Archive
The Road to Crypto Conversion
While this isn’t exactly the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus, I came to a realization recently that subtly changes the way I look at the potential for large cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin.
Historically, my attitude has been dismissive about the value of bitcoin itself. While I recognize the amazing reach of blockchain technology and the genius of using asymmetric key cryptography to secure the public record of private transactions, I’ve always thought that bitcoin didn’t really achieve the promised goal, which was to be a better money than fiat dollars. After all, bitcoin is not backed by anything more than the dollar is – nothing. Its value is based on scarcity, and scarcity by itself is not a source of value (if it was, my toenail clippings would be immensely valuable). So in my 2016 book What’s Wrong with Money? I wrote in a chapter on bitcoin:
“But is bitcoin money? Calling it a virtual currency, or a digital currency, or a crypto-currency doesn’t make it money. At some level, it is of course money in the same sense as cigarettes are to prison inmates. It serves as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account – but only within the special community that already accepts bitcoin as credible…It is not yet broadly a credible currency. It doesn’t have universal value because not everyone believes that everyone else will accept bitcoin.”
Even in that chapter I recognized that bitcoin may someday be money-like. And I underwent a partial conversion and even worked for a while on a paper with my co-authors Kari Walstad and Scott Wald to define a measure (“Crypto Trust Index”) that would objectively measure how much like money the cryptocurrency world was becoming. [That paper ended up being overtaken by real-world developments, as stablecoins fully backed by fiat balances are obviously crypto money by identity, rendering the question moot.]
But in my mind bitcoin, eth, etc aren’t money but speculative vehicles – they are distinctly separate from USDC, USDi, and other fully-backed coins. It may be that they belong in a portfolio with stables and/or securities, but since bitcoin has no intrinsic value I have always held the view that I don’t want to own it as it can go to zero in a nonce.[1]
Recently, as I said, I’ve had a mild conversion as a result of two realizations.
The first realization is that even in the traditional securities world, we sometimes invest in things which have no intrinsic value in many states of the world. For example, we buy out-of-the-money options, or equity in a firm that is highly leveraged so that if the business goes under, the equity-holders get nothing. I am not sure this is a good excuse to buy bitcoin, though, since even if a far out-of-the-money option is unlikely to ever have intrinsic value there are at least future states of the world in which it could have intrinsic value. Similarly, that penny stock might end up being worth something if business booms. So we could think about bitcoin as being an option that may go to zero or may go up a lot. The problem with this, and the reason this reasoning alone is not compelling to me, is twofold. First, those far out-of-the-money options and long shots tend to have low prices, not high prices, and bitcoin certainly does not seem to have a low price. Second, there is no state of the world in which bitcoin will ever have an intrinsic value. Therefore, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to think of it as a real option, but at best as a speculation with an option-like payout (low in many states of the world, but massive in a few states). Put another way, while the value of that penny stock or out-of-the-money option can go to zero for some clearly-defined reasons, bitcoin can go to zero for any reason or no reason and it wouldn’t be wrong.
The second realization, though, relates to scarcity. Yes, scarcity alone cannot be the basis for value (see: my toenails). For scarcity to matter, there needs to be exogenous demand. And that demand need not be rational. If someone wants to hold bitcoin, not caring that it has no intrinsic value (or erroneously believing that it has some), then scarcity matters. The realization is that scarcity goes from not mattering at all, to mattering a great deal, as soon as there is any demand. To be sure, if that demand goes away, then scarcity again ceases to matter.
(By the way, it is entirely possible and even likely that someone else has pointed this out.)
So the case for speculating in bitcoin (no, I won’t call it investing) is that since the total supply is independent of price, the supply curve is vertical and moving to the right at an ever-slower rate. As this happens, it takes less and less increase in demand to push price higher.
It also takes less and less decrease in demand to push price lower. Since there is no slope to the supply curve, it means that oscillations in demand are responsible for all of the oscillations in bitcoin’s price. And we can say more about the volatility dynamics. Early in bitcoin’s development – when demand was very low, supply was relatively high compared to demand, and the price was as a result very low – we were operating at the far left end of the demand curve where demand was relatively more elastic and therefore there was a lot of volatility. As bitcoin matures, and demand catches up to the existing supply, we should expect price volatility to decline. And this is, in fact, what has happened (chart below, source: Bloomberg, shows rolling 100-week historical volatility (about two years, but I like round numbers today), now at the low-low level of 43% (about 3x equity market volatility).
