note: the supplied web search results returned unrelated programming pages, so I proceeded using standard economic and crypto reporting sources and principles to craft the introduction below.
Gresham’s Law – the centuries‑old adage that “bad money drives out good” – offers a simple lens for understanding how people choose what to spend and what to keep. When two forms of money circulate side by side, the one that loses value or is easier to obtain typically becomes the medium of everyday transactions, while the sounder, more valuable currency is hoarded or removed from circulation. Applied to the digital age, that dynamic helps explain why Bitcoin ofen behaves more like a savings asset than a daily medium of exchange: as fiat currencies weaken through inflation, capital controls or erosion of trust, people turn to Bitcoin to preserve value, implicitly consigning the more volatile or depreciating tender to routine spending.
This article explains Gresham’s Law in plain terms and traces the mechanisms by which “bad” fiat money can spur Bitcoin adoption - from merchant choice and household cashflow to regulatory friction and liquidity constraints – while also examining the countervailing forces that keep Bitcoin from becoming everyday cash: price volatility, limited on‑ramps and off‑ramps, and evolving legal frameworks. Through ancient examples and contemporary case studies, we’ll explore when Gresham’s Law accelerates crypto adoption, when it doesn’t, and what that means for consumers, policymakers and markets navigating an increasingly mixed monetary landscape.
Gresham’s Law Explained and Why It Matters to Bitcoin
gresham’s Law - the economic adage that “bad money drives out good” – still resonates in the digital age. Put simply, when two forms of money circulate side by side and one is expected to retain purchasing power better than the other, people tend to hoard the superior store of value and spend the weaker currency. That behavioral tilt reshapes markets: what circulates widely becomes the de facto medium for daily transactions,while the better-preserved asset retreats into savings and off‑market storage.
Historically this dynamic showed up in bimetallic systems and coin debasements; today it plays out between sovereign fiat, stablecoins, and cryptocurrencies. The mechanism is psychological and practical: when people anticipate depreciation in nominal money, they offload it quickly, and conversely, they lock away assets perceived as sound money. The result is a dual-layer monetary ecology where liquidity and everyday pricing cluster around the less durable instrument.
Applied to crypto, the effect is unmistakable. Many users treat Bitcoin as a long-term store – hoarding and reducing its velocity – while relying on fiat or stablecoins for commerce. That divergence creates a set of predictable behaviors:
- Spend the weak: fiat and stablecoins remain the primary medium for daily payments.
- Hoard the strong: Bitcoin functions largely as a savings vehicle.
- Layer solutions emerge: off‑chain rails and L2s appear to make BTC more usable without sacrificing its scarcity.
The market-level consequences are both technical and economic. Reduced on‑chain spending can suppress fee pressure at times, but concentrated hoarding amplifies volatility when holders decide to move large positions. Miners and validators face shifting incentives: if transactions cluster on L2,base‑layer fees and security economics change,while exchanges and payment services must bridge the gap between a spendable medium and a retained asset. In short, monetary preferences reshape infrastructure priorities.
| Characteristic | Bad Money (Inflationary) | Good Money (Scarce, Bitcoin) |
|---|---|---|
| Typical Use | Daily spending | Long-term saving |
| velocity | High | Low |
| Pricing Anchor | Short-term transactions | Store of value |
For market participants and policymakers the lessons are practical. Investors should recognize that hoarding behavior can both underpin Bitcoin’s value proposition and limit its utility as money; payment providers should prioritize scalable rails if wider spending is the goal.Regulators and central banks must anticipate that introducing or debasing alternatives will change circulation patterns. Encouraging interoperability – via stablecoins for payments and layer‑2 for usability – offers a way to reconcile Bitcoin’s role as strong money with modern transactional needs.
Historical Precedents of Bad Money Driving Out Good and Lessons for Crypto
Across centuries, monetary systems have repeatedly shown a simple, uncomfortable truth: when two forms of money circulate together, the inferior one frequently enough becomes the medium of everyday exchange while the superior form is saved or removed from circulation. Historical episodes such as the Roman debasement of silver and the widespread clipping of coin edges are textbook examples – people quickly learn to spend degraded currency and hoard the versions that retain intrinsic value. Those behavioural patterns are not quaint relics; they illuminate how modern digital currencies compete for use and trust.
