Privacy policyTerms of useDiscover great writing

The number of crypto addresses continues to grow. Currently it's at an all-time high of approximately 220 million, which roughly mirrors the adoption curve of the internet back in the 90s (log scale). It is, however, important to note that one crypto address does not necessarily correspond to one human being. For example, I have many different crypto addresses. So if you dig a little deeper, you'll see that their net estimate is somewhere between 30-60 million real human beings transacting using crypto every month. This is the estimated active user base and it continues to grow.

The number of mobile crypto wallet users is also growing rapidly outside of the US, namely in countries like Nigeria, India, and Argentina. This is the result of a number of factors: population growth, mobile phone adoption, government support, inflation, and many others. I mean, since 2010, the Argentine Peso has lost basically 99% of its value against the USD. So of course you'd rather put your money somewhere else, such as in stablecoins.

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies that have their value pegged to something else, such as a fiat currency. Today, they are one of the most popular crypto products and virtually all of them (more than 99%) are pegged to the USD dollar. This is viewed by some as an opportunity to strengthen the dominance of the US dollar at a time when it's waning (see above). But more importantly, stablecoins already serve two important functions in the market: one, it's as stable as the US dollar; and two, the cost of sending a stablecoin anywhere in the world is now basically free. Say goodbye to bank wire transfers.

It's worth reiterating that a16z is a venture capital firm that is heavily invested in the crypto space. And so reports like this are naturally a form of marketing and a form of lobbying. Still, there's a lot of great information in here that you can use to form your own opinions about the sector. It may not be succinct, but if you take the time, I think you'll find it compelling.

A person in favor of this arrangement would argue that it maintains affordability and diversity. What it means in purely economic terms is that some people who couldn’t afford to live in New York City if rents were set by free-market forces are able to live there if they’re lucky enough to secure an apartment with regulated rent. But other people who would like to live in New York City and can afford higher rents can’t do so because there are no apartments for them. And lastly, landlords that have apartments that are somehow unregulated can command higher rents than would be the case if additions to the supply of apartments weren’t being discouraged. It’s a matter of personal philosophy whether this is good or bad. But clearly, the laws of economics and the actions of free markets aren’t at work in New York City. Someone in government is making the decisions.

Much like inclusionary zoning in the case of new housing, the tradeoffs with regulated rents are that you get (1) less overall housing supply and (2) more expensive prices for the people that can pay market rents.

You could argue, as Marks suggests, that these are acceptable outcomes; but regardless of your opinion, there are real consequences to this policy decision. There's no such thing as a "free lunch" in economics, and consequently there's no such thing as no-cost affordable housing. The question is: Who pays?

Going back to the topic of traffic congestion from yesterday's post, Toronto's general reluctance to implement any form of road or congestion pricing is also an economic choice. We have priced our roads so cheaply that demand is always going to outstrip supply. And this is expected. What we are experiencing today is a natural market outcome.

Targeting bike lanes as part of the problem is meant to counter this by increasing road supply. Less bike lanes means more space for cars, right? But the second-order consequence of this choice is that you push people off their bikes (which take up less road space) and into cars (which take up more road space). So demand is also likely to increase.

The stark reality of solving traffic congestion is that it will require greater change. It will mean fewer people driving, more people taking transit and biking, and the people who do continue to drive will have to pay more for it.

Of course, this is not what any politician wants to talk about. As Marks says: "In the world of politics, there can be limitless benefits and something for everyone. But in economics, there are only tradeoffs." The tradeoff we have decided to make is cheap roads in exchange for crippling traffic congestion.

Share Dialog

Share Dialog

Share Dialog