The dream of a fully decentralized economy, running entirely on hard digital assets, promises freedom from central banks and political meddling in money. But history warns us that a fixed-supply monetary base is not a stable foundation for a complex, credit-driven economy. The gold standard had all the virtues hard-money advocates praise, scarcity, neutrality, predictability, and yet it was chronically vulnerable to deflationary shocks, bank runs, and deep recessions. Bitcoin would be no different. Without mechanisms to elastically expand and contract the money supply, to act as lender of last resort, and to coordinate credit conditions across cycles, a decentralized economy would be brittle and pro-cyclical. To make it viable, we would need paradigm-shifting innovations in decentralized banking and market structure, otherwise, it’s simply the gold standard with faster settlement, and all the same flaws.
Decentralized Global Trade
The vision of decentralization is seductive: a global economy where every transaction settles on a trustless blockchain, where the currency is capped by code, and where monetary policy is replaced by mathematics. No central bank can debase your savings. No government can inflate away your wages. Money is programmatically scarce, politically neutral, and immune to corruption.
Yet this vision has a historical twin, the gold standard. Gold too was scarce, politically neutral, and naturally resistant to arbitrary debasement. And while it anchored currencies for centuries, it also imposed constraints so severe that nations abandoned it whenever they faced real economic stress. The lesson is clear: without the ability to create money elastically in response to changing economic conditions, any monetary system will struggle to sustain stability in a complex, credit-driven economy.
In a gold-based economy, base money growth came from mining, slow, costly, and uncorrelated with the needs of commerce. In a Bitcoin-based economy, it comes from block rewards, slow, halving every four years, and entirely indifferent to whether the economy is in a boom or bust. Both systems are exogenous: the money supply is determined by something outside the real economy’s demand for liquidity. This rigidity is the root of the problem. In modern economies, output and population grow. More transactions take place. Businesses and households need more liquidity to clear markets without forcing prices downward. Under fiat, central banks can expand reserves to meet that need. Under gold or Bitcoin, they cannot.
Money is not just a medium of exchange; it is the lubricant of commerce. When the quantity of goods and services rises but the quantity of money stays fixed, prices must fall to equilibrate supply and demand. This deflation may sound benign, but in a debt-based economy it is poisonous. Falling prices mean falling nominal revenues, while debt obligations remain fixed. Borrowers’ real burden rises, defaults increase, banks suffer losses, and credit tightens further, destroying even more money supply. What begins as a mild shortfall of liquidity becomes a downward spiral.
David Hume’s price-specie flow mechanism described how gold naturally flowed between nations to balance trade. Deficit countries lost gold, deflated, and became more competitive; surplus countries gained gold, inflated, and lost competitiveness. A Bitcoin world would replicate this dynamic almost perfectly, but at digital speed. If a country or region ran a persistent trade deficit, BTC would flow out, draining domestic liquidity. The adjustment, wage cuts, price falls, asset sales, would be swift and brutal. Without the ability to issue new base money, the only relief would be waiting for prices to fall enough to attract inflows back.
What makes this dynamic damaging is the speed and severity of the adjustment. Under gold, physical transport of specie gave economies weeks or months to adapt to outflows; wages could be renegotiated slowly, prices could drift down over time, and political authorities sometimes found ways to delay the pain. In a Bitcoin-based system, settlement is near-instant. A shift in market sentiment, a viral panic, or a sudden trade imbalance could trigger massive outflows in minutes. Domestic liquidity would collapse before businesses or households had time to adjust, forcing abrupt layoffs, fire sales of assets, and cascading defaults. The economy wouldn’t get the slow “medicine” hard-money advocates imagine, it would get a violent liquidity shock.
Worse, the adjustment mechanism itself is socially and politically destabilizing. Wage cuts and asset price collapses are not just numbers on a chart; they are mass unemployment, bankruptcies, and the erosion of household balance sheets. In democracies, such shocks tend to provoke rapid political backlash, capital controls, redenomination, or outright abandonment of the standard, just as countries abandoned gold in the 1930s when the pain became intolerable. A Bitcoin standard would face the same pressures, but with far less room to intervene quietly, making the odds of it surviving a serious imbalance vanishingly small.