In the early modern period, governments and private issuers altered metal content or issued token coinage, and market participants adapted by keeping higher-quality coins out of pockets and tills.The result was an economy where face value diverged from material value and everyday transactions relied on the cheapest available tokens. The mechanics were simple: perceived quality drives hoarding, circulation favors the expendable, and pricing adjustments lag social behaviour – a dynamic that can reappear in any monetary ecosystem.
Transposed to crypto, the analogues are immediate. Ailing tokens, poorly designed stablecoins, or inflationary supply policies can act like the “bad” money that fills transactional roles, while scarce, well-engineered assets are retained by users as stores of value. in practice this looks like a split between what people use to pay (high velocity, low trust) and what they hold (low velocity, high trust). The consequences matter: liquidity,merchant acceptance,and network security can shift depending on which tokens dominate daily exchange.
- Design discipline: predictable supply and obvious issuance reduce the risk of substitution by inferior tokens.
- incentive alignment: protocol fees and miner/staker rewards should discourage short-term dilution.
- Market infrastructure: custody solutions and liquidity pools must make holding “good” money practical for users and merchants.
- regulatory clarity: clear rules on reserves and audits limit the proliferation of unstable alternatives.
| Historical Example | Core Mechanic | Crypto Parallel |
|---|---|---|
| Roman Debasement | Reduced metal content | Token inflation / protocol dilution |
| Clipping & Counterfeits | Loss of intrinsic trust | Unbacked stablecoins & scams |
| Bimetallism Conflicts | Competing standards | Multiple stablecoins and forks |
To guard against a repeat of history, stakeholders must act on both technical and behavioural fronts. Developers should prioritise transparent supply rules and upgrade paths; exchanges and custodians must make high-quality assets as usable as the inferior alternatives; and policymakers should focus on disclosure standards rather than heavy-handed bans. Above all, recognising that human incentives – not just code – determine what circulates will keep networks resilient and help ensure that good money can remain in active use rather than being quietly exported to private vaults.
Market Mechanisms That Allow Inferior Tokens and Forks to Undermine Bitcoin
The digital currency ecosystem can reward novelty as much as soundness, allowing weaker tokens and contentious protocol forks to capture market attention and capital. In practice, this creates a dynamic where speculative demand for “the next big thing” outpaces scrutiny of fundamentals, transforming hype into liquidity. The result is a short-term elevation of lesser-quality assets that can mask systemic weaknesses in the dominant monetary candidate and distort price finding for the whole market.
Centralized exchanges, social media momentum, and engineered token incentives act as channels that amplify inferior offerings. Common conduits include:
- Exchange listings that grant immediate tradability and perceived legitimacy.
- Airdrops and free claims that seed wide distribution and create illusion of grassroots support.
- Yield farming and liquidity mining that temporarily inflate on-chain activity and TVL (total value locked).
- Influencer narratives that compress complex risks into simple investment slogans.
Technical mechanics of chain splits and token forking further complicate matters. A brief table captures how these mechanics play out:
| mechanism | Short-term Effect | Long-term Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Hard Fork | Sudden token duplication | Consensus dilution |
| Replayable Transactions | Cross-chain arbitrage | User loss / confusion |
| Token Incentives | Rapid liquidity inflows | Unstable demand |
Information asymmetry magnifies the problem: institutional traders, miners, and experienced developers read chain metrics differently than casual participants. Bots and high-frequency traders exploit transient price spreads created by new tokens, while retail investors-facing louder marketing and simpler narratives-may be left holding assets with weak utility. This split in understanding accelerates circulation of inferior money and can momentarily supplant better-backed alternatives in transactional use.
On-chain economic forces also play a role. Token velocity and market-making practices can make an inferior token appear more “useful” because it moves faster through wallets and decentralized exchanges. stablecoins and wrapped assets add layers of complexity, creating shortcuts for capital to flow into speculative forks without the friction that woudl normally penalize poor monetary design. Over time, these patterns can normalize circulation of lower-quality tokens-a classic analog to bad money driving out good.
Mitigation is ultimately structural and behavioral. Exchanges and custodians can raise listing standards and require demonstrable decentralization and advancement activity; market participants can prioritize on-chain fundamentals over narrative momentum. Practical steps include:
- due diligence on hash power, developer activity, and governance.
- Depth checks for liquidity and order book resilience.
- Monitoring for unsustainable incentive mechanics (e.g., endless token emissions).
