Conventional theories of money assume that money is backed by precious metal (the theory known as bullionism) or by the state (chartalism) but Bitcoin is backed by neither. Economists also often define money as anything that serves as a medium of exchange, but Bitcoin isn't much good at that either (so far, at least). So does that mean Bitcoin is not money, or is the problem with these theories?
I have posted a paper on this question here, comments/responses appreciated:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2624371Is it too soon to think that "backed b the state" may be losing it's value? As long as governments keep manipulating money there will likely be an interest and audience for bitcoin.
What data did you find for the purposes of your study? Thanks for sharing it!