A New Fed Working Paper Aims to Rein in Bitcoin With Taxes or Prohibition—Here’s Why It’s Flawed
In a working paper, Amol Amol and Erzo G.J. Luttmer from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis argue that prohibiting bitcoin or imposing specific taxes could help governments implement permanent primary deficits effectively. Their research explores the impact of bitcoin on fiscal policies and offers potential solutions.
The Case Against Bitcoin: The Minneapolis Federal Reserve’s Study
Amol and Luttmer’s working paper examines how the presence of bitcoin (BTC), ironically referred to as a “useless piece of paper,” complicates the government’s ability to maintain a permanent primary deficit policy. According to the research, the trade of bitcoin undermines the implementation of such policies by creating alternative steady states where the government’s strategies may not hold. The working paper emphasizes that in a scenario where bitcoin is legally prohibited, or where a specific tax rate is applied to it, these fiscal policies can regain their effectiveness.
The authors propose two primary solutions for governments: a legal prohibition against trading bitcoin or the imposition of a tax at the rate of -(r – g), where r denotes the real interest rate and g the economy’s growth rate. By setting this tax greater than zero, governments can eliminate equilibria where bitcoin trades at positive prices. This action would theoretically prevent bitcoin from destabilizing fiscal policies aimed at sustaining permanent primary deficits, restoring unique policy implementation in the affected economy.
The working paper dives into the technical details of how these solutions would work. Amol and Luttmer use economic modeling to demonstrate that without such interventions, bitcoin introduces indeterminacy into fiscal policy implementation. In particular, bitcoin’s trade creates multiple potential equilibria that complicate the government’s fiscal management, such as leading to a “balanced budget trap” where the government is unable to sustain primary deficits due to competing value in bitcoin.
Amol and Luttmer emphasize the need for decisive government action. They suggest that prohibiting or taxing bitcoin is a form of financial repression but argue that it may be necessary to maintain fiscal stability. The authors caution that alternative strategies to regulate bitcoin would need to be carefully designed to avoid abrupt market shifts or unintended consequences. Their findings align with broader concerns from government agencies and bureaucrats about the challenges digital currencies pose to traditional fiscal policies.
Despite the 37-page effort, the prohibition or taxation of bitcoin to support permanent deficits is flawed on multiple fronts. First, it underestimates bitcoin’s resistance to centralized control, undermining the feasibility of outright prohibition. Second, from an ethical standpoint, financial repression, like prohibitive taxation or bans, involves coercive intervention, violating principles of voluntary exchange essential to free markets and individual sovereignty. Lastly, government restrictions undermine market dynamics, inhibiting the organic development of value systems independent of fiat control.
Applying math to the proposition that bitcoin prohibition or taxation can aid governments in maintaining permanent deficits is misguided because it treats human action and economic systems as static, linear equations. This overlooks the dynamic nature of markets and individual preferences. Human action is subjective and cannot be reduced to mathematical formulas. Economic behavior emerges from individual choices and value judgments, which are inherently unpredictable and unquantifiable. Using math to model fiscal control ignores the complexity of decentralized markets like bitcoin and human action in general.
You may also like

WEEX LALIGA Partnership 2026: Where Football Excellence Meets Crypto Innovation
WEEX becomes official crypto exchange partner of LALIGA in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Discover how this partnership brings together football excellence and trading discipline.

AI Apocalypse, a massive short squeeze

The "Second Truth" of the Luna Crash: Jane Street Exits Ahead of Plunge

Jane Street Market Manipulation, Stripe Considering Acquiring PayPal, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Talking About Today?
WEEX × LALIGA 2026: Trade Crypto, Take Your Shot & Win Official LALIGA Prizes
Unlock shoot attempts through futures trading, spot trading, or referrals. Turn match predictions into structured rewards with BTC, USDT, position airdrops, and LALIGA merchandise on WEEX.

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…
WEEX LALIGA Partnership 2026: Where Football Excellence Meets Crypto Innovation
WEEX becomes official crypto exchange partner of LALIGA in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Discover how this partnership brings together football excellence and trading discipline.
AI Apocalypse, a massive short squeeze
The "Second Truth" of the Luna Crash: Jane Street Exits Ahead of Plunge
Jane Street Market Manipulation, Stripe Considering Acquiring PayPal, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Talking About Today?
WEEX × LALIGA 2026: Trade Crypto, Take Your Shot & Win Official LALIGA Prizes
Unlock shoot attempts through futures trading, spot trading, or referrals. Turn match predictions into structured rewards with BTC, USDT, position airdrops, and LALIGA merchandise on WEEX.