The fun part comes later, when the supply curve shifts get slower and slower as the bitcoin halving converges to zero and the bitcoin supply gets closer and closer to its absolute maximum. At that point (and here is where the uberbulls get really excited), if there is a steady secular increase in demand, price just goes up without bound.
Don’t get too excited, uberbulls, because we aren’t there yet. When we are starting to get close to that point I would expect that we will also see volatility start to go up again. If historical volatility continues to decline, it means (a) we aren’t close enough to that point that the vertical singularity is nigh, and/or (b) people are losing interest in or diversifying away from bitcoin so that the steady increase in demand is not manifesting and interest is fluctuating less and less. So, I am waiting for that volatility to begin to expand at higher prices.
In any case, I am much more likely to invest in tokenized real world assets than I am Bitcoin or Ethereum. I am not a speculator at heart. Heck, I’m a bond guy which means I worry more about return of my principal than return on my principal. But if you are already long bitcoin, I will no longer sneer at you, because I recognize at last that one way or the other I will may be driving your car someday – either because it was repossessed and I bought it at auction, or because I am your chauffer.
Did You Know? Want to buy USDi, the inflation-linked stable coin, but don’t own any crypto you can exchange for it? You can actually use the coin as an on-ramp. Accredited investors need merely complete onboarding with USDi Partners and then can invest fiat dollars and receive USDi coins.
[1] Pun intended.
What Makes a Stable Coin Stable?
The early growth of Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency space was originally stimulated by the mistrust of centralized control of monetary policy and financial institutions. While Bitcoin is a fiat currency, in the sense that it is not ‘backed’ by anything and has value only because other people believe it has value, the rules for the expansion of the total float of Bitcoin are mechanical and so the unit benefits from being isolated from the whim of flesh-and-blood central bankers. Milton Friedman once said in an interview with the Cato Institute that “We don’t need a Fed…I have, for many years, been in favor of replacing the Fed with a computer [which would, each year] print out a specified number of paper dollars…Same number, month after month, week after week, year after year.”[1] And, with Bitcoin, that is exactly what you have. Management of Bitcoin is decentralized, automatic, and the rules are stable.
Unfortunately, ‘fiat’ cryptocurrencies are anything but stable. Moreover, since their value depends entirely on the trust[2] of other actors in the economic system that these currencies will have value, it is entirely possible that any of them could crash just like any fiat currency sometimes crashes when confidence in the currency issuer vanishes. There is no intrinsic value to a fiat currency – digital, or analog – which means that they are stable only when looked at in a self-referential frame. A US Dollar has a stable value of $1 but is volatile from the viewpoint of a Mexican-peso-based observer. I will return to this observation presently.
Because these fiat cryptos are unstable when looked at by a participant in the analog world, the concept of ‘stablecoin’ was developed. In Coinbase’s summary ‘What is a stablecoin?’, the first two bullet points are:
- Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency whose value is pegged to another asset, such as a fiat currency or gold, to maintain a stable price.
- They strive to provide an alternative to the high volatility of popular cryptocurrencies, making them potentially more suitable for common transactions.[3]
Why is a stable price important? The answer goes back to the question of whether Bitcoin and similar cryptos are money, or assets. In the conventional definition of money, such a label only applies to units that provide a medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account. First-generation cryptos certainly serve as a medium of exchange but are sketchy on the ‘store of value’ and ‘unit of account’ dimensions. Nothing natively is priced in BTC, so it is not a good unit of account, and the high volatility creates a high barrier to any argument about being a store of value. Cryptos are most assuredly financial assets. It is hard to argue that they are money.
Enter the stablecoin. By pegging the value to an existing currency, a stablecoin ‘borrows’ the characteristics of that currency as a store of value and unit of account. It’s true by mathematical association: if USDC is equal to one US dollar, and the US dollar is money, then (as long as it’s accepted a medium of exchange) USDC is money because it has equal ‘store of value’ and ‘unit of account’ dimensions.[4] A stablecoin maintains its stability by means of holding reserves and being fully convertible on demand into the underlying currency.[5]
But Stable with Respect to What?