Absent those safeguards, the market mechanisms that favor novelty will continue to allow inferior tokens and forks to temporarily undermine the monetary credibility of robust systems.
How Speculation, Network Effects and Liquidity Amplify Bad Money Dynamics in Bitcoin
Speculation acts like an accelerant in markets: when expectations of rapid price thankfulness dominate, participants prefer instruments that offer the quickest route to gain - not necessarily the soundest monetary characteristics. That chase for short-term profit concentrates trading on custodial products,derivatives and wrapped tokens,increasing velocity in those instruments while the more robust,long-term store-of-value – in many cases,native Bitcoin – is removed from circulation and hoarded.
Network effects magnify whatever instrument becomes the easiest to use. Exchanges, payment rails and wallet integrations tend to standardize on a small set of tradable assets; once liquidity and infrastructure favor a particular token or on‑ramps, that asset becomes the default medium for transactions. Over time, convenience and acceptance can trump fundamentals, creating a self-reinforcing loop that entrenches less sound money simply because it is more accessible.
Liquidity is the mechanical amplifier: shallow order books and concentrated market‑making can turn small flows into outsized price moves, while deep pools in custodial venues make conversion inexpensive and immediate. When liquidity congregates around intermediated forms of Bitcoin exposure, trading volume and price discovery migrate away from native, on‑chain Bitcoin economics and toward off‑chain instruments - a central ingredient in the “bad money” dynamic.
When speculation, liquidity and network effects align, the market can deploy precisely the opposite incentives that sound money requires. Short-termism rewards rapid turnover,network convenience rewards centralized wrappers,and ready liquidity rewards custodial settlement. Together they create a cycle where the most spendable or tradeable token circulates widely, even if it carries counterparty, custodial or systemic risk that undermines its monetary quality.
- Leverage and margin: inflates demand for tradeable tokens and derivatives.
- Custodial convenience: concentrates assets off‑chain and increases dependence on intermediaries.
- Platform lock‑in: makes switching costly and cements dominant but potentially inferior forms of money.
Mitigating these dynamics requires purposeful market design and infrastructure choices: improved on‑chain liquidity, standardized non‑custodial custody, transparent settlement rails and regulatory clarity that reduces reliance on shortcut instruments. Small changes in incentives – such as, better UX for native Bitcoin payments or deeper native liquidity pools – can reverse feedback loops and make the market reward monetary soundness over temporary convenience.
| Factor | Typical Effect | Concrete Example |
|---|---|---|
| Speculation | high turnover | Derivatives surge |
| Liquidity | Price amplification | thin order books |
| Network Effects | Platform lock‑in | Wallet defaults |
Regulatory, technical and Community Responses to Prevent Bad Money from Dominating Bitcoin
Regulators around the world are increasingly tuned to the risk that “bad money” - manipulated tokens, illicitly sourced coins, or engineered inflationary forks – can distort Bitcoin’s market signals. Recent guidance from supervisory bodies emphasizes exchange responsibility: mandatory KYC/AML checks,clear provenance standards,and the ability to delist assets deemed harmful to market integrity. While these steps aim to protect users and reduce the attractiveness of tainted liquidity, they also raise questions about jurisdictional fragmentation and unintended centralization of gatekeeping powers.
At the protocol level engineers are exploring technical mitigations that preserve Bitcoin’s decentralized essence while making it harder for harmful variants to gain traction. Proposals include enhanced wallet heuristics to flag suspicious inputs,optional coin-tagging metadata,and miner/node policies that deprioritize transactions flagged by community-maintained watchlists.upgrades that improve on-chain transparency - without undermining user privacy – form a delicate engineering frontier: the goal is to reduce the incentives for deploying “bad” variants without instituting top-down censorship.
The grassroots response is proving decisive. Developers, exchanges, miners and civil-society auditors are already coordinating informal defenses: public watchlists, open-source provenance tools, and reputation scoring for addresses and forks. Common community actions include:
- Maintaining blacklists of addresses tied to confirmed manipulation or theft
- Publishing forensic reports and provenance histories
- Wallet and exchange warnings that educate users when accepting coins with questionable origins
In practice, regulatory and technical measures often converge at custodial touchpoints. Exchanges routinely combine legal compliance with technical screening: automated heuristics reject or flag deposits from addresses associated with tainted chains, while custodial services may refuse to custody assets that lack clear provenance. These combined controls can be effective at limiting the market reach of “bad money,” but they also concentrate decision-making power in a few intermediaries, creating a trade-off between containment and decentralization.
