A brief history of Bitcoin “wallet” growth

There has been a lot of investment and press coverage of the overall Bitcoin ecosystem.  So what kind of growth have some of the larger companies historically had?

Even though it is not an accurate measure of growth or adoption (see Measuring Interest and Not User Adoption), a lot of discussion on social media typically uses self-reported “wallet” numbers as a valid metric for traction.  Ignoring the fact that there is nothing in the network that can be described as a “wallet” (there are no real “payment buckets,” since addresses are essentially just UTXO labels), for simplification purposes, we will talk about what are typically referred to as wallets.1

A brief history

As mentioned in a working paper last spring, Coinbase began 2013 with ~13,000 wallets and on February 27, 2014 announced it had reached 1 million.

Similarly, Blockchain.info had roughly ~13,000 wallets in August 2012 and reached 1 million in January 2014.  On April 14, 2014, Blockchain.info reached 1.5 million wallets.

Yet it is unclear how many are active or actually have any bitcoins in them (similar uncertainties surround Coinbase wallets).  More on that later.

Fast forward to the present day, Blockchain.info recently announced that it had 3 million wallets and Coinbase now has 2.5 million (note: the about section on Coinbase also states there are 2 million “users” though that is unclear if they are active, KYC’ed users with an actual balance or just a registered empty account).

Altogether, Coinbase purportedly added 1.5 million new wallets over the past year and Blockchain.info supposedly doubled its own wallets.

Sounds like real consumer traction?

Or, maybe not.

Why?  Because there is no cost to open or create a wallet.  In fact, for “best practices” users are supposed to use only one address per transaction due to privacy and security concerns.  Thus, consequently the growth in wallet creation could be a skewed metric.

Internal usage

According to media reports, merchants accepting bitcoin for payments globally increased from ~21,000 in January 2014 to now over 100,000 as of February 2015.  Of that total, Coinbase states it has 38,000 merchants and BitPay claims 53,738 merchants accept bitcoin payments through them.

What does this “growth” actually look like?

coinbase offchain transactions

Above is a chart covering the past year from Coinbase which illustrates the daily off-chain transaction volume, the transactions that take place within the Coinbase database.

While it is unclear if all of this activity represents merchant processing, vault movements, etc., the trend over the year is actually relatively flat.  Perhaps that will change in the future.

Can we be sure that this flatness is missing actual merchant activity?

Four-and-a-half months ago, in October 2014, Brian Armstrong and Fred Ehrsam, co-founders of Coinbase, did a reddit AMA.  At the 31:56 minute mark (video), Fred discussed merchant flows:

One other thing I’ve had some people ask me IRL and I’ve seen on reddit occasionally too, is this concept of more merchants coming on board in bitcoin and that causing selling pressure, or the price to go down. [Coinbase is] one of the largest merchant processors, I really don’t think that is true.  Well one, the volumes that merchants are processing aren’t negligible but they’re not super high especially when compared to people who are kind of buying and selling bitcoin.  Like the trend is going in the right direction there but in absolute terms that’s still true.  So I think that is largely a myth.

What about Blockchain.info?

blockchain my wallet transaction volume

Above is a chart measuring the internal transaction volume over the past year of the “My Wallet” feature (the product name of the user wallet) from Blockchain.info.

Earlier this week, Blockchain.info claimed that “over $270 million in bitcoin transactions occurred via its wallets over the past seven days.”

But this is probably not accurate.  Organ of Corti pointed out that the 7 day average was indeed ~720,000 bitcoins in total output volume (thus making) the weekly volume would be about “5e06 btc for the network.”

Is it valid to multiply the total output volume by USD (or euros or yen)?  No.

Why not?  Because most of this activity is probably a combination of wallet shuffling, laundering and mixing of coins (e.g., use of SharedSend and burner wallets) or any number of superfluous activity.  It was not $270 million of economic trade.

Blockchain.info’s press release seems to be implying that economic trade is taking place, in which all transactions are (probably) transactions to new individuals when in reality it could simply be a lot of “change” address movement.  And more to the point, the actual internal volume looks roughly the same as has been the past few months (why issue a press release now?).

Is there another way to look at this?

blockchain my wallet number of transaction per day

Above is a chart from Blockchain.info that visualizes “My Wallet” transaction volume over the past year.

While Blockchain.info has seen transactions per day roughly double over the past year (from 25,000 to 50,000), without doxxing where those bitcoins go, it cannot be said that a doubling of economic activity, or that bonafide consumer traction has taken place.

Has there been any “exponential” growth, adoption or traction?  Probably not.  Again, perhaps that will change, but consumer usage could simply continue to grow at a linear fashion or maybe even less as well.

There may be a number of reasons, perhaps the average consumer is still someone who buys and holds bitcoin as a speculative investment and has no need to actually spend it with the available merchants.  But this is a topic for another post (see also Zombie activity).

ChangeTip

ChangeTip was founded on December 17, 2013.  It is not generally seen as a wallet, like the services above, in fact it currently bills itself as a micropayment service (e.g., “tipping”).  However, users need a ChangeTip wallet — which is provided for free through its platform — in order to perform their tipping services.

While their “Offsite storage wallet” (cold storage) is publicly accessible, below are three charts culled from Changetip real-time usage stats which has been broken the last couple of weeks (or the API they were collecting data from is broken; or both).  The time period is from between December 6, 2014 and February 17, 2015, covering ~73 days including Christmas and BitPay’s “Bitcoin St. Petersburg Bowl.”

changetip total number of tips sent

The chart above visualizes the total number of tips sent on the ChangeTip platform .  In just over 2 months it increased from: 119,740 tips to 187,071 tips.  During this 73 day period, approximately 67,331 tips were sent which is roughly 922 per day.

changetip total usd tipped to date

The chart above visualizes the total USD tipped to date (at current exchange rate).  During this time frame it increased from: $54,767 to $111,963.  Thus $57,196 was sent in tips during 73 days, roughly $783 per day.

changetip total numbers of users

The chart above visualizes the total number of ChangeTip users during the same time frame.  It increased from 45,851 users to 67,469 users.  According to this data, 21,618 users joined ChangeTip during 73 days, which is approximately 296 new users per day.

Altogether this comes to a grand total as of February 17, 2015 — 67,469 users have sent 187,071 tips totaling $111,963.  The average user has sent 2.7 tips altogether, with each tip worth about $0.60 (just under 60 cents to be precise).

Perhaps this trend will change — in addition to its usage on Twitter and Reddit they have added support to Slack and Youtube.

But then again, maybe tipping is not a really accurate, useful or desirable signaling mechanism (recall that micropayments is not a new idea).  And while speculative, a lack of traction could be one of the reasons why — after 3 months since Coinbase first launched their own — it recently dropped their own tipping feature (e.g., the engineering resources consumed more than the service generated).

Future research and conclusions

What about Android Bitcoin wallets?  Last October a github user put together a short comparison of the top 10 Bitcoin wallets by number of downloads.  What we saw then was a power law distribution: growth in downloads among the top 3 but a relative plateau for others.  More striking was that there was linear growth, not exponential.  Future research should also take into account the corresponding amount of deleted wallets and inactive wallets.  Note: last May at the Dutch Nationaal Bitcoin Congres, Mike Hearn described this comparison of downloaded vs deleted wallets at length, see his presentation (video) starting at 11:30m.

Bitreserve, which incidentally also launched in October 2014, provides a public transparency stats page which could serve as the beginning of a “best practices” for the industry.

Why is this important?

We have previously looked at BitPay data (which was flat).  Circle and Xapo have not publicly released much data at this time (incidentally, breadwallet is actually ranked higher at #4 in the Apple Store than both Coinbase and Xapo).  Yet from the data above it is increasingly clear that actual user numbers should not be conflated with wallet creation numbers.

Aside from movement into P2SH addresses, it is hard to really say where large, sustained organic growth is occurring.  Perhaps it is only a matter of time, maybe it is “early days” as some say.  Or maybe it is a reflection of other economic development constraints.

Update:

I received an email from Andreas Schildbach, creator of the Android Bitcoin wallet, and a portion of it is posted below (with his permission):

Install count is at 700k. Perhaps an interesting metric is that on GitHub, it’s forked 384 times (and starred 371 times). A lot of these forks made it to the Play Store.

Update 2:

I received an email from Wendell Davis, creator of the Hive Wallet.  According to him, all the Hive Wallet stats are open and accessible.  He also pointed to a similar, smaller discussion on reddit last fall.

Update 3:

BitcoinPulse has been tracking the total amount of downloads for the Satoshi bitcoind client (the reference client); over the past year there has been a linear increase in downloads.  Arianna Simpson pointed out that MultiBit, as of March 2014, had at least 1.5 million downloads.

  1. I would like to, again, thank Andrew Poelstra for crystalizing this point for me. []
Send to Kindle

Is the adoption of blockchains and consensus ledgers a foregone conclusion?

Earlier this evening I gave a new presentation to the Sim Kee Boon Institute (SKBI) for Financial Economics at Singapore Management University (where I am a new research fellow).

Covered a lot of ground over 2 hours, I am not sure if there is a recording but will post it if one surfaces.  Below is the deck that I used.  Many thanks to David Lee, Ernie Teo, William Mougayar, Mikkel Larsen, Taulant Ramabaja, Taariq Lewis, Dan O’Prey, Bobby Ong, Meher Roy, Richard Brown, Sidney Zhang, Dave Hudson, Jonathan Levin and Robert Sams for their feedback.

Abstract: 
For the past two years, many entrepreneurs, developers, investors and enthusiasts have promoted the view that blockchains and in particular, Bitcoin will eventually be adopted as a universal value transfer mechanism — a type of global payment rail fit for a cornucopia of use-cases. Empirically this does not seem to be the case as over the past year and specifically the past 6 months, multiple startups have been created that specialize in areas that Bitcoin is not particularly well suited for. Whether any of these succeed is another matter entirely, but it is not a foregone conclusion that any one blockchain will be the “one to rule them all” based on their competitive (dis)advantages. This presentation outlines a number of vendors that have either announced or are working on solutions for the broader “Fintech” space as well as incumbent institutions in the existing ecosystem.
Send to Kindle

The myth of a cheaper Bitcoin network: a note about transaction processing, currency conversion and Bitcoinland

Recently the Museum of American Finance hosted an event covering Bitcoin.  One of the panelists allegedly said: “we don’t think about infrastructure cost of VOIP because it’s approaching zero.”  I haven’t seen a video, so it’s unclear if this is a summation of their thoughts.  But in terms of the infrastructure costs of Bitcoin, this is probably not comparing apples to apples because the incentives and costs to successfully attack the Skype network are very different than a network such as Bitcoin.

If the cost to maintain Bitcoin’s infrastructure is zero, so too is the cost to successfully attack it.  In fact, just about anyone motivated to do so could have successfully “attacked” (e.g., double spent) the Bitcoin network in its first 18 months because the hashrate was relatively low because the value of the token was negligible (e.g., miners weren’t destroying additional units of capital because there was no financial incentive to do so).

For example, by the end of June 2010, the network strength (detailed here) was around 139 megahashes/second.  To obtain half that hashrate, or 70 megahashes/second, an attacker would need to only spin up about 10 Xeon processors which could be obtained through AWS relatively cheaply (note: Satoshi probably used just one computer).

