<p><a href="http://cryptonomics.org/2012/11/10/the-velocity-and-dormancy-of-bitcoin/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Velocity and Dormancy of Bitcoin</a>. It contains important observations and links to a research paper.</p>

<p>See also the comment I added to the bottom of that blog article, which should appear if the owner of that blog accepts my comment, which is quoted below.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>You assume that only “change” needs to be removed from the total of
  transactions when computing the velocity. Transfers to self in and out
  of the system also must be removed, because only the fee in money
  transfers is part of the GDP when the transfer is not to another
  person for a real good or service. Ditto your section making the
  erroneous claim that transfers in bitcoins external to the main
  database should be factored into the velocity without regard to
  whether they are transfers to pay for a good or service.</p>
  
  <p>I find it unfathomable that every Bitcoin owner is spending his entire
  balance 7 times every quarter. This would require he has the means to
  receive bitcoins 7 times every quarter from someone else paying for
  goods and services. Such a Bitcoin economy does not exist.</p>
  
  <p>If data is analyzed more deeply, perhaps with the aid of data from the
  FX services, I am confident that vast majority of transactions would
  be transfers buying in and cashing out of Bitcoin, or moving money to
  self across borders and through exchange vehicles such as real estate,
  etc. There are not that many merchants accepting Bitcoin. It is
  fathomable that there might be a significant quantity of illicit or
  black market transfers, since Bitcoin aids anonymity. However, even if
  so, such markets can not likely scale to velocity of fiat for the
  mainstream population. Also FinCEN is preparing to crack down on this
  market sector.</p>
  
  <p>As you noted, the problem with computing dormancy in Bitcoin is there
  is no way to know which are transfers to self. Perhaps one could make
  the reasonable assumption that large value transactions that paid a
  significant transaction fee are not likely transfers to self, since
  one would be motivated in that case to likely tradeoff speed of
  verification for cost.</p>
  
  <p>Since FinCEN will be regulating transfers (to self or other party),
  but not transactions in exchange for goods and services, users do not
  have an incentive to reveal the data we need.</p>
  
  <p>So perhaps the only metric that is reliable is your weighted-average
  of dormancy relative to itself, not as an indication of relative
  velocity to those computed with GDP. I think that may have been your
  intended point, but IMO you did not elucidate it.</p>
  
  <p>Your weighted-average of dormancy is not <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Days_Destroyed" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bitcoin Days Destroyed</a>—
  the latter weights the past dormancy of coins that have been
  transferred over any chosen period, whereas yours is a snapshot of the
  current dormancy of coins. The histogram of the percentage of Days
  Destroyed graphs distribution of dormancy over the measured period.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Update: I <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1163/how-can-determine-the-fundamental-theoretical-value-of-the-bitcoin-based-on-stea/8641#8641">expounded on why the 7 velocity is not likely</a> at this time for Bitcoin.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-14T20:06:44.080Z
Too bad the article is unreachable now. I get this message: ""cryptonomics" is not available at the domain cryptonomics.org right now. This domain expired, and it has to be renewed before it is lost."
I couldn' find it anywhere else.
Could you please repost it at a free blog anywhere? I'd really love to read it.
Jonathas Carrijo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-23T14:54:24.537Z
2013-03-23T17:01:21.540Z
2017-04-13T12:47:33.610Z
Shelby Moore III
<p>I don't have a list or a wiki listing all the relevant documents, but <a href="http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf" rel="nofollow">the European Central Bank produced this document</a> which covers several types of money schemes including Bitcoin.</p>

<p>Perhaps some lessons learned, and advice from this document can encourage adoption of Bitcoin.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-01-06T16:53:17.547Z
2013-01-06T16:53:17.547Z
makerofthings7
<p>I'm looking for research papers that cover the impact Bitcoin may have on Central Banking, interest rates, velocity of money, and their reserve.</p>

<p>What research papers or information from thought leaders exists w.r.t Bitcoin's impact on economic matters?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-02-05T22:28:31.030Z
I think it's much too early to expect that kind of academic research. At this point it would be mostly speculation anyway.
David
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-23T14:55:49.043Z
@David ostensibly your assumption is wrong. See my answer.
Shelby Moore III
<economic-theory><bitcoin-economy><finance>
What research papers cover Bitcoin's impact on Central Banks, "velocity of money", and reserves?
makerofthings7
# What research papers cover Bitcoin's impact on Central Banks, "velocity of money", and reserves?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-01-06)

I'm looking for research papers that cover the impact Bitcoin may have on Central Banking, interest rates, velocity of money, and their reserve.

