notices - See details
Notices
Enterprising Investor Default Hero Image
8 November 2018 Enterprising Investor Blog

Bitcoin: New Asset Class or Pyramid Scheme?

Enterprising Investor Blogs logo thumbnail

Merriam-Webster defines a pyramid scheme as “a usually illegal operation in which participants pay to join and profit mainly from payments made by subsequent participants.

The former general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Debra A. Valentine, said the following:

"Pyramid schemes now come in so many forms that they may be difficult to recognize immediately. However, they all share one overriding characteristic. They promise consumers or investors large profits based primarily on recruiting others to join their program, not based on profits from any real investment or real sale of goods to the public."

Does a vehicle that provides no cash flows, transfers no tangible or intangible property rights, and is marketed through claims that new buyers can be persuaded to drive up prices fit this description?

I believe bitcoin is such an instrument.

Subscribe Button

Bitcoin is too inefficient to be a currency. Certainly, no government has any plans to use it as one. And when bitcoin fuels actual transactions — other than those of the speculative variety — it is often to keep the transaction off the radar of the legal authorities: think ransomware, skirting anti-money laundering laws, or evading capital constraints.

Thus the sole way most promoters will realize value from their bitcoin holdings is through new entrants into the market. Public statements by speculators illustrate this:

Store of Value?

The “store of value” argument also depends on new buyers coming in to support those who want to liquidate their holdings. Again, this suggests a pyramid scheme, albeit one that doesn’t promise explicitly high returns. Whatever it is, it is not a legitimate investment.

Stock appreciation ultimately implies that people owning the shares earn increasing profits. Commodities are more than just “stores of value.” Governments require the use of fiat currencies. With a few notable exceptions, governments stabilize their currencies and don't sell them to the general public as speculative investments. For these exceptions, more stable currencies are available.

Some say bitcoin is similar to gold. In the best of cases, should ownership stabilize, bitcoin and gold would share certain characteristics: Both would be volatile investments with poor long-term returns.

But gold has other uses: To fashion jewelry and other art, for example, or even as doomsday currency should electricity and internet become unavailable. Bitcoin can’t serve either of these roles.

More likely, after the supply of new buyers is exhausted, the final investors in the pyramid will find themselves with assets that decline in value as others sell because the one thing that they expected from bitcoin — higher prices — ceases to materialize.

Ad for Earning Investors' Trust Report

Social Value?

Does investing in bitcoin have any social value? Investing in the securities markets provides capital to firms, governments, and other entities. Speculation in commodities creates markets that allow their users to hedge their exposure to price fluctuations.

Bitcoin can help people evade government restrictions on currency and capital. But even that dubious distinction rarely enters the discussion among bitcoin supporters. Still, we cannot ignore laws and regulations we disagree with or governments we disapprove of. Furthermore, the same mechanisms that can help people avoid capital controls through bitcoin can also help them avoid government sanctions against unsavory regimes and engage in money laundering and ransomware schemes.

Perhaps these excesses could be tolerated if they were mere side effects. But other than for speculation, bitcoin has no utility beyond such activities. No doubt some will point to blockchain and claim that it is the silver lining to the crypto cloud, and demonstrates bitcoin's merits as an investment. But bitcoin provides no rights to use or profit from blockchain technologies. Whatever they have to offer, one does not need to purchase cryptocurrency to use blockchain.

So encouraging the purchase of bitcoin by invoking the benefits of blockchain is clearly misleading.

How is bitcoin different from other pyramid schemes, say, those run in penny-stock boiler rooms? The only distinguishing characteristics are the record-keeping method — a “proof of work” blockchain — and a large marketing effort that uses the media instead of the telephone.

In my view, most of those who invest in bitcoin are effectively participating in a pyramid scheme either as a future victim or a perpetrator. Some no doubt truly believe that bitcoin will function as a currency for enabling transactions, rather than a “store of value." But I wonder whether such people truly understand economics, our monetary system, or our business environment

Financial Analysts Journal Ad

These critiques are not unique to bitcoin, but apply to all cryptocurrencies. Some could offer value as electronic coupons to purchase yet-to-be-developed services. However, that does not constitute a new asset class, but rather an existing asset class with a new record-keeping system. So investors must apply the same due diligence as for other investments to assess what legal rights they are purchasing and the ability and willingness of others to deliver on their commitments.

It is not my intention to play the thought police here. My point is investment managers need to consider these issues before investing in or promoting cryptocurrencies. So should those responsible for personnel decisions about managers.

