Causal Rewrite – chickendinner

The Emergence of Cryptocurrency

Given the vital role money plays in any post-barter economy, questions of what form it should take, how it should be supplied, and who should make decisions about it are naturally a subject of debate. Yet since at latest the bronze age, people have taken for granted that what money they use would always depend on where they live, and its supply would be centrally issued by a state or central bank. To the extent they had any say in the matter, it would be through petitioning or voting. However, with the proliferation and advancement of digital technology, the last decade has seen the skyrocketing of cryptocurrencies, enabling each person to exchange their fiat money for a digital currency not issued through a central agency.

Many people have exchanged some of their fiat money for cryptocurrency due to various attributes, such as the lack of a need for a mediator for transfers between owners, the lower cost of transactions across national borders, and the combination of no centralized provider and the prevalence of supply caps reducing the chance that a sudden increase in supply will devalue their cryptocurrency savings. According to Alex Laughton-Scott and James Butterfill, the most first and most popular cryptocurrency, BitCoin, has seen adoption increase at a rate of 113% a year, more than that of the internet in the 90s. They predict BitCoin will have 1 billion users worldwide by 2024.


Sergeenkov, A. 2021. What is Cryptocurrency. CoinDesk.

Laughton-Scott, A. Butterfill, J. Institutional Crypto Adoption: Three Factors to Watch, CoinShares,

This entry was posted in Causal Rewrite. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Causal Rewrite – chickendinner

  1. davidbdale says:

    Since you haven’t posted a Definition Argument, ChickenDinner, and since I can’t imagine ever approving this particular hypothesis of yours, I’ll take this opportunity to declare that it’s nonsense.


    We certainly have unprecedented opportunity to interact with more people more often than ever. but the claim that our interactions AS A RESULT are shallow, or that our social interactions lack nuance AS A RESULT of social media is just a myth.

    So far the sources you’ve gathered for your White Paper aren’t conclusive, so if they represent the sum or your research, I’d recommend that you NOT try to prove this unprovable hypothesis. It’s a popular opinion that somehow the ability to communicate more easily and more broadly has diminished the quality of our communications. but ask yourself why that should be so.

    If I “like” the posts of 18 of my social media friends in ten minutes on a Monday morning, does that mean my social interactions are less valuable than they would have been before social media? How does that figure. Before social media, I would have had no interaction with those 18 casual acquaintances at all.

    Do I have fewer or shallower conversations with my friends in Seattle or Scotland or Saratoga? No. It used to cost me $9 a minute to place a long-distance voice call to those friends. Now I can chat with them ON VIDEO for free! We talk more than ever before!

    Anyway, I don’t need you to argue THE OPPOSITE of your Causal Hypothesis here, but I can’t support your wish to proceed with the one you’ve got. Read more broadly in your topic until you find something surprising to pursue. And VERY QUICKLY. You’re out of time to develop a valid hypothesis.

    I need you to respond, CD, to show your respect for the feedback process. Thanks!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s