It was not until market participants increasingly valued the coin (vis-à-vis higher demand) which then in turn incentivized miners to destroy a corresponding amount of capital to protect the ledger.  Or as Peter Todd recently explained: the maximum cost to successfully attack Bitcoin’s network is directly proportional to the market value of the token.  It is intentionally designed to be expensive to attack otherwise anyone could change the history.  Or as Richard Brown has explained, proof of work as used in Bitcoin is “inefficient” on purpose.

The logistics of currency positions

In practice miners are taking one currency (USD, EUR, RMB), usually one denominated based on where the equipment is located, and through the process of destroying exergy (see Chapter 3), converting it into a foreign currency called bitcoin.  Or in other words, miners are currency convertors.  And irrespective of scale, “to mine” is effectively taking a long position on bitcoin versus a fiat currency (recall that the mining equipment and operating costs are paid for in foreign currency).  For many actors, it is not just a forex bet but also a gamble on appreciation.  As discussed in Chapter 3, there are at least two classes of actors willing and able to mine at losses, including some who hope that the token will appreciate in value.

I, along with several others, have written about this numerous times.  In the long run, most miners, if not all, do not actually generate economic profit because of how the difficulty rating adjusts proportional to the amount of hashrate that is added to the network (e.g., the “Red Queen effect”).  If it becomes cheaper to “mine” then the situation will simply incentivize more hashrate to be added resulting in a higher difficulty rating, negating the temporary advantage.  In the short run, there are actual differences in margins due to differences in climate, electricity prices, administrative overhead, taxes, etc.  Some, such as BitFury and a few in China, have better economies of scale and/or handsome land and energy deals due to guanxi (a few consequently have “cost of production” down to $80 per bitcoin and even lower as of this writing).

How the sausage is made

Unless you have mined some kind of coin before (see 12 Step Guide), in order to understand how mining actually works we must begin by noting that most miners are not actual miners, but rather hashers who effectively ‘rent’ their equipment to pools (pools charge a fee in exchange for this service).  Miners, technically speaking, are the machines that actually select, process and validate a transaction.  Hashing equipment does not do this.

For instance, CoinTelegraph recently ran a story on the new Raspberry Pi 2 Model B which costs $35.

raspberry node

This Pi computer (above) is effectively the only miner, the only “transaction processing” machine in an entire mining warehouse.

Since the entire Bitcoin blockchain can and is processed with something this cheap, why is mining so expensive then?

That is where Sybil protection and decentralization come into play.  Recall that for the supply side of the equation, miners compete with one another to win the block reward (since it accounts for roughly 99.5% of their revenue, a figure which hasn’t changed much in a couple years, see below for more).  Thus, rationally economic actors will strip a mining facility of anything that lacks utility (in some cases, even computer “cases” themselves).  If it is not hashing, it is not helping to generate income.  Thus in all warehouses today, they have row after row of specialized machines called ASICs to provide this spartan hashing function (recall this was all initially spurred on by ArtForz creativity).  In practice, this hashing equipment actually just asks for a block header from the host node of a pool (such as the Pi Raspberry) and only “hashes” the “midstate” but that is another discussion entirely (see this excellent explanation from Vitalik Buterin).  Thus, the only bona fide “mining” equipment in a facility is usually something akin to the Pi computer above.

[Sidebar: whenever someone claims that Bitcoin mining manufacturing pushed fabrication geometries to new limits, the reality is that designing a mining chip (or really, hashing chip) is actually, relatively simple: you only need a small handful of engineers to do it compared with say, a Xeon chip (which requires several hundred).  In fact, most of the IP for SHA256 modules (or tiles) for “mining” equipment can be purchased from existing backend design companies.]

So what utility do those rows of ASICs provide then?

As shown in the video (above), the sole job of those single-use ASIC machines are to provide “proof of work” hashing power which thereupon provides Sybil protection for the blockchain.  The video above was filmed in Liaoning province in China last fall by Vice magazine.  Be sure to also read more details from Jake Smith’s article covering the same facility (he was also the laowai translating in the video).

The bigger picture

Recall that the estimated total deployed capital from VC firms over the past 18 months in the Bitcoin space is roughly $500 million into over 100 startups.  And the direct financial rewards to miners over the same time frame has been roughly $780 million (3,600 bitcoins x 540 days x $400 weighted token price).  This wealth transfer represents a large opportunity cost to the emerging economy that is Bitcoinland (one notable exception is BitFury, which invested in BitGo).  Because instead of being able to hire software developers with that $780 million, it was used to fund exergy dissipation through:

  • Semiconductor firms such as TSMC
  • Utility companies (coal power plants in China, facilities in Washington, Finland and Ukraine)
  • Property and real estate agencies

Or in short, in an alternate universe in which Satoshi had created a different distributed yet secure consensus protocol (one that may or may not exist) in which the infrastructure costs did not directly scale in proportion to the value of the token, $780 million could have been instead used to hire 7,800 full-time developers (based on SF Bay wages).

But the Bitcoin network doesn’t need those developers, the current network can do everything the incumbents provide right?

Based on at least one post, Satoshi may have hoped to compete with Visa but he/she could turn out to be empirically wrong, there are real costs to maintaining a decentralized network.  As it stands today, the Bitcoin protocol does not offer any of the actual banking and credit services of existing financial institutions.  Consequently, recall that the expenditure and threat models on ‘trusted’ centralized networks are different than ‘untrusted’ decentralized networks.  As I and others have described elsewhere, Sybil protection and decentralization add costs to operating a network — they do not in fact, make it cheaper.  There is no free lunch or “free energy” in the mining process, anyone claiming that proof-of-work-based “mining” will somehow become ‘cheaper’ in the future is in the same class as the perpetual motion salesman.

Why is this important?

Another way to think about it: the $500 million that VC’s have deployed to build Bitcoinland are effectively a foreign exchange currency play (because it is a virtual-only foreign country that can only be accessed with a pre-paid card, bitcoin).  This money is being paid to effectively leverage one economy, or rather one unit-of-account (namely USD, EUR, RMB) to build a virtual unit-of-account called BTC (see more from Robert Sams).  But, and this is important for international adoption: there are no real corresponding exports from that economy (yet).  Furthermore, there are several reasons why the narrative of social media enthusiasts will likely not go according to plan.

Bitcoinland – a large, virtual retirement facility

bitcoin mining rewardsFrom a network sustainability perspective, Bitcoinland is a senior citizen and its trust fund (revenue base) is no longer in the “early days.”

Investor and entrepreneur interest may still be in the “early days,” but the asymptotical reward structure rapidly aged this economy into its twilight years much like early stars.

As of this writing, approximately 13.8 million bitcoins have been divvied out to miners over the past 6 years.  This represents roughly 2/3 of the internal income the Bitcoin trust fund had at the beginning.  More than half of the remaining will be apportioned in the next five and half years.

One common refrain is that at some unknown date and time, transaction fees will somehow increase and/or more users will collectively pay more fees.  This is a possibility but is unlikely for the reasons discussed on numerous occasions for reasons described in this working paper (it is a type of collective action problem).

In fact, the biggest counterpoint to this is that we have direct evidence to the contrary.

transaction fees in USD

The chart (above) illustrates the total transaction fees to miners (denominated in USD) over the past 2 years.  Denominated in BTC, the 2 year chart shows the same trend line.

Fees to miners is actually at a 2 year low (in BTC) and not increasing despite the fact that there are now more than 100,000 merchants that accept bitcoin for payments (up from 20,000 last year).

Why is merchant adoption far outpacing consumer adoption?  Well there are multiple reasons which I and others have discussed before.  More on that later.

Perhaps there is another way to visualize this historically, from the beginning?historical transaction fee

The chart (above) is from Organ of Corti and illustrates what I mentioned at the start of this post: that roughly 0.5% of a miner’s revenue comes from transactions (effectively, user donations), the vast majority still comes from the block reward.

But isn’t the retail economy booming and will balance this out?  No.

As shown from Jorge Stolfi (and Coinbase’s own chart), on-chain retail growth is stagnant (in fact, it is one of the glaring omissions in Bitpay’s new infographic).

Why?  Because most consumers are, in practice, not incentivized or otherwise interested in converting their local currency into a foreign currency for goods or services they can already buy with their existing currency.  Endless threads on social media have proposed solutions to this inertia, but the fact of the matter is in practice, consumers are only willing to change if and when the alternative is not just as useful, but significantly so (there is an entire segment of economics that studies consumer choice and indifference curves).  And they are only going to use something if it provides them more utility.  Thus to them, entering Bitcoinland (and current cryptocurrencies in general) is a friction they have preferred to avoid.  Perhaps that will change, but then again, maybe not.

Again, recall that the primary utility provided by the Bitcoin blockchain was to circumvent trusted third parties (TTP), which in practice, the average consumer are okay with having to deal with (the tradeoff between less privacy for more insurance, etc.).  For instance, in terms of demographics, the vast majority of gamblers that use bitcoin are based in the US because online gambling is illegal here.  European gamblers typically use bank transfers.  When SatoshiDice blocked US-based IPs, gambling volume dropped significantly for them (and flowed to other similar sites).  Maybe there will be another “killer app” but then again, maybe blockchains in general attract illicit activities because their decentralized nature enables routing around TTP, which some bitcoin holders find useful and attractive.

Circular flow of income

One last issue that intersects with miners and the Bitcoinland consumer economy is that of volatility.  This is a topic that generates enormous reaction and I am aware of companies such as Bitwage, Hedgy, Teraexchange that are attempting to create either hedging mechanisms against volatility and/or bridges between two different unit-of-accounts.

Ignoring the impact of the Poisson process, there is never a dull moment for being a cryptocurrency miner (professional or otherwise) as you never have a really good idea of how much capital to deploy in the future due largely to the continuous uncertainty over what the future market price of a coin is and what the difficulty rating may adjust to.  Or as Robert Sams aptly noted:

It is the nature of markets to push expectations about the future into current prices. Deterministic money supply combined with uncertain future money demand conspire to make the market price of a coin a sort of prediction market on its own future adoption.  Since rates of future adoption are highly uncertain, high volatility is inevitable, as expectations wax and wane with coin-related news, and the coin market rationalises high expected returns with high volatility (no free lunch).

Yanis Varoufakis, the new finance minister for Greece, has written about the monetary supply schedule challenges within Bitcoin several times.  One notable quote he had last year involved how speculative demand for bitcoin outstrips transactional demand:

“By a long mile. Bitcoin transactions don’t go beyond the first transaction. The people who have accepted bitcoins don’t use them to buy something else. It gets back to the circular flow of income. When Starbucks not only accepts bitcoins but pays their workers in bitcoins and pays their suppliers in bitcoins, when you go back four of five stages of productions using bitcoin, then bitcoin will have made it. But that isn’t happening now and I don’t think that will happen.” Because it isn’t happening now, he continues, and because so many more people are speculating on bitcoin rather than transacting with it, “Volatility will remain huge and will deter those who might have wanted to enter the bitcoin economy as users, as opposed to speculators. Thus, just as bad money drives out good money, Gresham’s famous law, speculative demand for bitcoins drives out transactional demand for it.”