Because the fact is, if it looks like a pyramid scheme and sounds like a pyramid scheme, we should treat it like a pyramid scheme until proven otherwise.

If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.


All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.

Image credit: ©Getty Images/ Malte Mueller


Professional Learning for CFA Institute Members

CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report professional learning (PL) credits earned, including content on Enterprising Investor. Members can record credits easily using their online PL tracker.

61 Comments

JG
Jonathan G Harris (not verified)
11th October 2020 | 11:59am

There are few institutional investors involved with Bitcoin and those that are are speculators betting on greater fools and cult like devotees.

No matter how many institutional investors jump on board, it remains a negative sum game with 2% of the market cap going just to pay miners.

Even if tomorrow every institutional investor dove in, you would only profit if you exited before they did, which they would when there are no new bagholders.

L
Leo (not verified)
17th November 2020 | 4:49pm

It's been barely a month since your comment, and already it's obvious that it hasn't aged well. But that was predictable.

JG
Jonathan G Harris (not verified)
28th November 2020 | 7:52pm

Leo: What aspect of my statement hasn't aged well? Did someone find that miners earned a lot less than 2% of the market cap of Bitcoin in 2019? Did someone find anything that generates a return, other than bringing in new buyers?

L
Leo (not verified)
30th November 2020 | 4:51pm

How about your first sentence:

"There are few institutional investors involved with Bitcoin and those that are are speculators betting on greater fools and cult like devotees."

This is wrong on two counts. The are not "few" institutional investors involved with Bitcoin; the list is growing by the day. The largest impediment to more institutional money in this space is the custody problem--which is being addressed by several companies, including the behemoth in the financial services industry (Fidelity).

It's also inaccurate to say that those who are there are purely speculators betting on the greater fool theory. In fact, it's pretty arrogant to presume to know what motivates institutional investors, but it ought to be pretty clear that financial services companies are spending millions of dollars building out their trading desks and subject matter experts to accommodate this large and growing segment of the Bitcoin investor community.

The whole premise here is just lazy. Bitcoin is no more a "Ponzi scheme" than any share of stock in a company with little to no earnings. Were you banging the table that Amazon was a Ponzi scheme from 1997 to 2001, when it was an unprofitable company? If so, you should turn in your financial advisor card, and if not, why not--after all, what's the "inherent value" in a share of an unprofitable company beyond a bet that this company may one day become profitable or that you can find some "fool" to pay you a higher price than you paid for that share of stock?

JG
Jonathan G Harris (not verified)
1st December 2020 | 11:55am

Leo:
The fallacy of your position is apparent in your analogy with Amazon. Amazon had and still has the potential to generate large profits for investors, who get the profits earned as a result of supplying goods and services. If no new investors bought Amazon for the next 50 years, the current ones would earn the profits.

With Bitcoin--the only way a holder profits is when new buyers are recruited, or a group of existing buyers increases their investment more than the amount required to pay the miners.

L
Leo (not verified)
1st December 2020 | 4:49pm

Re: your 12/1/2020 response:

And the fallacy of your argument is in ignoring that having "the potential to generate large profits" (to which a shareholder would be entitled to portion) sounds very significant when looking at Amazon today, but would you have said the same thing about etoys? Bitcoin is a "Ponzi scheme" but etoys was not?

You can comfortably say that about Amazon today because it has become a profit-generating behemoth. But that was not remotely assured back in the late '90's, when Amazon.com was not appreciably different from etoys.com. The potential to generate large profits didn't seem to help etoys survive.

As for the notion that an asset is a Ponzi scheme if the only way you can make money on it is if some "fool" pays you more than what you paid, you have just relegated virtually every asset class to Ponzi scheme-status. Your house must be a Ponzi scheme. A plot of land must be a Ponzi scheme. A piece of art must be a Ponzi scheme. Every share of stock in an unprofitable company must be a Ponzi scheme.

This is why yours is a lazy argument. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is just a lame way to hurl a pejorative at something you don't like. Had you called it a highly speculative investment I'd have had no issue with the characterization. It's when you resort to what is the financial world's version of an epithet that I will call you on the weakness of your argument. Just because something involves a bit of speculation does not render it a Ponzi scheme.