Stability, though, depends on the frame of reference. Consider a stablecoin linked to the US Dollar, which always can be minted or burned at $1 (ignoring fees). Consider a second stablecoin linked to the Japanese Yen, which always can be minted or burned at ¥1. Which one is stable?
Figure 1 – US Dollar Frame – US Dollar is stable
Figure 2 – Japanese Yen Frame – Japanese Yen is stable
The answer, of course, depends on your frame of reference. From the standpoint of someone in Japan, who is buying goods and services with Yen, a stablecoin like USDC that is linked to the dollar is most assuredly not stable in any useful sense of the word. Conversely, a US dollar investor would not find a Yen stablecoin to be stable. This, then, is an important element of defining a stablecoin: something which matches the volatility and behavior of the basis of the frame you are in, is stable with respect to you. This raises an interesting question when it comes to stablecoin regulation. A coin could very easily be regulated as a stablecoin in one jurisdiction, and not be regulated as such in a different jurisdiction – even between regulatory jurisdictions that are congruent in their treatment of most assets.
What passes for stability, in short, depends on the transactional frame – literally, the underlying currency in which transactions happen – of the observer.
Stable with Respect to When?
The meaning of stability also fluctuates with the time horizon of the observer. Fixed-income investors are very familiar with the concept of Macaulay duration, which is the future horizon at which the value of a bond holding is completely insensitive to parallel shifts in the yield curve, because the change in the value of reinvested coupons (which goes up with higher interest rates) exactly offsets the change in the value of the remaining cash flows (which go down with higher interest rates). What is the riskiness of a bond with a 7-year duration? Or more to the point of this discussion – which is riskier, a 1-month Treasury bill, or a 7-year zero coupon bond?[6]
As it turns out, it depends on the applicable horizon of the observer.
Suppose an investor pursues one of two strategies: in the first strategy, he or she buys a 1-month Treasury bill, initially at 5%, and then rolls the proceeds every month for 7 years. Alternatively, he or she could buy a 7-year zero coupon bond yielding 5%. Using a simple two-factor model with no drift, I generated 250 iterations of T-bill paths and yield curve shapes, to produce hypothetical monthly time series of returns for the two strategies. For example, here is one such random path (Figure 3):
Figure 3 – Illustrative single random path of cumulative returns for two strategies
The a priori expected return is approximately the same for both strategies; sometimes the T-bill roll strategy ends up ahead and sometimes the buy-and-hold strategy wins. With similar expected returns, a rational investor would therefore choose the one which has the lowest risk. But the riskiness or stability of the returns depends very much on the observer’s time horizon. Each of the following three charts is drawn from the same 250 Monte Carlo iterations, but the cumulative return is sampled at a different horizon. In Figure 4, the cumulative returns are sampled at the 1-month horizon. In Figure 5, the sampling is at the 3-year horizon. In Figure 6, the sampling is at the 7-year horizon. For each figure, the cumulative return for the T-bill strategy is shown on the x-axis and the cumulative return for the zero-coupon-bond buy-and-hold strategy is on the y-axis.
Figure 4 – 1-month T-Bill strategy is riskless at a 1-month horizon
Figure 5 – Both strategies are relatively risky at a 3-year horizon
Figure 6 – The 7-year zero-coupon-bond is riskless (in nominal terms) at a 7-year horizon
Although this conclusion is trivial and inevitable to fixed-income investors, the reason for our observation here is to point out that what is considered ‘stable’ not only depends on one’s functional currency but also on one’s holding period horizon.
Is the Nominal Frame the Most Important Frame?
The prior points are likely obvious to most investors. If you are investing with the intention of spending the proceeds in US Dollars, then a USD frame is most relevant. If you are investing for a known future nominal payout (for example, a life insurance company hedging scheduled annuity flows), then an investment that matures to a given value at the time when the money is needed is the most-relevant frame. However, investors sometimes lose track of one of the most important frames, and that is the “real” frame where values track the price level.
While a $1 bill is ‘stable’ in nominal terms – it will always be worth $1 – it is very unstable in purchasing-power terms.
Figure 7 – A dollar is inherently unstable in the main consumer frame
The framework where we ignore the value of the dollar, in preference for the fixed price of the dollar at $1, is the “nominal” framework. When inflation is low and stable, this frame is a useful shorthand in much the same way that when traveling abroad a tourist in the year 2000 might translate Mexican Peso prices into US Dollar prices by dividing by 10 even though the exact exchange rate differs from 10:1. In the short term, such a shortcut framework makes up for in convenience what it surrenders in precision. But in the long term, what starts out as mild imprecision becomes wildly inaccurate as the Peso exchange rate has gone from 10:1 to 20:1.
