are awarded to the lucky miner that was first to combine, or hash together, the information contained in a new batch of transactions in such a way as to generate a single numeric output that satisfies the requirements for the block to be added. It can take a lot of tries, or ‘work’, before a satisfactory output pops out. The reward for generating this proof of work – the evidence of the effort put into helping maintain the integrity of the ledger – is the newly emitted Bitcoin.

So, if a Bitcoin is just a 1 on the ledger, what is a 1 on the ledger worth? Why might anyone want to own it? The only real intrinsic feature that Bitcoin has is scarcity. There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoins created, finite supply being a cornerstone of the design of Bitcoin. The hope was that by having a hard-coded limit on the number of Bitcoins ever to be produced, the value of a Bitcoin couldn’t be inflated away by an endless supply of new coins.

If it is true that there may be some inherent value in Bitcoin, is it also conceivable that it might one day gain acceptance as a medium of exchange? There are certainly already a few places willing to accept it as payment. Elon Musk famously caused Bitcoin to rally in March, when he announced that Tesla would start accepting Bitcoin, and then to fall, when he reversed that decision, due to environmental concerns – the mining process uses vast amounts of energy (about ½% of total world energy consumption, according to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index). It might even start to be used to price other things – become a unit of account in the general sense. ‘One pint of milk = 0.00001249 Bitcoin’, or 1249 satoshis (sats), the affectionate term given to one hundred millionth of a Bitcoin, the smallest possible fraction permitted by the code (55p, in case you wondered).

It’s even possible that Bitcoin will one day become an effective store of value, once adoption plateaus, speculative gains and purported diversification benefits are exhausted, and the price discovery process has run its course – assuming it ever does. Bitcoin might eventually trend (up, down or sideways) to some non-zero equilibrium value and be relatively stable (see Figure 3), rising in line with other nominal things, or acting as a simple proxy for generalised risk sentiment.

Figure 3: Bitcoin price forecast (up, down or sideways)

There is a problem, however. And the problem lies in precisely the thing that gives Bitcoin value: its scarcity. At some point, the last Bitcoin will be mined. There are nearly 19 million in circulation at present (see Chart 2). Estimates suggest that the 21 millionth Bitcoin will be emitted sometime in February 2140. What happens then? There’s nothing in the code to deal with what happens next. Simple economics points to some potential outcomes, though.

Chart 2: Bitcoin in circulation

Source: Blockchain.com.

For one thing, it’s likely that transaction fees will rocket, as miners try to replace revenues no longer provided by the emission of new Bitcoins. Past episodes of high transaction volumes have seen transaction fees rise as high as $60 (see Chart 3). While the numbers vary, day to day, the current fee per transaction is around $1.88. With miners receiving around $47.8 million per day in block rewards and transaction fees, and only $402,000 of that coming from fees, replacing lost block rewards would require fees to rise to over $223 at current prices.

Chart 3: Average fee per transaction

Source: Blockchain.com.

Fees of that size would make Bitcoin much less useful (useless, really) as a medium of exchange. Transactions might even become prohibitively expensive, and dry up altogether, with many balances effectively stuck on the chain, uneconomic to move. An overnight fall in revenues – due to the combination of no new Bitcoin and a fall in transaction volumes – would probably cause at least some miners to switch off their computers. Miners aren’t providing a public service, after all; they’re in it for the profit.

A sufficiently large decline in computing power would undermine the security of the ledger, perhaps catastrophically. The hash rate – number of tries at finding a winning block – per second is currently around 158 million trillion per second (see Chart 4). If enough miners leave, a single entity could gain control of over half of the hash power on the network, enabling them to reorganise the balances on the blockchain at will. The integrity of the whole ledger could disintegrate.

Chart 4: Estimated daily terahashes per second

Source: Blockchain.com.

That being so, and absent some intervention by the disparate group of developers and miners that preside over the Bitcoin codebase, simple game theory tells us that a process of backward induction should, really, at some point, induce the smart money to get out. And were that to happen, investors really should be prepared to lose everything. Eventually.

Thomas Belsham works in the Bank’s Stakeholder and Media Engagement Division.

If you want to get in touch, please email us at bankunderground@bankofengland.co.uk or leave a comment below.

Comments will only appear once approved by a moderator, and are only published where a full name is supplied. Bank Underground is a blog for Bank of England staff to share views that challenge – or support – prevailing policy orthodoxies. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and are not necessarily those of the Bank of England, or its policy committees.

15 thoughts on “What is a Bitcoin worth?

  1. Enjoyed this article immensely, and years ago I thought the same way. Now I see things differently. Remember, however obnoxious we may seem (and we are insufferable), Bitcoin maximalists do recognize that Bitcoin, and in fact Digital, are in their infancy- we have a long way to go and a lot of kinks to work out between here and 2140!