Any defensive strategy must reckon with real trade-offs. The table below summarizes core measures, their intended benefit, and primary risks – a simple framework journalists and policymakers can use when weighing responses.
| Measure | Benefit | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Exchange delisting | limits liquidity for bad assets | Centralizes gatekeeping |
| Node-level filtering | Network-level prevention | Potential censorship |
| Community watchlists | Open, crowd-sourced policing | False positives / reputational harm |
Ultimately, the most resilient defense is layered: modest regulation that enforces transparency, protocol tools that enable informed acceptance, and an active community that exposes abuse. Bold, coordinated action can prevent exploitative money from dominating Bitcoin’s liquidity – but it must be calibrated to preserve the currency’s core properties: permissionless access, resistance to censorship, and fungibility. Journalistic scrutiny and public debate remain crucial as these responses evolve and are tested in real markets.
Practical Strategies for Investors to Identify and Protect Against Bad Money in Crypto Markets
In markets where value can shift overnight, investors must learn to distinguish between legitimate liquidity and what amounts to “bad money” – tokens or instruments that undermine market integrity through opacity, unchecked issuance, or manipulative mechanics. Recognize that the danger is both direct (loss of capital) and systemic (contagion when a large issuer fails).Practical prevention begins with a disciplined checklist and an insistence on transparency.
Start every position with rigorous due diligence: verify the team and legal structure, confirm smart contract audits, and read tokenomics closely. Watch for these red flags:
- Anonymous or unverifiable founders
- Unlimited minting rights
- Concentrated token distribution
- Opaque reserve or custody claims
Leverage on‑chain analytics and surveillance tools to turn suspicion into evidence. Track liquidity depth, holder concentration, and unusual transfer patterns using block explorers and analytics dashboards. Pay attention to on‑chain signals such as sudden large transfers,shrinking pools on DEXes,or deposit/withdrawal spikes from centralized providers – these are early warnings that “bad money” may be moving through the system.
Adopt execution and portfolio rules that limit exposure to manipulation. Use limit orders, split entries, and staggered exits to reduce slippage and front‑running risk.Avoid low‑depth pairs and newly listed tokens without established market depth. When using stablecoins or wrapped assets, verify backing and redemption mechanisms before treating them as a cash equivalent.
Protect holdings through custody best practices: cold storage for long‑term Bitcoin holdings, multisignature wallets for treasury assets, and vetted custodians for institutional allocations. Consider policy measures – position limits, strict provenance checks, and insurance where available – to reduce the fallout if an asset suddenly reveals itself as toxic.
| Risk | signal | Protective Action |
|---|---|---|
| Stablecoin depeg | Price off peg & reserve opacity | Redeem, diversify reserves |
| Rug pull | Liquidity removed suddenly | Exit quickly, report, blacklist |
| Hidden inflation | Unexpected minting events | Reassess holdings, vote on governance |
Maintain a proactive posture: test assumptions through stress scenarios, keep position sizes manageable, and treat on‑chain transparency as a first line of defense against bad money infecting your portfolio.
Policy recommendations and Design Changes to Strengthen Bitcoin’s Monetary Quality
Preserving scarcity and predictability must be the north star for any set of interventions. In policy terms - understood as a framework of principles and rules that guide decisions - authorities should avoid measures that implicitly revalue or dilute bitcoin’s fixed-supply properties. Regulatory gestures that introduce retroactive changes to issuance, confiscatory powers over private keys, or unpredictable tax treatments risk turning ”good” money into a less reliable store of value.
Practical regulatory reforms should prioritize legal clarity, neutrality, and technological compatibility. Key items for legislators and regulators include:
- Clear tax treatment for on-chain transactions and realized gains.
- Neutral rules that do not privilege fiat rails over crypto-native solutions.
- AML/KYC approaches calibrated to peer-to-peer value transfer, not blanket bans.
- Legal recognition of custodial proof-of-reserves and non-confiscatory custody standards.
Protocol-level design choices deserve attention alongside statute. Maintaining an immutable monetary policy requires conservative change management: soft-fork-only improvements, strong community signalling for consensus changes, and continued investment in scaling layers (Lightning, state channels) that preserve on-chain scarcity while improving usability. Fee-market resilience, mempool health, and predictable issuance schedules are technical public goods that strengthen monetary quality.