What this has looked like in practice is that miners themselves are creating a currency with which they are not necessarily able to pay their electricity bills or leases with.  They have to convert it.  Perhaps this will change, but since the bulk of this virtual currency has to be converted into a foreign currency (USD, EUR, RMB), it creates continuous sell-side pressure on the market (see How do Bitcoin payment processors work?).  And without a corresponding increase in demand from those holding foreign currency, the market price declines.

Hedging may help mitigate some losses for a few of the merchants that choose to keep and not convert bitcoin payments they receive, but again, hedging isn’t free.   It also costs someone something to do — hedging can be expensive, this is why corporates do not typically hedge against ongoing foreign revenue but they only hedge against large one-off items (such as acquisitions, or large shipments / purchases).  Just ask the airline industry about its fuel hedging strategies.  Recall again that consumers in general prefer stable purchasing power for medium’s-of-exchange (no one is trying to directly use petroleum as a currency).

Without a circular flow of income, this is unlikely to change and this is something that requires years, perhaps even decades to build even with dynamically adjusted, elastic money supplies.  For instance, recall even with its $9.5 trillion economy and its $2 trillion in exports, the RMB only represents 2.17% of all international trade settlements (for comparison, the Greeks exported 27 billion in goods and services in 2013).  Perhaps indeed, Bitcoinland is still in the “early days” — or maybe its fixed monetary supply has inflicted it with incurable progeria (i.e., few want to spend it, so not enough fees to replace the block reward).  And thus its main exports will continue to be ways to distribute exergy via currency conversion processes and illicit trade.

Is all lost?

bitcoin moonEarlier this week William Mougayar encouraged advocates in this nascent space to basically chill out with the moon rhetoric.  Again, it is impossible to know what consumers will eventually adopt.  Anyone claiming that there will just be “one winner” that encompasses all use-cases is probably wrong in the short run (note that Richard Brown and Meher Roy have suggested that there may be some kind of “Grand Unified Theory” of cryptofinance but that is a topic for another post).

Every business, institution and customer has different wants and needs that will dictate actual adoption of technology and not the other way around.  Entrepreneurs, developers and investors cannot assume a market will adopt their own narrative any more than shipwreck survivors can “assume a boat” — thus as Mougayar has touched on: blockchains and consensus ledgers may find traction outside of niches only if they satiate mass consumer appeal, not just hobbyist interest.

To the chagrin of the heavily invested, Bitcoin may prove to be the vehicle that will spawn a variety of useful mainstream tech but that will never actually go mainstream itself.  In that respect, perhaps Bitcoinland is essentially a huge R&D program.  Perhaps this is a modern facsimile of The Rise of ‘Worse Is Better.’  Bitcoin enthusiasts believe that they are the “New Jersey” crowd in this particular story but in truth they may be taking the “MIT” approach, where they are seeking to build a perfect new financial platform. The lesson of the story is that the MIT approach almost always fails because it is incredibly hard to do and relies on perfect up-front understanding, while the New Jersey approach favors incremental discovery and evolving things towards something that works well enough.

Or maybe, conversely, some black swan event such as a large hedge fund publicly announces major buys or an ETF is approved or large-scale regulatory clarity occurs (see also: the Bitcoin Bingo card); we can only know in retrospect.

In the meantime, other mental models are being discussed including a separation of specialized distributed ledger systems (via consensus-as-a-service) from the current crop of cryptocurrency systems as well as proposed a dual-currency solution (such as Seigniorage Shares) that could end up implemented in other projects such as Augur’s prediction market: it could also be used for CFDs, it does no one any good if the underlying currency is too volatile to price contracts in — even if you “win” you could still lose due to currency depreciation (this is not an endorsement).

Other ideas such as the new replace-by-fee patch targeted at providing a mechanism for miners to prioritize transactions or metacoin censoring tools to allow mining pools to filter out watermarked coins (colored coins, Counterparty, etc.), will undoubtedly provide empirical feedback to future ledger designers on what to do and not to do.

Welcome to Bitcoinland, a virtual world whose artificial age is more akin to Sumter County than Madison County and whose primary export is currency conversion via exergetic displacement.  On-chain population: roughly 380,000.

Send to Kindle

Bullet points about fundraising for Bitcoin startups

I was looking through my email archive today and came across an email related to Bitcoin startups that I sent to a friend back in July.  Most of the points are still relevant today.

Bitcoin Startups! These Are The Trends We See by Adam Draper

  • Through the first half of 2014, an estimated $240 million in funding has gone into the cryptocurrency space, up from $74 million last year — most of which has gone into exchanges and wallet companies.
  • Number of Mining applications has stayed flat
  • Gambling started strong but has wavered

A Few Reasons Your Bitcoin Startup Might Fail by Sean Percival

  • Bad Branding, do not use “bit,” “block” or “coin” in your name — often that it’s causing consumer (and investor) confusion
  • Solving Problems Too Far Downfield — it’s certainly possible to be too early on many business ideas, especially if your idea is going to take immediate scale to be sustainable
  • Your Office Is An Airport — conference overload, travelling too much and not building the product and business; all that money you spend on travel is money you’re not spending on your company
  • IPO Schemes and Fundraising Fails — we’ve seen a few new approaches to fundraising, including IPO schemes that leverage crypto technology in some way. I would say this is the biggest red flag that the business or idea is doomed to fail
  • Your best plan of action is to launch an MVP (minimum viable product), raise an advisory round of $100K–$500K, and be able to sustain yourself for the next 12–18 months.

False Positives, False Negatives, and Reading Decks in Advance by Charles Hudson

  • at SoftTech we invest primarily in seed stage companies – we are investing in the team and the opportunity, not just what’s in the presentation.
  • reading decks in advance creates more false negatives than it saves false positives
  • Poorly conceived idea – I find that a simple paragraph gives me enough context to figure out whether the basic market opportunity and company idea sounds interesting. If the paragraph is well-written and compelling, I find the deck tends to be so as well. When I struggle to get the big idea from the intro paragraph, I’ll usually just sent a follow-up email to ask more. Still beats looking at slides.
  • Decks do not communicate personal connection and energy – I find that even the most well-crafted deck or presentation does not tell me anything about how I’ll feel when the entrepreneur or team comes in to present. I value the opportunity to get a sense for the energy and personality of the team when they present live.

Why did Investor X not look through the entire deck, the info is right there in font 8 on slide 27?!?!

Put simply due to time constraints this may not be possible.  I don’t have the link, but I recall Jeremy Liew at Lightspeed Venture Partners says he looks through 150 presentations/decks (not including executive summaries) for each investment.  In my own anecdotal experience, based on pitches I have seen over the past year I would probably say to keep it simple to get the point across in less than 15 slides because many investors do not have the time to look through every detail on the first round of a pitch (some, as Charles suggested above, may not even look at it at all).

Startups going through accelerators and incubators such as Plug and Play and 500 Startups may only have as little as 3 minutes to pitch during Demo Day.  So unfortunately for geeks, you would likely need to remove all the techno mumbo jumbo even if your company is say, an analytics startup.  Talk to your mentors to find out more on catering your marketing message.

Send to Kindle

The Continued Existence of Altcoins, Appcoins and Commodity coins

Yesterday I gave a presentation at a Bitcoin Meetup held hosted by Plug and Play Tech Center in Sunnyvale.

I discussed the economic incentives for creating altcoins, appcoins, commodity coins and also covered several bitcoin 2.0 proposals.  The slides and video from the event are viewable below.  Download the deck for other references and citations.

Send to Kindle

A panel on smart contracts with industry developers and educators

Earlier today I participated in a virtual panel covering smart contracts called, “Let’s Talk Smart Contracts.”

The panel included: Adam Krellenstein (Counterparty), Oleg Andreev (CoreBitcoin), Pamela Morgan (Empowered Law), Stefan Thomas (Codius, Ripple Labs), Stephan Tual (Ethereum), Tim Swanson (Of Numbers), Yurii Rashkovskii (Trustatom) and it was moderated by Roman Snitko with Straight.

Below are some transcribed notes of my own statements.

Introduction starting at 09:06:

Hey guys, great to be here.  Thanks for the invite, thanks for organizing this.  So I’m here because you guys needed another white guy from Europe or something like that (that’s a joke).  So the definition I have of smart contracts, I have written a couple books in this space, and the definition I use is a smart contract is “a proposed tool to automate human interactions: it is a computer protocol – an algorithm – that can self-execute, self-enforce, self-verify, and self-constrain the performance of a contract.”  I think I got most of that definition from Nick Szabo’s work.  For those of you who are familiar with him, look up some of his past writings.  I think that the primary work he is known for is the paper, “Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks.”  And he is basically considered the [intellectual] grandfather of this space.  I’m here basically to provide education and maybe some trolling.

From 22:02 -> 24:15

I think I see eye-to-eye with Adam here.  Basically the idea of how we have a system that is open to interpretation, you do have reversibility, you do have nebulousness.   These are things that Nick Szabo actually discussed in an article of his called “Wet code and dry” back in 2008.  If you look back at some of the earlier works of these “cypherpunks” back in the ’90s, they talked about some of these core issues that Oleg talked about in terms of being able to mitigate these trusted parties.  In fact, if you look at the Bitcoin whitepaper alone, the first section has the word “reverse” or “reversibility” around 5 times and the word “trust” or “trusted” appears 11 times in the body of the work.  This was something that whoever created Bitcoin was really interested in trying to mitigate the need for any kind of centralized or third party involved in the process of transactions to reduce the mediation costs and so forth.

But I suppose my biggest criticism in this space, it is not pointed to anyone here in particular, is how we have a lot of “cryptocurrency cosplay.”  Like Mary Sue Bitcoin.  I’m not sure if you guys are familiar with who Mary Sue is: she is this archetype who is this kind of idealized type of super hero in a sense.  So what happens with Bitcoin and smart contracts is that you have this “Golden Age” [of Comics] where you had the limited ideas of what it could do.  Like Superman for example, when he first came out he could only jump over a building and later he was pushed to be able to fly because it looks better in a cartoon.  You have only a limited amount of space [time] and it takes too long to jump across the map.  So that’s kind of what I see with Bitcoin and smart contracts.  We can talk about that a little bit later, just how they have evolved to encompass these attributes that they’re probably not particularly good at.  Not because of lack of trying but just because of the mechanisms of how they work in terms of incentives for running mining equipment and so on.  So, again we can talk about that later but I think Adam and Oleg have already mentioned the things that are pretty important at this point.

40:18 -> 41:43

I’m the token cynic, huh?  So actually before I say anything, I would like to mention to the audience other projects that you might be interested in looking at: BitHalo; NotaryChains is a new project that encompasses some of these ideas of Proof of Existence created by Manuel Araoz, he is the one who did POE.  NotaryChains is a new project I think that sits on top of Mastercoin.  The issue that people should consider is that proof of existence/proof of signature: these are just really hi-tech forms of certification.  Whether or not they’re smart contracts I guess is a matter of debate.

There is another project: Pebble, Hyperledger, Tezos, Tendermint, Nimblecoin.  With Dogethereum their project is called Eris which apparently is the first DAO ever.  A DAO for the audience is a decentralized autonomous organization, it’s a thing apparently. SKUChain is a start-up in Palo Alto, I talk about them in chapter 16.  They have this interesting idea of what they call a PurchaseChain which is a real use-case for kind of updating the process from getting a Letter of Credit to a Bill of Lading and trying to cut out time and mediation costs in that process.  There are a few others in stealth mode.  So I really don’t have a whole lot to add with cynicism at this point, we can go on and come back to me in a little bit.

