This is one of the most sophisticated mix of economic and political analysis I've recently seen concerning Bitcoin. It is extremely interesting and I must agree with most of what is said. However, here are some thoughts coming from a perspective of ideological deconstruction. What I mean by ideology is 'concepts that are unequivocally accepted as necessary truths about reality - these are often so fundamental in our world view that they are not even mentioned, just given as facts. Understand I am not necessarily disagreeing with what is said in this article, to the contrary I am making this effort because I respect the time and effort put into such an analysis and I think that this a perfect example to talk about ideology.
The reason why this article is worthy of attention is that it seeks to go beyond simplistic analysis. It does so by examining the connection between a whole lot of economic concepts as well as their political, social and environmental relationships. The main strength of this analysis in my opinion is that it unpacks the ideological basis of our monetary systems. It goes to show that economic decisions are not 'neutral' or simply based on 'facts' but are the result of a specific world view and a exercise of power. To do this, it uses the example of the 'jewel beetle' to show us why we do not see 'reality as it is'.
This article does not contempt itself with 'just' economic analysis which is often a way to bypass the political and social realities that structure the economy. In doing so, it seeks to explore the deeper ideological concepts that make our current monetary system. Some of the main concepts used are : the centralization of power through wealth and central banks and the universally accepted nature of unlimited growth as being good and necessary for maintaining a healthy economy. I think the authors do a good job in unpacking these issues.
Through their analysis the authors defend a certain point of view: that the adoption of a decentralized Bitcoin standard will solve the issues that arise from our current monetary system. They explain why this alternative is better and why it will solve the problems that arise from the current system. In doing so, it poses a political statement (political because it concerns the organization of society), and like all political statements it also has its own ideological truths that I want to point out for the simple sake of lucidity. Again, this is not criticism but deconstruction in order to have a better grasp of the political viewpoint that is offered to us.
First and foremost, the ideological foundation of this article is one of libertarian tradition. What is left out of the argumentation, what is assumed if you will, is that a market that is totally left free of intervention will be more efficient than one with intervention. It is assumed that without the influence of central planning of any sort, the distribution of wealth and power will be more just and efficient, both for people and for the economic system. The reason why this article is such a great example of how a political argumentation can hide its own ideological assumptions by disguising them as 'truths' or 'reality', is the use of the metaphor of 'the jewel beetle' is there to reminds us that we do not view 'reality as it is' but rather from the lens of our current economic and political ideologies. However it is important to understand that every political statement has its own biases which we need to be aware of.
Second, the assumptions of the authors are therefore that a decentralized monetary system will be more efficient economically and more just socially. They explain why in terms of allocation of resources society will be better off and how this will also diffuse power (because of no central authority to design monetary policies). The central assumption here is the eternal free market idea, the invisible hand, that supply and demand left alone are the best way to manage the economy. I am not going to get into decade old debates about the validity of such assumption, but it is a strong one and cannot be left hidden as a 'given fact'.
Thirdly, decentralization will automatically create equality because there is no central planing of monetary policy. Again, this is a given in the argumentation but the problem is that decentralizing money does not complete erase the inequalities in wealth and therefore power that currently exist. Say that Bitcoin becomes the international standard as it is proposed, well then there will be some sort of transfer of wealth but mostly, the rich and powerful of today will be rich and powerful in Bitcoin. Because something is decentralized it does not mean it will be fair. It would be naive to think that decentralization in itself will solve centuries of capital accumulation.
Finally my point is that while the article does a great job deconstructing some of the issues that our current monetary system has created, the alternative offered is rather simplistic and also based on 'unspoken truths', just as the current one. This does not mean the idea is bad but it is a warning not to fall into the trap of an overly simplistic solution to complex problems.