A follow up on Bitcoin’s S2F model

After my recent article on why you don’t need S2F to value Bitcoin, I had an interesting conversation with PlanB, and I’ve been following a lot of conversations on Twitter since then.

As a result, I’ve edited my original article to (I hope) more fairly present what S2F actually is, and make sure none of my arguments are based on setting up a straw man.

One point I made in my original article was:

What this means is, to some level, even though demand is not an explicit variable in the S2F model, the model must implicitly assume a consistent increase in demand over future years

PlanB recently tweeted, making some really interesting points:

In a nutshell, he compares Bitcoin to a Veblen Good, and actually makes the point that S2F can be seen as a model which predicts demand.

It’s really great to hear PlanB raise this point, as in my original article one thing I really wanted to emphasize is that demand is a kind of “hidden variable” in the S2F model. In other words: S2F has this implicit assumption that demand will continue to increase over the following years.

In this framing, S2F is more saying “here’s what the price will be after each halving, given steadily increasing demand”, rather than “here’s what the price will be after halving, even if demand stays flat”.

I think this fundamental assumption that demand will steadily increase, is probably true. In case it’s not already clear, I’m a huge proponent of Bitcoin, and I think that as more people discover it, the adoption will increase, and the demand will increase.

What could be the cause of this increased adoption and demand?

These are all potentially valid lines of reasoning.

So where does S2F fit in?

Even if we treat S2F as a model for steadily increasing demand, which I think is a fair argument for why it may have the accuracy it does so far, the issues I still have are:

Could Bitcoin be a Veblen good? Perhaps. But I’m not yet convinced that the volume of newly mined coins is the largest factor in determining that. My view is still that Bitcoin’s perceived value, actual scarcity, and massive network effects, are far stronger factors than the impact caused by perceived scarcity.

works for PayPal, as a lead engineer in Checkout. Opinions expressed herein belong to him and not his employer. daniel@bluesuncorp.co.uk