JM
James M (not verified)
16th November 2020 | 7:46pm

Here's my take on Bitcoin's claims:

Pyramid scheme? Yes. Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme from an investment
perspective. Enrolling others to invest in Bitcoin is what provides a return to
earlier investors. Bitcoin is also a legitimate going concern for businesses
who collect fees for providing foreign exchange and transaction oriented
services using the Bitcoin system. Unfortuntately, it's not possible to
separate the pyramid scheme from the legitimate service provided by the Bitcoin system.

Equity? No. If Bitcoin dissolved, it has no tangible assets or reserves to
return. In contrast, if a company dissolves, it's assets get returned to
shareholders.

Commodity? No. Bitcoin has no economic value like silver, wheat, oil, etc.

Currency? No. A useful currency has stable value relative to other currencies
and is a universal medium of exchange within an economy. Bitcoin is neither.
Fiat currencies like the USD are backed by the issuing country with gold
reserves, oil reserves, land, taxes, etc.

JG
Jonathan G Harris (not verified)
28th November 2020 | 8:01pm

James: I agree with almost all of what you say, except for a fine point:
Bitcoin isn't really efficient for FX or any transactions. Very little of the cost of transactions--domestic or foreign---are actually sending the funds. They are in fraud prevention, customer service, legal compliance, and risk management (including exchange risk).

Not only does citing a blockchain transaction fee neglect all of these services, but also leaves out the fact that miners are paid by newly minted Bitcoin (the mining reward). You can see on https://www.blockchain.com/charts/cost-per-transaction that the mining cost per transaction rarely is below $30 and we haven't yet priced the rest of the process.

ED
Eddy Dostal, CFA (not verified)
18th January 2021 | 5:01pm

Just looking back at this article. The author does a great job stirring up the debate. I think the author misses many of the key points:

The argument that if "everyone said 'I want to buy 1 share of Amazon' the stock would go immensely higher" I does not mean its a pyramid scheme it just means people want to buy Amazon or 'Bitcoin'.

You say "It is too inefficient to use as a currency". Bitcoin is a layer 1 solution. In time layer 2 and layer 3 solutions will be built on top of it. TCP/IP was invented ~50 years ago and at first it was just a basic 'layer 1' idea (all it did was send packets of information between computers). Only when layer 2 solutions were build (HTTP and the World Wide Web, or SMTP and email), did we realize the true power of what TCP/IP was about to do. Bitcoin offers similar potential that we probably cannot realize.

Golds value coming from jewelry or industrial uses (I know you don't reference industrial uses), probably accounts for ~3% of Gold's value. Bitcoin potentially is far more efficient and advantageous versus gold (lower storage costs, divisible into 100,000,000 units, more scarce as there will only be 21,000,000 Bitcoins, vs. an estimated 5,950,000,000 ounces of gold, programmable, the list continues) If Gold has a $12 trillion market cap, there is a possibility Bitcoin could exceed this if it truly is superior.

Interesting article on what you see as a potential pyramid scheme. To me, I see something backed only by math and not a potentially corrupt, controlling entity. In countries such as Argentina, where the currency has been debased by the government many times, Bitcoin offers a reasonable potential alternative. Even in the United States of America, the Central Bank can inject a few trillions of 'out of thin air money' into the system to try to stimulate it from Covid effects. A senior citizen reliant on fixed income might get punished from diluted money (not suggesting senior citizens should put their money in Bitcoin)

again - I appreciate the article and it was a good read :)

JG
Jonathan G Harris (not verified)
5th February 2021 | 8:02am

A few points:
1) Amazon stock--if Amazon is successful both the buyer and seller can win. The seller gets the price appreciation up to the point of sale; the buyer will eventually get Amazon's earnings through dividends or buy-backs even if there are no new investors. With Bitcoin, that doesn't happen.

2) Gold- Private investment in Gold is only $3 Trillion. about 50% of the $12 Trillion cited is in jewelry, 20% in central banks, and some other amount in other industries. Real consumption of gold could buy-out private investors in 18 years--faster than I pay down my mortgage.

3) "layers" It is more efficient to build on top of a more efficient base layer. The energy consumption of crypto is huge, estimated to be comparable to that of the country of Chile, and the price run-ups also impact the market for hardware.

4) Inflation--gold has proven to be a poor inflation hedge and too volatile to be a reliable store of value; no reason to believe Bitcoin is any better. Bitcoin has had a minuscule impact in high inflation countries; alternatives such as dollars and Euros are far better. To extent they don't work, it is due to regulations & CFA charter holders agree not to help people violate regulations in their countries.