To elaborate, in the early 1930s, gold-standard countries facing trade deficits and banking stress were trapped. Gold outflows shrank their domestic money supplies, pushing prices and wages down in a brutal deflationary cycle. Because the gold peg limited their ability to create new base money, governments could not offset the liquidity loss with domestic stimulus. Central banks hesitated to cut rates or lend freely to banks for fear of losing more gold, so credit conditions tightened even as unemployment soared. The result was a deepening depression until countries like the U.K. (1931) and the U.S. (1933) suspended gold convertibility. Once free from the peg, they could expand their money supply, stabilize banks, and reflate prices, and their economies began to recover.
Today, with fiat currencies, countries are no longer constrained by an exogenous monetary base. If a trade deficit or capital outflow drains liquidity, central banks can offset it by creating reserves, cutting interest rates, or directly injecting money through asset purchases. Governments can run countercyclical fiscal policy, increasing spending or cutting taxes, and have the central bank finance it if needed. Exchange rates can adjust freely, easing trade imbalances without forcing domestic deflation. These tools don’t eliminate all crises, but they give policymakers the flexibility to act quickly, preventing the kind of prolonged, self-reinforcing downturns that the gold standard, and by extension a Bitcoin standard, would make inevitable.
Decentralized Banking
Even in a Bitcoin-only world, people will want deposit-like accounts and instant payments. Banks or bank-like entities will emerge to take deposits and make loans. They will discover, as goldsmiths once did, that not all depositors withdraw at once, and they will create more claims on BTC than they have BTC in reserve. This is fractional-reserve banking by another name. Without a central bank to backstop redemptions, these institutions will be as vulnerable to runs as 19th-century banks. A rumor, a market shock, or a high-profile failure could cause depositors to flee en masse, forcing solvent but illiquid lenders into default.
Under fiat, central banks can lean against the wind, raising rates in booms, cutting them in busts, injecting liquidity when panic sets in. Under a Bitcoin standard, credit conditions are set entirely by private confidence. In good times, confidence is high, redemption fears are low, and banks lend aggressively. The money supply grows through deposit creation, fueling the boom. In bad times, fear rises, banks tighten, and the money supply contracts, just when the economy needs liquidity the most. The result is pro-cyclicality: booms overshoot, busts deepen.
Crypto advocates often point to stablecoins as the answer. But most stablecoins today are pegged to fiat, importing central bank monetary policy rather than replacing it. A BTC-backed stablecoin would face the same constraints as gold-backed banknotes: its supply would be limited by reserves, and it would be vulnerable to redemption runs. Unless stablecoins can expand and contract supply based on economic conditions, without breaking their peg, they cannot solve the core inelasticity problem.
In every major fiat crisis, from 2008 to 2020, central banks have acted as lenders of last resort, providing emergency liquidity to solvent institutions. This function is not about bailing out bad actors, it’s about preventing liquidity panics from destroying the payments system. In a decentralized economy, who does this? A DAO? A miner cartel? Without a credible, coordinated mechanism to flood the system with liquidity in a panic, every liquidity crisis risks becoming a solvency crisis.
Elastic credit creation is not just a tool for stimulus; it’s a shock absorber. In a demand collapse, new money can replace lost spending power, stabilizing nominal incomes and debt servicing. Under gold or Bitcoin, no one has the mandate or capacity to do this. The adjustment must come entirely through falling prices and wages, a slow, painful, politically destabilizing process.
The fragility here isn’t theoretical, it’s the same weakness that forced the world off the gold standard. Gold-based systems couldn’t allow credit to expand in line with the economy’s needs without risking a loss of convertibility, so booms were fueled by unchecked private lending, and busts were met with monetary paralysis. Without a central bank empowered to issue base money freely, bank runs could only be stopped by shutting banks or abandoning the peg. That’s why modern central banks exist: to supply elastic liquidity, to act as lenders of last resort, and to maintain financial stability exactly when private credit confidence collapses.
We ultimately abandoned gold standards because they arbitrarily constrained that ability. The peg didn’t just limit reckless expansion, it also blocked necessary intervention in crises. When liquidity dried up, policymakers couldn’t inject money without risking a run on gold reserves. Once countries suspended convertibility, they regained the capacity to stabilize credit, stop bank runs, and support spending in recessions. That flexibility is not a nice-to-have, it’s the difference between a short downturn and a decade-long depression.