Similarly, while the nominal frame is the default for short-term comparisons it is clearly not the most important one to a consumer. Someone who is negotiating a salary at a new job, who knows he or she made $40,000 per year in 2004, would be ill-suited to use that figure as the starting point. The frame that matters over time is the real, or inflation-adjusted, frame. In the chart above, if we plotted the purchasing power of an inflation-adjusted 1983 dollar, it would be a flat line at $1.[7] On the other hand, if we plotted the nominal value of that same inflation-adjusted 1983 dollar, it would show a mostly steady increase from $1 to $3.15 over the same time period.
As before, the frame matters. A dollar that is stable in nominal space is very unstable in purchasing-power space. A unit that is stable in purchasing-power space looks unstable in nominal space.
If an investor or consumer had to choose one frame to care about, it would surely be the one in which his or her money represents not just a medium of exchange and a unit of account, but also a store of value. What this means is that a coin that is native currency and inflation-adjusted in the local price level is the most stable of stablecoins. And what that further implies is that what we currently call ‘stablecoins’ are stable only in the narrow context of being fixed at a certain nominal value of domestic currency…and that is suboptimal since all investors and consumers live in a world where prices change.
Tying Frames Together
What is interesting is that each of these frames describes “stability” in a different context. People in one frame see their own side as stable and the other side as volatile – and the exact same thing is true, in reverse, for the other side.
The various frames do traffic with each other. A holder of US Dollars (in the nominal-USD-short-term-stable frame) exchanges those dollars with a person who holds Euros (in the nominal-Euro-short-term-stable frame). We call that an exchange rate. And what ties together the nominal dollar and the inflation-linked dollar is the price index.
Figure 8 – Exchanging dollars with different purchasing power is functionally the same as exchanging currencies with different purchasing power.
In fact, the relationship between the Dollar and the Euro is so much like the relationship between the nominal dollar and the inflation-linked dollar that in 2004 Robert Jarrow and Yildiray Yildirim wrote a paper describing how to value inflation-protected securities and derivatives using a model designed for foreign exchange.[8] And that highlights the fact that an inflation-linked stablecoin isn’t some strange construct but rather an important new product to be added to the cryptocurrency universe. It is just another currency – one that is fixed in time, rather in nominal dollars, that is exchangeable to today’s dollars at the ‘inflation exchange rate’. If a 1983 dollar existed today, it could be exchanged for $3.15 current dollars because the dollar that was frozen in time in 1983 buys more than today’s dollars. That’s just an exchange rate!
Conclusion
It seems that ‘stability’ is not a stable term. Perhaps a more accurate description of the current crop of ‘stablecoins,’ which are exchangeable 1:1 with the base currency, is “fixed coins.” Only an inflation-linked coin would be a “stablecoin” in the true sense of the word, and only because being stable in purchasing-power space is the most important frame.
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/milton-rose-friedman-offer-radical-ideas-21st-century
[2] This is not to be confused with the trustless nature of the transaction verification process of the blockchain, where the peer-to-peer nature of the process allows transactors to be certain their counterparty has the amount of bitcoin in question before completing a transaction. Rather, this is a comment on the entire system itself.
[3] https://www.coinbase.com/learn/crypto-basics/what-is-a-stablecoin
[4] Arguing that a coin pegged to gold or other commodities is a stablecoin is a bit of a stretch. Such a coin may be granted intrinsic value by such backing, and it may even be a better store of value in the long run because of such backing, but it is lacking as a unit of account (nothing is priced in gold units) and as a short-term store of value it leaves a lot to be desired.
[5] So-called ‘algorithmic stablecoins’ are mostly stable because of fiat reasons. That is, only because people believe the algorithm can guarantee that the coin is fully backed, will they behave as if they are. My usage of ‘stablecoins’ leaves out algorithmic stablecoins.
[6] I made this a zero-coupon bond to make it easier. A zero-coupon bond has a Macaulay duration equal to its maturity. However, at the 7-year horizon, any bond with a 7-year Macaulay duration has the same risk to a parallel shift of the yield curve: none. The point of this paper, though, is not fixed-income mathematics so take my word for it for the sake of this argument.