59:41 -> 1:02:35

The go to deficiency guy, huh?  They’re not really saying anything particularly controversial, these things are fundamentally — at least from an engineering perspective — could be done.  The problem though I think runs into is what Richard Boase discussed in — if listeners are interested — he went to Kenya and he did a podcast a few weeks ago on Let’s Talk Bitcoin #133.  I really recommend people listen to it.  In it he basically talks about all of these real world issues that run into this idealized system that the developers are building.  And as a result, he ended up seeing all of these adoption hurdles, whether it was education or for example tablets: people were taking these tablets with bitcoin, and they could just simply resell it on a market, the tablet itself was worth more than they make in a year basically; significant more money.  He talked about a few issues like P2P giving, lending and charity and how that doesn’t probably work like we think it does.

I guess the biggest issue that is facing this space, if you want issues, is just the cost benefit analysis of running these systems.  There is a cost somewhere to run this stuff on many different servers, there is different ways to come up with consensus for this: for example, Ripple, Stellar, Hyperledger, they’re all using consensus ledgers which require a lot less capital expenditures.  But when you end up building something that requires some kind of mining process itself, that costs money.  So I think fundamentally in the long-run it won’t be so much what it can do but what can it economically do.

So when you hear this mantra of let’s decentralize everything, sure that’s fine and dandy but that’s kind of like Solutionism: a solution looking for a problem.  Let’s decentralize my hair — proof of follicle — there is a certain reductio ad absurdum which you come to with this decentralization.  Do you want to actually make something that people are actually going to use in a way that is cheaper than an existing system or we just going to make it and throw it out there and think they’re going to use it because we designed [wanted] it that way.  So I think education is going to be an issue and there are some people doing that right now: Primavera De Fiillipi, she’s over at Harvard’s Berkman Center — she’s got something called the Common Accord program.  And also Mike Hearn; listeners if you’re interested he’s made about 7 or 8 use-cases using the existing Bitcoin blockchain including assurance contracts — not insurance contracts — assurance contracts.  And he’s got a program called Lighthouse which hopes to build this onto the actual chain itself.  So there are things to keep in mind, I’m sure I’ll get yelled at in a minute here.

1:23:58 -> 1:28:10

Anyone listening to this wanting to get involved with smart contracts: hire a lawyer, that’s my immediate advice.  I will preface by saying I don’t necessarily agree with policies that exist and so on; I don’t personally like the status quo but there is no reason to be a martyr for some crusade led by guys in IRC, in their little caves and stuff like that.  That’s not towards anyone here in this particular chat but you see this a lot with “we’re going to destroy The Fed” or “destroy the state” and the reality is that’s probably not going to happen.  But not because of lack of trying but because that’s not how reality works.

Cases right now are for example: DPR, Shavers with the SEC, Shrem now with the federal government, Karpeles [Mt. Gox] went bankrupt.  What’s ended up happening is in 2009, with Bitcoin for example, you started with a system that obviated the need of having trusted third parties but as users started adopting it you ended up having scams, stolen coins, people losing coins so you ended up having an organic growth of people wanting to have insurance or some way to mediate these transactions or some way to make these things more efficient.  And I think that it will probably happen — since we’re guessing, this is speculative — I think that this will kind of happen with smart contracts too.  That’s not to say smart contracts will fail or anything like that.  I’m just saying that there will probably just be a few niche cases initially especially since we don’t have much today, aside I guess from Bitcoin — if you want to call it a smart contract.

What has ironically happened, is that we have created — in order to get rid of the middlemen it looks like you’ve got to reintroduce middlemen.  I’m not saying it will always be the case.  In empirical counter-factual it looks like that’s where things are heading and again obviously not everyone will agree with me on that and they’ll call me a shill and so on.  But that’s kind of where I see things heading.

I have a whole chapter in a book, chapter 17.  I interviewed 4 or 5 lawyers including Pamela [Morgan] of different reasons why this could take place.  For example, accredited investor — for those who are unfamiliar just look up ‘accredited investor.’  If you’re in the US, in order to buy certain securities that are public, you need to have gone through certain procedure to be considered a ‘sophisticated investor.’  This is one of the reasons why people do crowdsales outside of the US — Ethereum — because you don’t want to have to interact with the current legal system in the US.  The reason I mention that is because you end up opening yourselves to lawsuit because chains — like SWARM — cannot necessarily indemnify users.  That’s legal terminology for being able to protect your users from lawsuits from third parties; they just do not have the money, the revenue to support that kind of legal defense.  Unlicensed practice of law (UPL) is another issue.  If you end up putting up contracts on a network one of the issues could be, at least in the US, are bar associations.  Bar associations want to protect their monopoly so they go after people who practice law without a license.  I’m not saying it will happen but it could happen.

My point with this is, users, anyone listening to this should definitely do your due diligence, do your education.  If you plan to get involved with this space either as an investor or developer or so on, definitely at least talk to a lawyer that has some inkling of of an idea [on this].  The ones I recommend, in addition to Pamela here are: Ryan Straus, he is a Seattle-based attorney with Riddell Williams; Austin Brister and James Duchenne they’re with a program called Satoshi Legal; and then Preston Byrne, who’s out in London and he’s with Norton Rose Fulbright.

1:52:20 -> 1:54:43

Guys look, I understand that sounds cool in theory and it’s great to have everything in the background, but the reason you have to see these “shrink wrapped” EULAs [end user license agreements] and TOSs [terms of service] is because people were hiding stuff inside those agreements.  So if you hide what’s actually taking place in the contract you end up making someone liable for something they might not actually agree to.  So I’m not sure, I think it’s completely debatable at this point.  If we’re trying to be transparent, then you’re going to have to be transparent with the terms of agreement.

I should point out by the way, check out Mintchalk.com, it’s run by guys named James and Aaron in Palo Alto, they’re doing contract building.  ACTUS is a program from the Stevens Institute, they’re trying to come with codified language for contracts.  Mark S. Miller, he’s got a program over at Google, he does something with e-rights.

I mention all of this because, we already have a form of “polycentric law” if you will in terms of internationally with 200 different jurisdictions vying for basically jurisdiction arbitrage.  Ireland and the Netherlands have a tax agreement that Facebook, Google, Pfizer they take advantage of.  It’s this Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich.  In fact my own corporation is incorporated in Delaware because of the legal arbitrage [opportunities].  Obviously smart contracts might add some sort of new wrinkle to that, but people who are listening to this, don’t expect to be living in some Galt’s Gulch tomorrow or something like that.

For example, when you have something that is stolen, there is something called Coinprism which is a colored coin project.  They can issue dividends on stock.  The cool thing with that is, “hey, you get to decentralize that.”  The double-edged side of that is if that when that get’s stolen: people steal stuff like bitcoins and so forth, what happens to the performance of that dividend?  If the company continues paying that dividend in knowing that the person had been stolen from: if somebody stole from me and I tell the company, “hey, it was stolen” and they continue paying, then I can sue them for continuing to pay a thief.  If they stop paying then it defeats the purpose of decentralization because anonymity is given up, identity has taken place.  Obviously this moves into another area called “nemo dat” it’s another legal term talking about what can be returned to the rightful owner, that’s where the term “bona fide” comes from.  Anyways, I wanted to get that out there.  Be wary of disappearing EULAs, those have a purpose because people were being sued for hiding stuff in there.

2:10:05 -> 2:12:23

So I think everybody and all these projects are well-intentioned and have noble goals but they’re probably over-hyped in the short-run, just like the Segway was.  It eventually leads to some kind of burnout, or over-promise and under-delivering.  I’m not saying this will happen, I’m just saying it could happen.  I actually think the immediate future will be relatively mundane, such as wills and trusts kind of like Pamela was talking about.

One particular program is in Kenya there is something called Wagenitech which is run by Robin Nyaosi and he is wanting to help farmers move, manage and track produce to market to bypass the middleman.  That doesn’t seem like something really “sexy,” that doesn’t seem like the “Singularity” kind of thing that everyone likes to talk about.  But that is needed for maybe that particular area and I think we might see more of that along with PurchaseChain, NotaryChains, some of these things that we already do with a lot of the paperwork.

Again, blockchains and distributed ledgers are pretty good at certain things, but not everything.  It has real limitations that vocal adopters on the subreddit of Bitcoin like to project their own philosophical views onto it and I think that it does it a very big disservice to this technology long-term.  For example, LEGO’s can be used to make a car but you wouldn’t want to go driving around in one.  A laptop could be used as a paper weight but it’s not particularly cost effective to do that.  And so what I think we’ll end up running into a tautology with smart contracts, it’s going to be used by people who need to use them.  Just like bitcoin is.  So what we’re going to have is a divergence between what can happen, this “Superman” version of Bitcoin and smart contracts, versus the actual reality.

So for example, people say it’s [Bitcoin] going to end war.  You had the War of Spanish Succession, there was a Battle of Denain, a quarter million people fought that in 1712 and it was gold-based [financed by specie].  Everyone that says bitcoin is going to destroy fiat, if the state exists as it does today there’s always going to be these institutions and types of aggression.  I do think smart contracts do add collateral and arbitration competition and it does take away the problem of having trust in the system itself, but the edges are the kryptonite.  And always will be.  So we need to focus on education and creating solutions to real actual problems today with the actual technology and not just some hypothetical “Type 2” civilization where we are using [harvesting] the Sun for all of our energy.

Send to Kindle

Bitcoin’s PR challenges

brand

Source: agmarketing.com.au

What kind of feedback has my book received over the past week?  Here are a few threads on reddit:

I am called any number of names on these threads and stylistically was equated with “Gish Gallop” and a “word soup” thesauri.

Hass McCook (“Bit_by_Bit”) weighs in at one point in the first thread saying that these claims are only valid in August 2014.  McCook had similar sentiments as noted in Chapter 3.  However, no word on the MV=MC issue that was brought up in that same chapter, it will always apply no matter what the efficiency of the mining equipment.  This cost basis was also independently confirmed by a miner.

Today a friend pointed to a new post by Mircea Popescu which takes aim at me (not my book): “No, you don’t have something to say on the topic.”  In it he claims I am a “boneheaded teenaged male approach to learning.”  Not a word about the marginal costs of mining.  In fact, he also claims that there is no data “per se” in the book which is curious since there is actually a lot of data in the book.

This is a common rejoinder; some vocal advocates not looking at actual data from the blockchain.  In some ways their timeline looks like this:

  • 2007: First lines of BTC code written
  • 2008: Whitepaper revised and published
  • 2009: Blockchain put into production
  • 2009 – 2014: data created, but the only valid data is fiat prices, the rest is not real data “per se”

Other responses

Aside from the ad hominem’s above what has been the criticism?

Peter Surda, a researcher, disagreed with my points on inelastic versus elastic money supply but didn’t go into many details in a short email exchange.

I received a number of encouraging emails from a variety of readers and was named one of thirteen “Big Thinkers” in this space, though I doubt some of the other candidates would like me to remain in company with them.