What research papers or information from thought leaders exists w.r.t Bitcoin's impact on economic matters?

**Tags:** economic-theory, bitcoin-economy, finance

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think it's much too early to expect that kind of academic research. At this point it would be mostly speculation anyway.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 ostensibly your assumption is wrong. See my answer.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-03-23. Score: 1

[The Velocity and Dormancy of Bitcoin](http://cryptonomics.org/2012/11/10/the-velocity-and-dormancy-of-bitcoin/). It contains important observations and links to a research paper.

See also the comment I added to the bottom of that blog article, which should appear if the owner of that blog accepts my comment, which is quoted below.

> You assume that only “change” needs to be removed from the total of
> transactions when computing the velocity. Transfers to self in and out
> of the system also must be removed, because only the fee in money
> transfers is part of the GDP when the transfer is not to another
> person for a real good or service. Ditto your section making the
> erroneous claim that transfers in bitcoins external to the main
> database should be factored into the velocity without regard to
> whether they are transfers to pay for a good or service.
>
> I find it unfathomable that every Bitcoin owner is spending his entire
> balance 7 times every quarter. This would require he has the means to
> receive bitcoins 7 times every quarter from someone else paying for
> goods and services. Such a Bitcoin economy does not exist.
>
> If data is analyzed more deeply, perhaps with the aid of data from the
> FX services, I am confident that vast majority of transactions would
> be transfers buying in and cashing out of Bitcoin, or moving money to
> self across borders and through exchange vehicles such as real estate,
> etc. There are not that many merchants accepting Bitcoin. It is
> fathomable that there might be a significant quantity of illicit or
> black market transfers, since Bitcoin aids anonymity. However, even if
> so, such markets can not likely scale to velocity of fiat for the
> mainstream population. Also FinCEN is preparing to crack down on this
> market sector.
>
> As you noted, the problem with computing dormancy in Bitcoin is there
> is no way to know which are transfers to self. Perhaps one could make
> the reasonable assumption that large value transactions that paid a
> significant transaction fee are not likely transfers to self, since
> one would be motivated in that case to likely tradeoff speed of
> verification for cost.
>
> Since FinCEN will be regulating transfers (to self or other party),
> but not transactions in exchange for goods and services, users do not
> have an incentive to reveal the data we need.
>
> So perhaps the only metric that is reliable is your weighted-average
> of dormancy relative to itself, not as an indication of relative
> velocity to those computed with GDP. I think that may have been your
> intended point, but IMO you did not elucidate it.
>
> Your weighted-average of dormancy is not [Bitcoin Days Destroyed](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Days_Destroyed)—
> the latter weights the past dormancy of coins that have been
> transferred over any chosen period, whereas yours is a snapshot of the
> current dormancy of coins. The histogram of the percentage of Days
> Destroyed graphs distribution of dormancy over the measured period.

Update: I [expounded on why the 7 velocity is not likely](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1163/how-can-determine-the-fundamental-theoretical-value-of-the-bitcoin-based-on-stea/8641#8641) at this time for Bitcoin.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Too bad the article is unreachable now. I get this message: ""cryptonomics" is not available at the domain cryptonomics.org right now. This domain expired, and it has to be renewed before it is lost." I couldn' find it anywhere else. Could you please repost it at a free blog anywhere? I'd really love to read it.  

---

### Answer by username_0 on 2013-01-06. Score: 1

I don't have a list or a wiki listing all the relevant documents, but [the European Central Bank produced this document](http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf) which covers several types of money schemes including Bitcoin.

Perhaps some lessons learned, and advice from this document can encourage adoption of Bitcoin.


---