[7] Naturally, whether it is truly precisely flat depends on whether the price index we are adjusting with is an accurate representation of changes in purchasing power. Of course, such an index would look different for every person based on his or her consumption patterns so the line would not be truly flat for any person. But it would be much more stable than the non-inflation-adjusted dollar.
[8] Jarrow, Robert A. and Yildirim, Yildiray, Pricing Treasury Inflation Protected Securities and Related Derivatives Using an Hjm Model (February 1, 2011). Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (JFQA), Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 337-359, June 2003, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=585828
Bitcoin Versus Tesla
Last night, over drinks – a detail that will gain more salience when I describe the discussion – several friends and I were talking about lots of market-related items (as well as, of course, many non-market items).
The topics were as diverse as bitcoin, New Jersey Transit, and Tesla. However…and here’s where the drinks may have played a role…we also explored intersections of the elements of this set. For example, one of our party pointed out that fifteen Teslas would produce about the same power as a diesel locomotive, but at a fraction of the price. Given the recent record of New Jersey Transit’s locomotive fleet (among other problems), perhaps this is worth considering. Not only that, going to work in a train pulled by 15 Teslas would be much more stylish.[1]
A more interesting connection is between Bitcoin and Tesla.
In my book, I reflect at length about the significance of having money which is backed by something concrete (no matter what that is) compared to something backed only by faith – faith that other people will accept our money as a medium of exchange, in exchange for goods or services at rates reasonably predictable and not terribly volatile. Inflation is caused by too much money in the system; hyperinflation is what happens when a currency loses its anchor of confidence and people lose faith that these things will be true in the future. I talk a bit about how high rates of inflation, by eroding confidence, can lead to hyperinflation – but that’s only true of fiat currencies. If money is backed by something tangible, whether it is a precious metal or a bushel of rice, there are limits to how much it can depreciate in real terms and hyperinflation is difficult to come by in these circumstances.
In this context, consider Bitcoin or any of its crypto-currency brethren. Bitcoin is not backed by anything; indeed, it is backed by even less than the “classic” fiat currencies that issuing governments at least promise to accept in payment of citizen obligations to the government. This is not a critique – it simply is. Evidently, the inflation issue is not currently a problem with Bitcoin…as the chart below (source: Bloomberg) suggests, everything in the world is deflating in Bitcoin-equivalents.
But the fact remains that if something were to happen – such as the MtGox scandal a few years ago, at the left side of that chart – that affected people’s confidence that someone else would take Bitcoin in payment, then the value of Bitcoin could (and did) drop precipitously. At the extreme, Bitcoin could go to zero if no one was willing to accept it in exchange – for example, if for some reason it became impossible to confirm that the contents of your Bitcoin wallet was really yours.[2] There is no one you can turn to who is guaranteed to give you something real in exchange.
Now, no one thinks of Tesla as a currency. But, actually, equity securities representing ownership in Tesla could be considered a form of currency – you can exchange them for other items of value, although the usual way is to exchange them for dollars which can then be used to buy other items of value. I am not sure I would call its price in exchange reasonably stable…but it’s certainly more stable than Bitcoin. Here’s the salient commonality, however: at the current price, representing a 11x price-to-book ratio, 6x price to sales ratio, and undefinable price to free cash flow (-$9.74/share free cash flow) or earnings, on a stock with negative net margins, ROA, ROE, and ROC, the price of Tesla is almost entirely faith-based. It is based on a quasi-religious belief by the equity owners that the CEO will manage to produce cars at a positive margin and maintain a large market share, which it will be able to maintain even once large auto manufacturers start to compete.
Far be it from me to question whether investors’ faith will prove well- or ill-founded. I will leave that to my friend @markbspiegel. I don’t own Tesla and have no plans to be long it or short it. My point, though, is that it is remarkably like Bitcoin in that it is backed primarily by faith and, as with any faith-based currency, is entirely based on that faith remaining unshaken. For the implications of having that faith shaken, see Enron in 2001 (chart below, source Bloomberg).