Standards, governance, and ecosystem incentives should be reoriented toward monetary robustness. A compact table of recommended interventions and expected effects can help align stakeholders:
| Intervention | Expected Effect |
|---|---|
| Protocol conservatism | Preserves trust in issuance |
| Layer-2 adoption incentives | Better payments, less on-chain bloat |
| Transparent custodial audits | Reduces counterparty risk |
Market infrastructure must be designed to favor sound money behavior. Exchanges, custodians, and wallet providers should adopt default behaviors that encourage saving in bitcoin rather than forced turnover: opt-in staking-like features must be avoided; instead, offer privacy-preserving custody, easy on/off ramps that do not incentivize selling during volatility, and transparent disclosures about asset composition so users can distinguish bitcoin from “bad money” instruments.
Coordination and capacity-building are essential: policymakers should consult technologists, market participants, and civil-society voices to craft rules that reflect the unique economics of bitcoin. Training programs for regulators, model laws that codify non-confiscatory principles, and international cooperation on cross-border payment standards will reduce the chance that poorly designed interventions degrade bitcoin’s monetary qualities. Thoughtful policy - rooted in clear principles and tested technical safeguards - can strengthen, not erode, bitcoin’s role as a reliable monetary asset.
Q&A
Below is a concise,journalistic Q&A designed to accompany an article titled “Gresham’s law Explained: how Bad Money Affects Bitcoin.” It explains the economic principle, how – and when – it applies to cryptocurrencies, real-world examples, and implications for users, merchants and policymakers.
Q1: What is Gresham’s Law?
A1: Gresham’s Law is the adage that ”bad money drives out good.” In classical terms, when two forms of money circulate at a legally fixed exchange rate but one is seen as having higher intrinsic or future value, people tend to spend the cheaper or “bad” money and hoard the more valuable or “good” money, removing it from everyday transactions.
Q2: How does Gresham’s Law work in practice?
A2: The mechanism is simple: if both coins or currencies are accepted at the same face value but one is expected to retain purchasing power (as of metal content, inflation expectations, or scarcity), rational actors will keep the valuable money as a store of value and use the less valuable money for payments.That causes the “good” money to disappear from circulation.Q3: What are the precise conditions needed for Gresham’s Law to hold?
A3: Key conditions are: (1) two monies used concurrently; (2) a legally enforced fixed exchange or face-value relationship between them; (3) one currency perceived as retaining more value; and (4) ease of transacting with both. Without these, the law’s simple prediction often doesn’t apply.
Q4: Does Gresham’s Law apply directly to Bitcoin?
A4: Not exactly. Bitcoin differs from historical examples because it is not generally a goverment-mandated legal tender exchanged at a fixed face rate with fiat.Bitcoin’s market exchange rate with fiat floats,and acceptance is voluntary. Those differences limit the classical Gresham mechanism, though analogous behaviors – hoarding “good” money and spending “bad” money – can still appear.Q5: How can “bad money” spur bitcoin adoption?
A5: When fiat currency suffers high inflation, loss of trust, or capital controls, people seek alternatives to preserve value. that creates demand for assets seen as relatively “good” money – including Bitcoin. In that sense, failing fiat can accelerate Bitcoin adoption as a store-of-value or a medium to move funds across borders.
Q6: If people hoard Bitcoin as ”good money,” won’t that remove it from circulation and limit its usefulness?
A6: Yes. Hoarding reduces spending velocity. If a critically important share of Bitcoin is held as savings rather than used in daily transactions, it can hinder merchant acceptance and use as a day-to-day medium of exchange. That’s one reason price stability, liquidity and low transaction costs matter for widespread transactional use.
Q7: How has this played out in real-world crises?
A7: In places with inflation or exchange controls (e.g., venezuela, parts of Argentina and Turkey), people turned to alternatives – including foreign currency, stablecoins and Bitcoin - to protect savings or move money. The dynamics vary: stable assets with liquidity see greater transactional use, while volatile assets tend to be used more for speculative or savings purposes.
Q8: What about El Salvador’s adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender – does that create a classical Gresham scenario?