I have had some responses with a couple others, including L.M. Goodman (creator of Tezos), on Twitter this past weekend — though this is largely unrelated to the book itself.

What does this mean?

Partisanship may be impacting scholarship, especially the Myth of Satoshi variety.

No, Leah Goodman did not uncover who Satoshi was.  But one thing was clear from that episode in February was that some partisans do not want the individual who created Bitcoin to be taken down from the pedestal they have put him on; they want their caricature to be immutable.  Just like some historians have tried to revise history to make their heroes look impeachable, so to has the veneration of Satoshi.  If Bram Cohen had anonymously released BitTorrent a decade ago, would BitTorrent have had a similar following due to its mysterious beginnings?

I hold no ill-will to the person or group that comprised Satoshi, but it is clear from the evidence cited in chapters 9 and 10 that he, she or they did not consult an actual economist or financial professional before they created their static rewards and asymptote money supply.  This is a mistake that we see in full force today in which the quantity of money available has shrunk due to theft, scams, purposeful burning, accidental destruction, etc.  Satoshi recreated a deflationary inelastic economy and much to the chagrin of the self-appointed purity police, it is not being used the way he expected it to (actual commerce) and is instead being used for things it is relatively useful for (e.g., donating to Wikileaks, gambling).

What other economic and environmental issues are still being ignored?

Jake Smith, creator of Coinsman recently published a new article on mining in China.  Yet despite being, in his own words, a “true believer” and interviewing other “true believers” in the mining space, he missed the unseen calculation, the economics of extracting and securing rents on this ledger unit which consume scarce resources from the real economy.  This is not something that it is unknown, there is an economic formula to explain it: MV=MC (as described copiously in Chapter 3).  There is nothing magical or mysterious about mining as other people in the reddit thread point out how mining is currently an environmental albatross or as Fred Trotter dubs it, a “black hole.”

Moving forward

Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its Consumer advisory: Virtual currencies and what you should know about them.  The advisory (PDF) gives a cursory look, in layman’s terms of what are the challenges and risks of participating in this space.

What does this mean?

While it is unclear as to the motivations of some of the “true believers” are, they collectively did underestimate the costs of consumer protection and/or did not put it as a top priority for mass consumer adoption.  But why would they?  Consumer protection is usually expensive, its unglamorous and its centralized (which apparently is a “no-no”).

For example, generally speaking, most people do not like having their possessions stolen.  And in the event something is stolen, in practice, individuals prefer to take out insurance and even sue those responsible for damage (torts). If instead of promoting and building illicit markets (like Dark Market and Dark Wallet), these same developers and early investors had funded a start-up that helped track down these stolen funds, or start a non-profit to help get stolen coins, it would have been an amazing public relations coup.

To be balanced, theft takes place across the spectrum of services.  It also happens on the edges of Visa’s network. The difference is Visa offers insurance which is built into their cost structure (highly recommend reading Richard Brown’s recent post).  Insurance alone is just another product and has nothing to do with the protocol.  And this specific point (for the individual user) could be resolved sooner or later (e.g. Xapo already offers some home-made insurance).  However, insurance does not change the economics behind Bitcoin, especially since lost coins are permanently and constantly removed from the money supply.

Then again, there is a built in incentive to allow this theft to occur — stolen coins need mixers and exits which could potentially benefit developers and investors of those services; and simultaneously as more coins drop out of circulation this increases the value for those holding the remaining supply.

In addition, a vocal group of these “true believers” do not think Bitcoin has an image problem.  Yet it has a massive PR problem, for similar (albeit smaller) reasons that Tylenol had in 1982: customers and their families do not like getting burnt.  The only group I am aware of that tried to immediately help the victims of the Mt. Gox debacle was Goxcoin (here’s the LTB interview of it).  In contrast, thread after thread on reddit was filled with bullies saying “no big deal.”   It is a big deal to normal people with real responsibilities beyond downvoting skeptics on reddit and pumping stories about Bitcoin curing cancer and ending wars.  And Mt. Gox liabilities won’t be resolved for at least another year.  Instead of cyber bullying merchants into adopting bitcoin payments, these same hectors could have created a company catering towards recovering stolen property (e.g., loss recovery specialists).  It was a lost opportunity.

my wallet transaction volume

Source: Blockchain.info

In contrast, Blockchain.info has a mixing service called SharedCoin based off the CoinJoin feature from Greg Maxwell.  Blockchain.info recently crossed the 2 million ‘My Wallet’ mark but as I noted in Chapter 4, the vast majority of these likely go unused.  This past spring, one of their representatives claimed that they receive about 15 million visitors a day, but what this actually is, is largely API traffic (external websites pulling charts from their site). They probably do not have close to 2 million users let alone 15 million visitors.

How few?  We have an idea based on their own internal numbers, MyWallet transactions is flat over the past 12 months.  If there were 2 million or 15 million users, we would probably see a gigantic uptick in usage elsewhere on the blockchain (e.g., TVO would skyrocket, tx fees to miners would skyrocket, etc.).

What this all means is that, while they do not release actual user numbers, that at least a minority of wallets are probably ‘burner wallets,’ dumped immediately by individuals wanting to mix coins.  This is great for those who need to mix coins but not so great for consumers who just had their coins stolen.  How to resolve this going forward?

Incidentally in May, Roger Ver (an angel investor including in Blockchain.info) was extorted by a hacker who had figured out a vulnerability in Ver’s security.  Ver put a 37.6 bitcoin bounty on the hacker and the hacker eventually backed down; Wired and CoinDesk each did an article on it.  Yet during the same month, coins were stolen from others and when the users came to reddit for help, they were ridiculed for not having done the 27 steps to make a paper wallet.  No Wired article was written for them and in turn — speculatively — their coins could have been mixed on a site like Blockchain.info.  As a result, why would normal consumers ever want to use Bitcoin after that experience?

Perhaps user behavior and therefore the data will change in the future.  Consequently blockchains in general will probably find other niches beyond what Bitcoin is being shoehorned to do today.  This includes, other chains and platforms that may be able to help firms like Wageni Tech accomplish its goals in Kenya by helping farmers move, manage and track produce to market in an attempt to bypass middlemen and introduce transparency.  Bitcoin may be able to do that one day, but maybe not at the current $40 per transaction cost structure.  Start-ups such as Pebble, Hyperledger, Tezos, Tendermint, Dogethereum (Eris), Salpas, SKUChain, Stellar and several other funded projects in stealth mode may be able to as well (remember, Google was the 15th search engine and the iPod was at least the 9th MP3 player).

This is not to say that “Bitcoin” has collapsed or will collapse, nor is this to single out Ver (he has done a lot to try and create value in this space and even donated 1,000 bitcoins to FEE last year).  Instead it may continue to evolve into is something called Bitcoin-in-name-only, (or BINO as I refer to it in chapter 16) and it probably will continue to be used for what most risk-tolerant consumers use it for today: as a speculative commodity and as a way to pay for things that credit cards cannot be used for.

Send to Kindle

In what ways does Bitcoin resemble a command economy?

I have a new article up over at Let’s Talk Bitcoin which attempts to answer that question.

The feedback I have received so far (including the comments at LTB) makes it pretty clear that many adopters simply do not understand how, in general, economics or finance works or how developing countries struggle with credit expansion.  And that is fine, but can be disastrous when making what amounts to investment decisions.  Again, a vocal minority (majority?) of these adopters think they will be lounging on yachts and private islands because the price of bitcoin reaches $1 million.

And that likely will never play out for a variety of reasons that I have described in numerous articles.

Below is a list of pieces and papers that I have published covering these issues over the past three months in chronological order:

Send to Kindle

What about English in China?

A director of studies (DoS) for a foreign education company in China contacted me today and we discussed the conundrum of college education, specifically English education, in China.  I devoted part of chapter 9 in GWON to this segment.

His view was that there are indeed opportunities and reasons for why English learning should be encouraged, that professions that interface with foreigners and foreign companies need to be proficient in English.  This is true, but the reality is that there are not that many positions that do this, perhaps just a few million such positions including notably the hospitality industry and IT off-shoring companies.  For comparison there are approximately 300 – 390 million English language learners in China and roughly 600,000 – 650,000 foreigners permanently residing in China.1

This is not to say that students in China should not have the option to learn or should not be encouraged to learn other languages, such as English.  Rather this is to say that learning English is no longer an end in itself.  It is not a “get rich quick scheme” yet much of the marketing done in the segment continues to promote this view.  Whereas 20 years ago being a fluent English speaker or an EFL company, may have been a very profitable profession and sub-industry, today it is quite competitive and very mature with salaries being arbitraged to international labor rates.  Instead, learning English is just another tool for high-skilled workers, to interface with their international peers and colleagues.  If you do not work in such a position or have such skills in the first place (e.g., semiconductor engineering) but instead interface solely with Chinese colleagues in China, you will likely have no additional monetary incentives for mastering a foreign language.

This ties in with the conversation with the DoS because he planned to give a presentation to several college groups about the utility of learning English.  I had previously given a presentation last December (video) (slides) and discussed some of the challenges that college students currently face, including a skill-set gap that exists.

For example, according to the Los Angeles Times:

By some accounts, the unemployment rate for Chinese college graduates age 21 to 25 is 16%, nearly four times that of blue-collar workers. An Education Ministry survey of 500 firms found that employers had trimmed the number of jobs available for new hires this year by about 15%. In Beijing, an estimated 98,000 jobs are available for the 229,000 new graduates, a city education committee study found.

“The manufacturing sector is still seeing labor shortages,” said Geoffrey Crothall of China Labour Bulletin, a Hong Kong-based research group. But many college graduates in major cities are ending up taking poorly paid jobs in areas such as telemarketing or real estate sales, he said, “and often these wages are lower than a factory worker in Shenzhen.”

I have written about this skill-set mismatch several times before.2 It is currently exacerbated by social promotion within institutions (e.g., degree inflation) and will likely continue into the near future.  One of the problems that the company the DoS represents is that the bulk of its operations is still geared towards traditional brick-and-mortar facilities.  While it was not mentioned in the conversation, two years ago the company had intended to grow and open several hundred training centers on the mainland.  This has not happened for several reasons:

  •  the EFL education tuition is unaffordable to most of the target audience (urban middle-class consumers)
  •  on top of inflation which erodes their purchasing power, a relatively “slow” economy has put pressure on wages of these working adults who have to cut back on services such as EFL education
  •  lack of a visible return-on-investment for most customers (i.e., after taking the courses it does not lead to instant seniority or new career opportunities)

However, there are other areas for businesses to expand, including the online sector, which is expected to grow by leaps and bounds.  In fact, TutorGroup (which the DoS does not work for) just closed its Series B round of financing last month, raising $100 million to build out its online language education platform that targets (among others) Chinese seeking to learn English.

According to its write-up of the funding announcement, TechCrunch noted that:

TutorGroup says that it expects the adult English language-learning market within China to grow 25% annually and reach more than $21 billion by 2015. In China alone, the company expects sales to experience a triple-digit annual growth rate in the next few years.

According to Ambient, a competitor:3

China is now the top buying country of digital English language learning products, not only in the Asia region, but in the world, according to a new Ambient Insight report called “The 2013-2018 China Digital English Language Learning Market.” The five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for digital English language learning products in China is 23.6% and revenues will nearly triple over the forecast period. […] Revenues for these products will spike to a breathtaking $931.8 million in 2018, up from the $323.1 million reached in 2013.

