For a long time, Bitcoin has been at the center of macroeconomic debates.

Critics, especially some economists from the European Central Bank, argue that it is merely a 'Ponzi scheme in a crypto disguise': price increases do not enhance productivity but merely transfer wealth among participants, accompanied by high carbon emissions.

Related research even estimates that the welfare loss brought by Bitcoin's current design accounts for about 1.4% of consumption, with efficiency 500 times lower than that of a moderately inflationary monetary system; even if optimized, the loss still equates to an annual inflation of 45%.

Their logic is that the higher the price, the more mining resources are invested, and these energy and computing resources could have supported higher-yield areas like artificial intelligence, research, or infrastructure. Currently, Bitcoin's total energy consumption is nearing that of a country between Argentina and Norway.

Counterattack: Bitcoin is not a 'Consumable'

New research challenges this view, seeing Bitcoin as economic infrastructure rather than a speculative bubble.

The Austrian School emphasizes its fixed supply and transparent monetary policy, making it more resistant to inflation compared to fiat currencies. Macroeconomic data from Fidelity also shows that Bitcoin's price is highly positively correlated with global money supply (R² > 0.70), particularly significant during periods of liquidity expansion—acting more like a 'safety valve' for monetary policy rather than a competitor to productive investment.

Four Major Economic Channels

Consumption and Wealth Effects

Research from Harvard Business School found that the marginal propensity to consume from Bitcoin earnings is about 9.7%, more than double that of stocks, with consumption concentrated in cash payments, mortgage payments, and discretionary spending, driving spillover effects in the real economy and real estate, directly negating the 'crowding-out effect' hypothesis.

Investment Allocation

Warsaw University found using the Markowitz model that Bitcoin complements rather than replaces traditional assets in a portfolio. The allocation ratio increases during monetary easing, and flows back to traditional assets during economic growth. Most of the capital inflow comes from low-yield assets like cash and bonds, rather than from R&D or factory construction.

Innovation and Network Effects

Leveraging Bitcoin's asset tokenization, programmable currency, decentralized lending, and other services, new productivity increments have been created that cannot be measured by traditional economics, similar to the underestimated economic value of the early Internet.

Monetary Policy Constraints

In countries with high adoption rates, Bitcoin exerts competitive pressure on government monetary policy, reducing tolerance for inflation and limiting seigniorage. The market price's immediate reaction to policy announcements provides a feedback mechanism for macroeconomic stability.

Macroeconomic Conclusion: Complementary, Not Competitive

Comprehensive evidence indicates that Bitcoin's impact on consumption, investment, and innovation is positive, with no significant 'crowding-out' of productive investment. It primarily replaces inefficient monetary assets rather than high-capacity capital.

Research also finds that Bitcoin market volatility can temporarily enhance liquidity, even if it may slightly decrease investment efficiency, but both can coexist in a dynamic economy.

Policy Implications

The right policies should provide a clear framework for regulation, taxation, and institutional participation, curbing excessive speculation while unlocking infrastructure benefits.

Conversely, strict restrictions often harm domestic innovation and financial inclusivity but yield minimal results.

Conclusion

Millions of individuals, when faced with monetary uncertainty and inefficiencies in the financial system, choose to allocate part of their assets to Bitcoin, which is a rational response to real economic signals.

It may not directly 'produce' physical goods, but it enhances the efficiency and stability of the monetary system—which is precisely the foundation of all economic activities.

In an era of continuous expansion of central bank balance sheets, Bitcoin increasingly resembles an inevitable result of monetary evolution rather than a temporary speculative frenzy.