Interestingly, in the battle of Bitcoin versus Tesla it is the former that is winning. A share of Tesla in 2015 was worth 1 Bitcoin. Today, that share is only worth 0.14 Bitcoins (see chart, showing the ratio of Tesla to Bitcoin).[3]
All of which goes mainly to show – be careful when you go out for drinks with quant finance friends!
[1] We thought perhaps Elon Musk is just being coy, playing the long game before he springs this brilliant idea on the public. But today another friend of mine pointed out that it isn’t just the power you’re paying for but the sustainability of that power, and he estimated that 15 Teslas could only pull the train for about 8 miles. Oh well.
[2] “Preposterous!” shout the supporters of Bitcoin. Relax, I’m not saying this is something that will or could happen. It’s not a prediction. It’s merely a thought experiment.
[3] This is a ridiculous chart and it means nothing. But it’s fun. You should see what it looks like if you go back farther. In 2010, one share of Tesla was worth 300 Bitcoins!
Life is Like a Box of Bitcoin
Whether the evaporation of popular Bitcoin marketplace Mt. Gox (which may have nothing to do with the Gox in Dr. Seuss’s beloved One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish[1]) is due to fraud, hacking, incompetence, or some combination of all three – it appears it may have been hacked three years ago, and have been insolvent since then before vanishing from the Internet last night – doesn’t really matter. Either way, investors/speculators with money at Mt. Gox got MFGlobaled. The money wasn’t segregated (if it was money at all, and if it can be segregated at all), there was no audit (if there can be an audit trail for something that doesn’t have a known origin or destination), and the firm was not overseen in any fashion (if it is even possible to oversee something that exists mainly because it is difficult to oversee).
Like Schrödinger’s cat, it was kinda there, until someone actually looked and discovered it was dead.
I have carefully eschewed writing about Bitcoin in the past, though people have asked me to do so. I chose not to write about it because I had no wish to be filleted by one side or the other in the argument. But what I would have said would have been a series of simple observations that have nothing to do with how Bitcoin is mined, managed, or mishandled:
- This is hardly the first currency that has been outside of government control. Currencies existed outside of government control before they existed under government fiat.
- Historically speaking, there is a reason that government-sponsored currencies won, and it wasn’t because they were backed with gold. It was because people trusted the government when it said the currency was backed with gold.
- Trusted banks were issuers of currency for a long time. The coin of the realm has always been trust – and even if a currency is limited, or backed by limited metal, or whatever, you still need trusted institutions through which the coin flows, or it doesn’t work. Where is the trusted institution in Bitcoin’s case?
- So what’s the big deal?
This isn’t schadenfreude. I don’t care if Bitcoin succeeds or not; I don’t think its success or failure has anything to do with whether fiat currencies succeed or blow up. I don’t think Bitcoin is a “safe haven” any more than gold is a safe haven.
But at least I can touch gold. At least I know that gold will have some value in exchange, whereas I don’t know that Bitcoin will, tomorrow. And now, indeed it may not. Surely no institutional investor can now invest in Bitcoin deposits without answering the following question to the satisfaction of its board: “How can we be sure that our money won’t go the way of Mt. Gox?” And institutional acceptance is a huge hurdle for the future success of this substitute currency. Ditto firms using Bitcoin for transactions – a daylight overdraft that can go to zero overnight is a big risk for a bank.
And so, what I think was always the not-so-subtle problem for Bitcoin or any crypto-currency remains: for it to succeed, a trusted institution needs to be involved. Trust can’t be distributed across a network. And if an institution is involved, then the idea of a “people’s currency” loses weight. Bitcoin wasn’t the first of these attempts, and it won’t be the last, but in my mind that is the challenge. You can’t make money that only is used by the credulous and the gullible. It must be used by the incredulous and the suspicious. It is adoption by those people which defines the success or failure of a currency.
(Unfortunately, this puts certain elements at my alma mater in the former category. In our January 2014 alumni magazine was an article on Bitcoin. In the information bar “Bitcoin Dos and Don’ts”, the first point was “Do your research first! More information is available on Bitcoin.it, a wiki maintained by the bitcoin community. For Americans, the most popular and trustworthy place to buy and sell Bitcoins has historically been mtgox.com.” Whoops! Do your research first – popular does not imply trustworthy unless the thing is popular with people whose trust is hard to win!)
[1] “I like to box. How I like to box! So, every day, I box a Gox. In yellow socks I box my Gox. I box in yellow Gox box socks.”