Thus, these two data points suggest that there may still be opportunities in the education and training segment, but likely in the online-only space an area that the DoS’ company is trying to rapidly expand (by opening up a new Boston office for freelance instructors).

What does this have to do with English-learning?  I suspect that the online segment will likely benefit and recoup the costs of the investment due to the always-on nature of the urban consumer willing to try out one of these new platforms.  Yet whether or not the language and educational knowledge transfers over and translates into higher productivity or more proficiency is another matter entirely.

The last example that ties into this is based on a conversation I had last November with a center manager at the same company that the DoS works at.  The manager explained that the ayi (阿姨), an “auntie” custodian, at the headquarters office he worked in paid 20,000 RMB (~$3,400) to learn English through the company’s internal program.  Less than six months later she was burned out due in part to the unrealistic expectations (i.e., “overpromised and underdelivered”) that is unfortunately the modus operandi that this segment in China still suffers from.  This will likely change as the industry continues to mature, yet it would be in the students best interest to hear the challenges — in addition to the opportunities — that a second language can provide.

Tangential coda: in a slight twist, while English tutoring has been a relatively low-barrier to entry position in China, it looks as if Shanghai is now exporting math instructors to England.4 The UK is spending $18 million to fly 60 Chinese math teachers (proficient in English communication) to help improve the math abilities and scores of learners in England.5

  1. A census was conducted and the results were published 3 years ago, see Almost 600,000 foreigners counted in China from China Daily.  Another unsourced estimate is that 80% of the approximately 650,000 foreigners in China work as teachers, see China Average Pay & Salaries For Expats & Foreign Teachers… from Salon []
  2. Are MOOCs a solution for the skillset mismatch? and The market for massive open online courses in China []
  3. China Digital English Language Learning Market Booming from PRNewswire []
  4. See English tutors in China — well-paid, not always qualified from UPI and Shanghai teachers flown in for maths from BBC []
  5. Chinese teachers sent into English schools to boost results from The Telegraph []
Send to Kindle

Outside funding of cryptocurrency and Bitcoin startups

According to CB Insights, VCs spent $74 million across 40 BTC-related deals in 2013,  the two largest rounds were Coinbase ($25m) and Circle ($9m).

Despite the increased media attention, even if these numbers are repeated again this year this may not help boost the poor performance for VC funds as a whole.1 Even with the optimistic outlook many of the VC firms apparently now have, their actual results at ~6% per annum over the past decade have underperformed the Russel 2000.2

Why?  Some VCs not as nimble at feeling out business models with actual revenue generating capabilities as many angel investors are.

Changes over four decades

Consistent with secular theme of ubiquitous adoption of open source software as well as cloud computing that has lowered the cost of developing software and more importantly the costs associated with launching new companies, so too has this trend lowered the threshold for tech investments.  Where previously the funding of start-ups was limited to deep-pocketed professional investors, namely VCs, the deflationary landscape has increasingly enabled greater numbers of individual investors, angels to compete in funding environment.

The new class of angel investors is more astute than the passive and non-tech-savvy high net worth investor of yesteryear.  Increasingly, angel investors today have deep domain experience.  Many have worked in the sector that they are funding, are entrepreneurs and experienced operators themselves and visionary at feeling out new business and innovative trends.  The historical barrier to entry for angel investing is one of risk given the magnitude of investment commitment.  With lower costs of starting businesses, this hurdle is largely gone.  Smart angels with deep operational domain expertise is disruptive to the traditional VC universe.  They may be better attuned and friendlier with terms that are less predatory than the historical VC norm.

This is not to say that VCs will not flourish once again, however as it stands most angels began as entrepreneurs and learned how to generate sales and revenue first hand.  Furthermore, as noted above, over the past decade technological costs that have driven down expenses.  For example, relatively cheap cloud services like github and Compute Engine provide services (CaaS, SaaS and IaaS) that allow many tech start-ups to be leaner than before in terms of what funding they require to cover operating costs.  On top of this are better organized angels who now have an entire ecosystem of choices to fund through such as AngelList, 500 Startups and Y Combinator.  In fact, over the past six months, BitAngels.co have invested $7 million in 12 crypto projects globally.

Another way that cryptocurrency-related startups are being funded through are crowdfunded IPOs.  This includes Mastercoin, which raised $5 million in part by 4,700 bitcoins from “investors.”3  NextCoin (Nxt) and the upcoming Ethereum IPO have also included raising funds through bitcoin transfers.  While I am not necessarily endorsing any of these particular fundraising models, this illustrates how small (and perhaps large) development teams can financially cover costs without seed funding by VCs.

See also: MoneyTree Report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the every-growing list of funded Bitcoin companies listed on CrunchBase

[Special thanks to DA for his comments and feedback.]

  1. Kauffman Foundation Bashes VCs For Poor Performance, Urges LPs To Take Charge from The Wall Street Journal and Most venture capital funds lose money from CNN|Fortune []
  2. Venture capital kingpin Kleiner Perkins acknowledges weak results from Reuters []
  3. Backed by $5 Million in Funding (4,700 BTC), Mastercoin Is Building a Flexible, New Layer of Money on Bitcoin from MarketWired []
Send to Kindle

Interview with Mark DeWeaver, co-founder of Quantrarian Capital Management

Earlier today I had the opportunity to interview a friend, Mark DeWeaver.  Mark is the author of Animal Spirits with Chinese Characteristics and wrote a very kind foreword for my own book.  He worked in China for 9 years and later co-founded Quantrarian Capital Management which is fully invested in the Iraqi Stock Market.

We discussed a number of topics including the “rebalancing” of China’s economic model, the Soviet tech industry during Gorbachev1 , technological innovations with regards to the Great Firewall (GFW) and spent the last 15 minutes discussing cryptocurrencies, smart property, trustless asset management and specifically an article written by Mr. Sheng from the PBOC.2

Other stories mentioned:

  1. See “The Soviet Machine-Building Complex: Perestroyka’s Sputtering Engine” from the Office of Soviet Analysis published by the Directorate of Intelligence []
  2. Mr. Sheng’s article on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is “虚拟货币本质上不是货币” []
Send to Kindle

Futureproofing your English with Technology: Getting the most return-on-investment in an automated world

A week ago I gave a guest lecture at a local college discussing three high growth areas in China: artificial intelligence, robotics and elderly care.

I also explained to the college students majoring in foreign languages such as English they should continue learning other skills, instead of merely mastering English proficiency. This was given on December 4, 2013 at Shanghai University of Sport. All citations are included in the notes (the PPT is up over here at Slideshare.net). Note: about 5 minutes are missing in the middle of the video due to technical issues. [Here is the same video on Youtube]

Send to Kindle

Chapter 1 – Potential market size

[Note: below is Chapter 1 from Great Wall of Numbers]

Should you and your company come to China?

There is no simple clear-cut answer for everyone.  As you will find out, each market segment is different from the next.  Each faces a wide variety of domestic competition and regulatory hurdles.  Throughout each chapter I attempt to do cursory due diligence by looking at current market statistics and use anecdotal stories to illustrate both the opportunities and challenges of setting up shop on the mainland.  Along the way you will hear the experiences and opinions from a number of experts through a variety of tapped and untapped revenue sources.

For example, Jim Chanos, founder of Kynikos Associates, is a New-York based hedge fund manager and short seller.  Among other cautionary tales, over the past several years he has repeated one particular story about China.  A story of two American men, who spoke Chinese, made the right connections, did their due diligence and yet barely got out of China with their shirts still on.1

His is a shrewd and important tale – a twist of caveat venditor.  And despite their acumen this kind of harrowing story can arguably happen anywhere.  Moreover just like the US muddled on despite the 2008 financial purges and Ponzi schemes such as Bernie Madoff’s, so too will China lumber on irrespective of its booms, busts, frauds and scandals.  This is not to say there will not be large purges of misallocated, unproductive assets.  As Ludwig von Mises might have said, a priori you can never buck market calculation and market corrections.2  Yet this is not to say the Chinese industrialization story will collapse or meltdown either.

A potential market for revenue generation

With more than 1.35 billion people, China is the most populous country in the world and will remain so for at least another 15 years.3

Yet just because there is a large potential market does not mean you can magically sell a $1 cup of coffee to everyone and instantly become nouveau rich.  Or as one of my sarcastic students told me years ago: in China, if you scam everyone in the country just once, you can become a billionaire.  More to the point, as Matt Garner discusses in his forthcoming book on marketing in China, the domestic home shopping industry has been filled with these types of cons and frauds (e.g., buying a gold brick – as seen on TV – yet receiving a flimsy cardboard cut-out in the mail).4 And as I discuss later in Chapter 3, consumers are becoming increasingly savvy and vigilant to such get-rich-quick scams.

So how big is the actual market for goods and services?  Following Deng Xiaoping’s “reform and opening up” in late 1978, GDP has grown from approximately $10 billion to over $8 trillion.  At the same time, one estimate shows that consumer spending as a percent of GDP has fallen from 50% to just under 35% over the past 15 years; yet a newly revised government report suggests the number may be much higher at 55% and another estimate is even higher at 65%.5 Either way, there are still growth opportunities if you know where to look and are willing to take risks.  After all, 35% of $8 trillion is still much larger than 65% of $1 trillion let alone $10 billion.

What does this mean for Western companies, your company?  The US is the 2nd largest exporter and according to the Economics & Statistics Administration exports reached a record $2.1 trillion in 2011.6  In fact, according to BusinessWeek and Bureau of Economic Analysis, September 2012 was another record month for exports, hitting $187 billion.7 Overall exports rose an additional 4.4% in 2012.8 Yet despite the fact that as of 2012, roughly 95.5% of all potential customers (e.g., world population sans the US) and 67% of all purchasing power reside outside of the US, relatively few US firms currently export.9

Moreover, as I discuss later in Chapter 7 according to the US Department of Commerce, as of 2010 in terms of US Small & Medium Enterprises (SME):10

  • Only 1% of US SMEs export
  • And only 10% of those that export, export to China

There are a number of reasons for relatively low participation including nebulous legal frameworks.  But it is also surprising because despite the readily accessible markets made available due to standardized shipping container sizes, liberalized trade agreements, ISO certifications resulting in ‘best practices’ and overall streamlining of supply chains, merchants across the globe – and in the US – have never had it easier than today.11

Yet if you are reading this, odds are your company does not export either.  In fact, depending on the source, up to 95% of US firms simply do not even have an international market strategy.

More to the point, on top of the approximately 30,000 SMEs that do export to China, typically only the top 500 US firms generate significant sales outside of the US.  Why do you and your company not export?  As you will find out, your brand is probably considered a step-above locally made goods and services.  In fact, as I note later in Chapter 4 and Chapter 11, luxury goods and services are one increasingly large source of income for US firms like Howard Johnson hotels and Coach handbags – both of whom have taken advantage of the local market perception that “foreign” is better quality.  Similarly, in Chapter 16 I also discuss how fast-food chains like KFC and Starbucks use a number of logistical and perception strategies and now generate more revenue in China than anywhere outside the US.  Can your company do the same?