A8: El Salvador’s case is instructive but mixed. Making Bitcoin legal tender brings it into the same legal framework as the fiat colón/dollar, a condition closer to Gresham’s Law. But as Bitcoin’s value is volatile and acceptance infrastructure was uneven, many Salvadorans kept dollars or used them preferentially for everyday transactions. That illustrates how volatility and practical barriers can prevent Bitcoin from displacing ”bad” money in daily use.
Q9: Does Bitcoin’s price volatility work for or against it being “good money”?
A9: Volatility is a major barrier to Bitcoin functioning as stable ”good money” for everyday use. High short-term price swings discourage spending and encourage hoarding or speculation.Though, as a long-term hedge against monetary debasement in some contexts, Bitcoin can be perceived as relatively “good” even if volatile.
Q10: Can stablecoins or other cryptocurrencies change the dynamic?
A10: Stablecoins peg to fiat value and reduce volatility risk, making them more practical for payments and everyday transactions. But if the underlying fiat is the one losing value or becoming unreliable, stablecoins pegged to that fiat may inherit the same weaknesses. Simultaneously occurring, centralized stablecoins introduce counterparty and regulatory risks that affect trust.Q11: how do liquidity, fees and transaction speed affect whether Bitcoin circulates or is hoarded?
A11: Higher liquidity, lower transaction fees and fast settlement encourage spending and merchant acceptance. Conversely, high fees, slow confirmation times and poor on-ramps push users toward hoarding or alternative payment methods. Layer-2 solutions (e.g., Lightning Network) and better fiat-crypto rails improve bitcoin’s transactional usability.
Q12: Could regulation change the outcome?
A12: Yes. Legal tender laws, tax treatment, capital controls and KYC/AML rules shape incentives. Forcing acceptance at a fixed value can create a Gresham-like effect; conversely, favorable regulatory frameworks, clear tax guidance and consumer protections can foster voluntary adoption and broader circulation.
Q13: Is ther a “reverse Gresham” effect with cryptocurrencies – where good money drives out bad?
A13: In practice, market forces sometimes produce a “reverse” outcome: when a widely trusted currency or payment rail becomes dominant, it crowds out weaker alternatives.In crypto, a well-functioning, low-volatility medium (or a widely accepted stable payment method) can displace inferior options. That outcome depends on network effects, trust and usability rather than legal compulsion.
Q14: What should consumers, merchants and policymakers take away?
A14: Consumers should assess risks: volatility, custody and regulatory exposure. Merchants need to weigh settlement speed, conversion to fiat, and costs. Policymakers should recognize that currency mismanagement can push people toward alternatives; regulation should balance financial stability, innovation and consumer protection to avoid unintended shifts in monetary behavior.
Q15: Bottom line – will bad fiat always push people to Bitcoin?
A15: Not always.Bad fiat creates an incentive to look for alternatives,and Bitcoin can be one such alternative.But practical barriers - volatility, liquidity, fees, infrastructure, regulation and legal status - frequently limit Bitcoin’s role as a day-to-day currency. In many cases, people choose a blend of solutions (foreign fiat, stablecoins, precious metals, crypto) depending on their priorities and local conditions.
If you’d like, I can adapt this Q&A for a sidebar, expand any answer with more examples (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, El Salvador), or produce short interview-style quotes to accompany the article.
To Wrap It Up
As monetary stress tests and policy choices reshape everyday commerce, Gresham’s Law offers a useful lens: when trusted fiat falters, people tend to spend what they expect to lose value and hoard what they expect to retain it. Bitcoin – with its capped supply and censorship-resistant design – can look like that ”good” money on the margins. But practical realities – volatility, regulatory intervention, limited merchant acceptance and friction in converting between crypto and fiat – mean that broad, sustained displacement of fiat by bitcoin remains far from automatic.
What matters going forward are the real-world frictions: how governments respond, how quickly on‑ and off‑ramps mature, and whether price stability and liquidity improve enough for everyday use. If those pieces fall into place, bitcoin’s role could shift from speculative asset to meaningful monetary alternative in places where fiat loses public trust. If not, it will likely continue to coexist as a niche store of value and speculative market.
For readers,the takeaway is twofold: Gresham’s Law explains a powerful behavioral dynamic at work in currency use,and bitcoin exemplifies both the promise and the limits of that dynamic in the modern age. This remains an unfolding story – one to watch as markets, policymakers and everyday users decide which forms of money they will spend, hoard and trust.