DeFi lending markets today are largely overcollateralized, which limits their ability to create net new money. They also lack maturity transformation: loans are short-term, collateral is volatile, and liquidity can evaporate in a flash. Without innovations that allow safe, undercollateralized lending and liquidity backstops, DeFi cannot replicate the stabilizing functions of a modern banking system. Indeed, fear and greed move faster than spreadsheets; panic can outrun any theoretical equilibrium. A rigid money system without a trusted backstop is a system built to fail the moment human emotion overtakes cold calculation, which, in financial history, is sooner and more often than hard-money purists like to admit.
The Purpose of DeFi
At its core, the traditional financial and banking system has two functions which are irreplaceable by DeFi (at least with current technology / paradigm):
- Extension of credit: expanding the money supply by lending in excess of base money, allowing the economy to grow beyond the physical stock of reserves.
- Maturity transformation: taking short-term deposits and turning them into long-term loans and investments, bridging the gap between savers and borrowers.
Both functions rely on confidence, the belief that depositors can get their money back on demand. That confidence exists because there is a central bank backstop. In a fiat system, the central bank can create base money in any amount necessary to meet redemptions and prevent liquidity crises. Without such a backstop, fractional-reserve lending and maturity transformation are inherently fragile.
Even if DeFi cannot replicate the central credit and maturity-transformation functions of traditional banking without inheriting the same fragilities, it can still radically improve many other aspects of finance.
First, it is a hedge against fiat failure; in a fiat system, rejecting the currency means moving into another store of value: foreign currencies, equities, commodities, or crypto. By definition, buying any of these is being “short” your domestic fiat. Crypto adds a unique dimension, it’s borderless, seizure-resistant, and not reliant on any single government.
- In Venezuela and Argentina, citizens have turned to Bitcoin and stablecoins to escape hyperinflation and capital controls.
- In Nigeria, USDT and USDC are widely used in peer-to-peer markets when the naira is unstable or official exchange rates are distorted.
- In Turkey, where the lira’s value has plunged, crypto markets have become a parallel system for preserving savings.
In these cases, DeFi provides a parallel rails system, a “plan B” when domestic monetary policy fails catastrophically.
Second, crypto broadens financial access and efficiency; technology removes friction in areas where traditional finance is slow, expensive, or exclusionary.
- Cross-border payments: There’s no reason it should take three days and cost $50 to wire money abroad. Stablecoins can move value globally in seconds.
- Market access: Tokenized stocks can give foreign investors access to U.S. equities, still the envy of the world, without requiring a U.S. brokerage account.
- Capital raising: Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and token launches allow teams to raise funds directly from a global community, bypassing the gatekeeping and fees of investment banks in IPOs.
- Democratizing private markets: With reliable oracles, perpetual swaps or synthetic products could track the prices of private assets, giving ordinary investors exposure to markets previously limited to the wealthy.
However, DeFi’s deepest value isn’t in replacing banks, it’s in liberating finance from gatekeepers and providing an alternative when governments get it wrong. Sometimes the failure is catastrophic, as in hyperinflation; other times it’s subtler, like overreaching regulations that tell people what they can and cannot invest in “for their own good.” Traditional finance is paternalistic: regulators decide what risks are “suitable” for you, and intermediaries decide what products you can access. DeFi is libertarian in spirit: it assumes you can decide for yourself. It offers the tools to preserve value, transact freely, and access opportunities without permission.
No, DeFi cannot yet replace the core functions of banking and credit creation, and trying to do so without a credible liquidity backstop would inherit the same brittleness as the gold standard. But it can make finance faster, cheaper, more open, and more resilient. It gives the world a fallback system when governments fail, and historically, governments have been the single greatest source of economic pain and suffering. No private corporation has ever matched the scale of damage caused by a bad state policy, and DeFi exists to ensure that when that policy arrives, people have somewhere else to turn.
Disclaimer
The information provided on TheLogbook (the "Substack") is strictly for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered as investment or financial advice. The author is not a licensed financial advisor or tax professional and is not offering any professional services through this Substack. Investing in financial markets involves substantial risk, including possible loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The author makes no representations or warranties about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the information provided.
This Substack may contain links to external websites not affiliated with the author, and the accuracy of information on these sites is not guaranteed. Nothing contained in this Substack constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments. Always seek the advice of a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