In December 2012 I spoke with Kirt Greenburg, then-director of the SME center at the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai.12 According to Greenburg, “one of the reasons that there are statistically few SMEs that export is because the US has such a large domestic market capable of sustaining a large pool of local competitors fueled solely by domestic trade thus US SMEs can usually grow quite large just by focusing on North America.  And coupled with obstacles such as known regulations and fears of unknown hurdles, this has prevented many SMEs from looking at ways to export.  Yet there are enormous opportunities in China as it is still a large growth market.”

There are also a large number of resources and support networks.  For instance, “there are several SME centers at other Chambers including the EU and New Zealand that provide open research, business connections and even resources to aggregate and leverage databases from both governments and NGOs.  For example, the SBA program offers a $10,000 grant to US SMEs to ‘go and explore’ in China.  Yet few people, including myself until recently, even knew this type of program exists.  Many SME centers, including ours, also includes both manpower and physical space to help enable entrepreneurs and businesspeople to utilize our knowledge and business connections throughout the day.  In fact, our SME center really could be described as a marketplace for ‘best practices’ and ideas in general.”  Later in Chapter 15 and 20 I detail some of the other subsidies and perks that some Chinese municipalities and trade zones offer to foreign firms, specifically software and engineering companies.

In terms of why there is a relatively low percentage of SMEs that export, Greenburg noted that, “anecdotally it can be a laborious task to find domestic partners, domestic customers and domestic vendors that you can immediately trust on the mainland.  Vetting a partner can take a long time because there is no Better Business Report or D&B report.  Yet through the Foreign Commercial Service, this task may become relatively easier in the future.  Furthermore, one of the reasons why there may only be 1% of SMEs that export in general is that there are a large amount of SMEs in the US and other countries that do not have an easily exportable service, such as one-on-one consultations at dentist offices, barbershops or music lessons.”13

This absence of independent business monitoring may present an opportunity for foreign firms that specialize in business forensics and customer reporting to provide similar services on the mainland.

This is not to say that in a role reversal, exporting products to the US is any easier.  For example, Greenburg thinks “regulations for foreign firms exporting to the US would probably be just as problematic in some cases as they are in China.  Furthermore, most commerce in the US is actually conducted at the state-level, which requires additional legal knowledge just as it does at the provincial level in China.  Yet, one of the issues that SMEs – both foreign and domestic – have to take into consideration on the mainland is the grey regulations that vary from city to city.  Whereas there is an income tax levied by the federal government on all US citizens regardless of location, in China, municipalities have considerable leeway and flexibility to implement national laws.  For example, last year a new social security tax on foreign workers was passed at the national level in Beijing, yet the Shanghai municipality and many others have not begun levying the tax yet.”  On a national level this specific law went into effect on October 15, 2011; I discuss tax issues later in Chapter 10.14

Market access

According to the US Department of Commerce, 91% of world GDP (sans the US) is generated by countries with whom the US does not currently have a Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with, yet FTA countries alone represent 41% of total US exports.15 While there is currently no China-US free trade agreement, there have been numerous bilateral agreements reducing trade duties and restrictions.1617 Furthermore, US firms have invested more FDI into China than any other developing country this decade and the two countries (sometimes referred to as Chimerica or G2), with $446.7 billion in bilateral trade in 2011, are among each other’s largest trading partners.18

After Canada and Mexico, China is the 3rd largest destination for US exports.  In 2011, US exports to China hit a new record of $105.3 billion.  Among the largest products that US firms collectively exported were agricultural, as I discuss later in Chapter 3 (in 2011, China imported $20 billion in US agricultural products).  And due to the domestic demand for safe and reliable products, Chinese consumers are increasingly turning to imported products (also discussed in Chapter 3).  Thus even if you have not looked at the market, there are still untapped opportunities on the mainland, including sports consulting (Chapter 8), software development (Chapter 13) and entertainment (Chapter 14).

Big hurdles

Towards the end of the book I describe at length some of the bigger macro hurdles that foreign and domestic firms will face on the mainland.  There are specific industries that will be more difficult to operate in than others.  For example, at a national level Chinese policy makers consider roughly a dozen areas to be key strategic industries.19

This includes Energy, Media, Telecommunications, Railways and Finance.  As a consequence the national government attempts to foster and nurture domestic firms at the expense of international and foreign competition.  All told there are roughly 110,000 to 150,000 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) supported and managed by townships, cities, provinces and nationally within China (down from 1.2 million in 1995).2021 They contribute to roughly 62% of the annual GDP.22

In addition, roughly 100 SOEs such as China Mobile, Xinhua and Sinopec are afforded the equivalent of VIP status, granted financial priorities and regulatory leeway.

Yet even within these government champions are opportunities for outside, international participation.  While most Fortune 500 multi-national companies have permanently established a presence on the mainland, there is still ample room for foreign SME’s and consulting firms to participate in a bevy of other industries such as education, social media, athletics and even in government procurement.  In fact, in 2011, government procurement amounted to about $179 billion.23 And following a series of reforms, foreign firms are now permitted to bid on government procurement projects.  With that said, China is currently not a signatory to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA).24

So if you are a bidder in a procurement project, be cognizant and aware that you will be unable to make a case and petition the WTO in the event that issues arise.25

With a $8.28 trillion economy, despite a seemingly Byzantine regulatory climate, capturing even a small portion of market share means there may be opportunities and rewards for those creative and enterprising enough to locate them.26 As I note later in Chapter 5 and Chapter 10, policy uncertainties and hurdles will create challenges for both foreign and domestic companies.

For example, China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) – the equivalent of the SEC – routinely compels a dozen or more SOEs to prop up the stock market, to prevent the Shanghai stock index from falling below 2000; which it momentarily did for the first time in four years in November 2012.2728 While this revelation is neither new nor proprietary it creates a dilemma for investors who are “more concerned with the decisions of regulators than the valuation of companies.”29 This would be akin to refocusing on (and lobbying) referees at a sport event rather than the actual game.

Another requirement for nearly all imported goods is obtaining the CCC or China Compulsory Certificate.  This mandatory CCC mark, which typically takes 4-8 months to receive, is administered by the Certificate and Accreditation Administration, which maintains a list of products that are required to meet this certification process.3031 Failure to obtain and complete the application ends with a denial of market entry.  Another issue is proper labeling and packaging.  For example, beginning April 2013, all imported medical devices will be required to have packages and labels written in Chinese.  Failure to do so will again prevent the manufacturer and sponsor from being able to market their products on the mainland.32

Taxes and duties are another issue that is sometimes overlooked.  The General Administration of Customs (海关总署) periodically revises a list of products and their corresponding tariff rates.  For example, as of April 15, 2012, while some goods are taxed at 10% (e.g., food, beverages, leather garments, furniture), others are levied up to 50% (e.g., cosmetics, tobacco, alcoholic beverages) and still others such as luxury goods are charged a 60% tax rate.33 In some cases if you import goods worth less than 5,000 yuan ($800) then you may not have to pay a tax on them.34 One personal anecdote involves sending jewelry (gold and diamonds) from the US to China via FedEx in December 2011.  The jewelry was held up in customs at Shanghai’s Pudong airport because of import restrictions; I was required to pay a duty tax due to its value exceeding the 5,000 yuan limit.  And as I note later in Chapter 11, it is these types of taxes which incentivize Chinese consumers to travel overseas to buy goods which can then be claimed as “personal belongings” upon return, thus removing tax liabilities and saving money.  There are also 15 special economic zones (经济特区) also called free-trade zones that are allowed to set their own import regulations and duties and as a consequence are relatively popular for establishing joint-ventures and foreign trade operations.3536 In addition to areas such as Shanghai’s Waigaoqiao and Ningbo’s free trade area, these zones also include the special administrative regions (SAR) of Hong Kong and Macau and are credited for the subsequent economic booms in each of the mainly coastal cities.

Another nebulous challenge which varies from location to location is transaction costs involving government and quasi-governmental support and approval.37 In some industries in order to start-up a business you may not only have to acquire businesses licenses but also directly work with governmental bodies to set up operations.  In some instances you may even need to have a government policy and market policy, or in other words, you need to have resources and labor to interface with policy makers as well as with market participants.  There is no set generalized rule about these transaction costs and thus discussing these issues with a lawyer is highly recommended since the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and UK Bribery Act are both actively enforced (see Chapter 10).

Yet despite all of these known hurdles (more of which are discussed in later chapters), and what your due diligence may discover, there still may be a profitable case for doing business on the mainland.  Failure to do so, your firm could follow the unfortunate footsteps of Caterpillar, who recently took a $580 million write-down at a subsidiary that acquired a Hong Kong listed firm (ERA Mining) off an acquisition price of $654 million.3839

Yet for perspective, China is the world’s largest car market, the largest motorcycle market, the largest smartphone market, the largest art selling market, the largest online game market, the largest population of online shoppers and even the largest gambling market.40 How large are these potential markets?  For instance, in 2009, China surpassed the US as the largest vehicle market globally and approximately 19.3 million automobiles were sold in China in 2012.41 By 2015 it is estimated that the Chinese car market will be larger than the US, Japan and Germany combined.424344 And by 2016, McKinsey & Company – a global management consulting company – estimates that China will surpass the US as top luxury car market.45 There are now 240 million vehicles on the mainland and 20 million more vehicles will be sold this year.46 Furthermore, according to Michael Dunne, an Asian-based car market consultant, “[of] the projected 2.3 million American-branded cars Chinese will buy this year [2012], an astonishing 96% will be made in China.”47 And this growth rate has largely occurred in less than a decade.  For example, in 2004, the market for Land Rover vehicles on the mainland was a mere 1% yet has subsequently surged to 20% of Land Rovers total sales last year.4849 There have been similar growth rates in other areas.  For instance, with 290 million smartphone owners, this market itself is expected to double in size within the next year.50 Can you provide goods and services within these segments?

Local fluctuations

One term you may see throughout the book is the yuan (renminbi or RMB) which is the name of the currency in China.  As of March 2013 approximately 6.22 RMB was equal to $1 USD.  How often does this fluctuate?  In the first half of 2012 it depreciated by almost 1.5% but in October 2012 it gained back .75%.  While all major currencies in the Post-Bretton Woods monetary system fluctuate relative to one another, the key takeaway is that the RMB itself is not free-floating.51 It is managed on a band peg set daily by the People’s Bank of China (e.g., the central bank pegs the rate each day and the currency can move up to 1% in either direction).52

What are the average annual salaries of Chinese residents?  As I noted later in Chapter 15, according to 2011 official figures, the per capita disposable income for rural residents was $1,100 and their urban counterparts was $3,430.535455 But there is also a significantly large outlier at the top-end, according to Hurun’s 2012 list of richest people in China there are now more than a million USD millionaires on the mainland, a number that is estimated to increase to 1.9 million by 2015.5657  And according to a recent Boston Consulting Group study, the number of affluent Chinese (those with disposable incomes of at least $20,000 to $1 million) will double from the current 120 million to 280 million by 2020.58 While these numbers will probably fluctuate and may even dip due to fallout from real-estate bubbles, this suggests that there are potential customers at various price points your company is looking to sell at.

I should also point out that I purposefully avoided analyzing most industries that are nationalized as well as those directly affected by the recent investment business cycle, specifically residential real-estate and commodity exchanges.