    In no particular order:
    1) The post assumes and accepts the premise that we are all in agreement that being “backed by the state” is a good thing. The premise that fiat is in fact a store of value. Accepting this as immutable fact is the whole reason that such abuse of fiat by the state is a pervasive concern, and one that Bitcoin directly addresses.

    2) Miners aren’t just in it for the money. Many miners are in fact profound and committed believers in the idea, power and necessity of a decentralized digital currency. Years ago I built a classic investment banking model of Bitcoin mining and do you know what the flaw was? It’s that a substantial set of miners are not rational actors and will continue to mine at a loss, which I saw first hand during the “crypto winter” of 2018.

    3) The ability of someone in Brazil to send a direct peer-to-peer transfer of currency to someone in North Korea, or the US or China or Zimbabwe without any (and many!) financial intermediaries can not be emphasized enough. I believe that I should be able to transfer my own money from my account in the US to Brazil, or the UK without paying more than 3% to multiple intermediaries – and that I deserve to execute at something close to mid market. (Call this a reformed Fx traders Bill of Rights). And for all those who say price volatility of Bitcoin makes it unsuitable for that, well, I’m pretty sure that’s what hedging in the derivatives market is for.

    4) It is posts like this that reflect the same thinking of those who believe a central bank digital currency is a worthwhile endeavor- and I believe that CBDCs will find a home, with the same people who believe that sterling or dollar are an immutable store of value, irrespective of the level of abuse inflicted by those central bankers. For the rest of us, there’s BTC!

    I make no claim to know what a Bitcoin is worth, but as some crypto skeptics are known to say – It’s either zero, or a whole lot more than where it is now, and I feel pretty confident it’s not zero.

  2. I don’t follow why a decline in mining revenues would be accompanied by a rise in transaction costs. Surely transaction costs are driven by totally different factors like technology, BTC owner sentiment and issues in the infrastructure that holds BTC like Mt Gox or the recent thefts. Also falls in price drive increased costs as the crypto enthusiasts get worried and try to sell at the same time.

    The miners will simply have to move their machines on to other crypto or other applications completely.

    Of course if they have been mining and hoarding, then they cause a fall in price and a spike in costs at the same time… but one assumes they have been selling to pay the energy bills.

    If it is more volatile than equities, that’s bad news for a currency. How does its vol compare to commodities ?

  3. What this blog is successfully describing is BTC (BitcoinCore) which is one particular fork of the original Bitcoin protocol. The article is correct that it doesn’t work as a ‘system’, but this is because it was deliberately disabled by a small group of developers who wanted to overlay their ‘second layer solution’ to it for payments, while playing to the ‘scarce digital asset’ ideology so favoured by cypherpunks and libertarians.

    BTC is a manifestation of Nick Szabo’s ‘Bit Gold’, which just happens to have effectively taken the original Bitcoin protocol as its technological solution and now ‘squats’ on the Bitcoin brand.

    It’s highly likely the BTC ‘system’ will become unstable specifically because of these problems, while it continues to waste huge amounts of energy.

    Fortunately, Bitcoin has been revived by restoring the original intent & protocol in a so-called ‘fork’ (actually a ticker fork but protocol restoration) BitcoinSatoshiVision (BSV). This overcomes the sustainability and scaling problems BTC inevitably (faces noted in the blog), while also adding back in the functionality that Ethereum was supposed to have ‘added’ as a ‘Bitcoin’ competitor.

    BSV scales ‘infinitely’, already performs more transactions than either BTC or Ethereum (depending on day-to-day variation, it’s demand driven), and does so for transaction fees of a fraction of one cent (and a tiny proportion of the energy footprint).

    So in sum, this article is absolutely correct about BTC, but all of the issues were addressed in the original Bitcoin white paper and protocol, which are now represented by BSV. This is the real Bitcoin.

    More details here in a report published by the Canadian accounting firm MPN:

  4. Doesn’t the value of bitcoin relate to their currency holdings. So if they have zero pounds to sell when a bitcoin is sold what would happen? Price to buy bitcoin with pounds depends on who wants to buy bitcoin subject to terms and conditions.

  5. Taking the current real yield curve from the Bank’s own website, what’s the real value of today’s pound in 2140, when Bitcoin mining ceases ? The longest quoted real yield is -2.27% for 40 years. Ignoring convexity (this is a back of the envelope estimate), if you take the same yield for 120 years, the real value of a pound today is about 6p in 2140. This is bitcoin’s selling point : the central banks have turned cash into a negative real yield asset with no prospect of capital protection. It’s similar to gold, with lower holding costs and greater portability and anonymity, offset by the risk of a 50% attack as described above. The cash alternative currently promises a 94% loss of purchasing power.

Comments are closed.