TLDR

Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian School economist and liberal thinker, argued that money’s value must originate from a prior non-monetary use. Based on his regression theorem model, gold fits this model. Bitcoin, as a digital creation, does not have an obvious pre-monetary commodity stage. Some argue Bitcoin’s early appeal, because of its originality regarding freedom, censorship resistance, and network participation, could count as an initial “use value.” Beyond theory, Bitcoin’s decentralised architecture challenges state monopolies over money, enabling borderless transactions and global voluntary exchange. The main issue is not about compatibility, but rather whether such technology strengthens personal freedom and autonomy, limits arbitrary power, and integrates into a stable and reliable monetary system.

Von Mises as “Original Bitcoiner”

When Mises published The Theory of Money and Credit in 1912, he aimed to integrate monetary theory into the broader framework of subjective value and market processes. He rejected the idea that money could be created by government decree. Instead, its purchasing power must evolve from a good already valued for non-monetary purposes. This reasoning, the regression theorem, solved the problem of explaining money’s value without circularity.

Bitcoin’s emergence in 2009 posed a new challenge. As a purely digital asset, it never existed as a physical commodity. For critics, this breaks Mises’s chain of causation. Supporters counter that early Bitcoin adopters valued it for reasons independent of established exchange, participation in a pioneering technological project, ideological resistance to fiat systems, and the intrinsic satisfaction of securing transactions on a blockchain. These motivations, while intangible, represent a form of non-monetary use within the logic of subjective value theory.

Yet Bitcoin’s importance for many people goes beyond satisfying a century-old theoretical test. Because it is a decentralised structure that resists central control, its global reach allows peer-to-peer transactions without borders, and its open codebase invites continual innovation. These qualities align with Mises’s broader concern for monetary systems free from political manipulation.

However, challenges remain because high volatility connected to public/FIAT currencies as the American Dollar (USD) undermines its function as a stable store of value. Such speculative and stock-market behaviour can distort its use, and integration into broader economic systems often requires compromise with traditional financial institutions.

The real test for Bitcoin, in Misesian terms, is whether it can function as a widely accepted, stable, and reliable form of money, without compromising the independence that defines its appeal.

Concluding reflections

Mises’s ideas remain relevant because they remind us that money is not merely a technical instrument but a social institution rooted in human choice and trust. Bitcoin challenges us to reconsider what counts as “use value” and whether digital scarcity can substitute for physical properties in sustaining monetary systems. Its potential lies not just in economic theory but in practice: enabling secure, voluntary exchange without reliance on political authority. The outcome will depend on whether the cryptocurrency ecosystem can evolve into something both resilient and widely trusted, without sacrificing the decentralised principles that sparked its creation.

Thanks for reading. Please follow my blog, write your feedback, and support my writing.