Gaining and trading guanxi

While I mention it in passing several times, guanxi (关系) is a unique cultural phenomenon involving personal connections and trust networks and I think Matt Garner describes the phenomenon most concisely for Western audiences:

[Guanxi is] one of the big cultural disconnects I would always see between American and Chinese business people. Americans are results oriented. But Chinese are relationship oriented.  When the Americans come they have a specific set of objectives to meet.  They come to the table with those goals and hope to meet them in a few days.  Asians, on the other hand, typically want to first make the relationship.  It’s like a marriage arrangement. You want both sides to know and trust each other first.  This is especially true in China since contract enforcement mechanisms in most of the country are still developing, thus making trust and mutual respect mission critical.  A first round negotiation is more of a meet and greet than anything that gets tangible results.59

While building rapport and trust is important for all long-term business relationships in any country, guanxi is a unique cultural trait that is established first before any business transaction is carried out.  Moreover, such a relationship (guanxi) can only be built and reinforced over time through repeated virtuous performance, and not easily given to quick introductions and a handshake (as is the practice in the West).  Hence the seemingly endless rounds of elaborate dinners, karaoke nights and mahjong sessions to establish and maintain guanxi.  For example, Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) is an American company that operates the Staples Arena in Los Angeles and the Mercedes-Benz Arena in Pudong, Shanghai.  As part of their long-term expansion plan they have hired local salespersons and managers to build guanxi and relationships with local suppliers and officials.  In doing so, they can cement mutual trust among all stakeholders and provide a communication channel for all future business.  In addition it is an expandable resource as whomever you have established guanxi with can now introduce you to their own trust networks and connections.

Is this merely the exception rather than the rule?  No.  For LinkedIn, out of its 200 million global userbase, only 1% comes from China.  Why?  Professor Wei Wuhui of Jiaotong University opines that, “I don’t think the Chinese middle class has the same needs in terms of professional networks as people in the West, because of the concept of guanxi.  In China people do not want to meet with people they don’t know. The Chinese have a culture based on relationships among family members and close friends.”60 Thus do not necessarily count on using Western networking methods to procure and build contacts – or as the expression goes, when in Rome.

And as Larry Chang, Charles Zeng and other entrepreneurs point out in interviews later on, one of the biggest challenges for any foreign firm is initially building these social connections, these trust networks that every Chinese businessperson and consumer has.  Yet overcoming this cultural challenge is a struggle for anyone even mainland residents.  As the saying attributed to Joseph P. Kennedy and Knute Rockne notes, “when the going gets tough, the tough get going.”  If becoming a successful entrepreneur was easy, we would all be fùwēng (富翁).

Takeaway: With the 2nd largest economy and an increasing demand for foreign-made products and services, China may be a new source for customers and revenue generation.  As detailed in the following chapters each industry has differing market access characteristics.  Furthermore, there are a variety of ways to sell your products directly to Chinese consumers, even without physically opening an office on the mainland (see ExportNow in Chapter 7).  Yet there are any number of policy and domestic hurdles that may present challenges to all foreign companies – challenges that as I repeatedly stress throughout the book require you to do your due diligence before making any substantial investments.  Furthermore, how you attract brand awareness, generate leads and manage customer relationships are tactical decisions that will vary according to industry – some of which are detailed in the following chapters.


Endnotes:

  1. The name of the book is Mr. China: A Memoir by Tim Cissold. During his April 12, 2010 show, Charlie Rose interviewed Jim Chanos, Chanos briefly discussed the story:

    “There’s been a couple wonderful books, including one called “Mr. China” about two investment bankers who set up shop right after Tiananmen Square. They spoke Mandarin, they were connected. They hired the kids of the high party officials. And they couldn’t have gotten it more right from a big-picture point of view. And they wrote this book a number of years later on how they were lucky to get out with their skin. They were completely bankrupted by China.” []

  2. Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises []
  3. Due to the one-child policy and outward immigration, according to UN demographers, ceteris paribus China will hit a peak population within the next 20 years.  India will likely eclipse China during this time frame in large part because its birth rate remains above the 2.1 replacement mark.  In contrast, China’s birthrate is effectively 1.47 per mother.  This is further discussed in Chapter 18.  See also Birth rule could be relaxed from China Daily, Peak toil from The Economist and One-child policy shift won’t usher in China baby boom from Reuters []
  4. Red Flags: My Years in a Chinese Company by Matt Garner (forthcoming)  []
  5. See China’s Golden Rule of Consumption by Yukon Huang and China unlocks right kind of growth from Financial Times and Chinese shoppers are thriving from Financial Times []
  6. U.S. Exports Top Historic High of $2.1 Trillion, Support 9.7 Million Jobs from the Economics & Statistics Administration []
  7. See Record Overseas Sales Boost U.S. Growth from BusinessWeek and U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services from the Bureau of Economic Analysis []
  8. Surprise! U.S. economy likely grew in fourth quarter from Reuters []
  9. Another reason to export is that the long-term potential for emerging market annual consumption is expected to reach $30 trillion by 2025.  See Winning the $30 trillion decathlon: Going for gold in emerging markets from McKinsey Quarterly []
  10. Opportunities for U.S. Small and Medium Business in the China Market from the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai []
  11. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger from Marc Levinson []
  12. American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai SME Center []
  13. See Better Business Bureau, Dun & Bradstreet, US Commercial Service and the 2012 US Commercial Service report: Powering Export Growth []
  14. Foreigners Set For Social Benefits from Shanghai Daily []
  15. Free Trade Agreements from the International Trade Administration []
  16. US lawmaker urges investment treaty pact with China from Reuters []
  17. This is not an endorsement that the WTO and managed trade agreements are supposedly the manifestation and embodiment of pure free-trade.  Yet some trade is better than no trade.  Or as Frédéric Bastiat purportedly said, if merchants and goods do not cross borders, armies will.  Yet due to relatively freer trade channels, merchants (especially in the West) have access to more potential trade channels than at any time in history.  See Who Said It? by Don Boudreaux and Biography of Frederic Bastiat by Thomas DiLorenzo []
  18. According to Eric Jay Dolin’s new book When America First Met China, this trade-based relationship goes back 225 years.  See How the China Trade Helped Make America from The Daily Beast, China’s 2011 foreign trade surges 22.5% from China Daily, Statistical Communiqué on the 2011 National Economic and Social Development from National Bureau of Statistics of China []
  19. Historically these “heavy” or “key industries” are called the commanding heights, a term that was first coined by Vladimir Lenin during the first years of the Soviet Union.  See The Commanding Heights : The Battle for the World Economy by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw []
  20. China’s PE Industry Grows More Challenging for Foreign Players from Global Intelligence Alliance []
  21. According to a recent estimate, by one measure state employment in China may have decreased 25% between 2002 and 2009.  Although several questions remain unresolved, did the author include listed SOEs (e.g. ICBC) or LLC’s that are subsidiaries that are wholly owned by SOEs?  See A Shrinking Leviathan: State Employment in China Looms Smaller Than Expected from Peterson Institute for International Economics []
  22. It is relatively difficult to gauge the exact number of SOE contribution to GDP in part because numerous suppliers and vendors – while technically private – exclusively do business with SOEs thus further blurring the distinction between private and public.  Another lower estimate is 40% of non-agricultural GDP is generated by SOEs.  For comparison, in 1995 there were 1.4 million SOEs on the mainland.  See China’s New Place in a World in Crisis: Economic, Geopolitical and Environmental Dimensions edited by Ross Garnaut, Ligang Song and Wing Thye Woo, A Glance At Chinese State-Owned Enterprises from CNPolitics and Beijing Lines out Rout for Central SOE Reforms from Caijing []
  23. China government 2011 procurement totals 1.13 trln yuan from Xinhua []
  24. China announces next step in joining Government Procurement Agreement from the World Trade Organization []
  25. Foreign firms in the procurement business also face stiff domestic competition with “buy China” policies at various governmental levels on the mainland.  See Chinese gov’t departments told to “buy China” from Xinhua []
  26. See GDP grows 7.8% to top $8 trillion from China Daily, The state advances from The Economist and China still lags US in trade from China Daily []
  27. In December 2012 it subsequently surged in the highest daily gains since October 2009 due to policy changes in the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor program (QFII合格境外機構投资者).  See China Scraps QFII Limit on Sovereign Funds, Central Banks from Bloomberg, China’s Stocks Drop Below 2,000 from Bloomberg and China stocks fall below 2000 to 4-year low from South China Morning Post []
  28. On the other side of the coin is the view that these stocks are now relatively cheap or a “bargain buy.”  See Analysis: “Caveat emptor” as foreigners rush to ride China rebound from Reuters []
  29. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility from Peterson Institute for International Economics []
  30. Certification and Accreditation Administration of the People’s Republic of China []
  31. For a step-by-step procedure, see Starting a Business in China from the World Bank.  See also New Path for Trade: Selling in China from The New York Times []
  32. See China gets tough on labelling and packaging of medtech by Katherine Wang and 国家食品药品监督管理局关于规范境外医疗器械标签和包装标识的通知 from the SFDA []
  33. See China Revises Categorization of Imported Goods and Tariff Rates from China Briefing, Import taxes ‘will be cut’ this year from China Daily and China Voice: Keep China’s big spenders at home from Xinhua []
  34. Some airlines such as Air China explain this duty free limit (5,000 yuan) to passengers who are required to declare assets upon landing.  Mainland airports have similar restrictions as well.  See More duty-free shops in Hainan from China Daily and Customs And Visas from Air China []
  35. Free trade zones are clearly the way to go from China Daily []
  36. Shanghai gives green light to duty-free store from China Daily []
  37. As a Chinese colleague recently pointed out, there is a Chinese saying guan zi liang ge kou (官字两个口).  It is literally translated as ‘the character for “official” (guan) has two mouths’ – but actually means ‘there is no such thing as singular truth in officialdom.’  This explains the distinctive trait of the traditional Chinese businessperson’s distaste and disinclination to involve the official court in all matters concerning business dealings.  Hence, the preference, for many centuries, among Chinese business people, has been to first establish a good and dependable relationship with prospective partners prior to the actual transaction and execution of (unofficial) agreements.  The basis of a good relationship is xin yu (信誉) or a strong reputation for honesty and integrity – this is an important virtue called xin (trust) of the classical Confucian gentleman. []
  38. See Cat Scammed: How A U.S. Company Blew Half A Billion Dollars In China from Forbes, Caterpillar Still Investigating Chinese Accounting Discrepancy from Bloomberg, Ex-chairman of firm linked to Caterpillar fraud “dismayed” from Reuters, Caterpillar Tracks a Wayward China Path from The Wall Street Journal and New twist in Caterpillar-ERA saga from Financial Times []
  39. For an overview of common accounting mistakes that have been used in scandals in China be sure to read: The simplicity of Chinese accounting scandals from Quartz []
  40. China is also the largest motorcycle market.  See Global and China Motorcycle Industry Report, 2012 from PRNewswire []
  41. Vehicle sales overtake Europe in 2012 from China Daily and 2012: Slowing growth, maturing market from China Daily []
  42. An estimated 20.65 million automobiles are expected to be sold in 2013.  See China 2013 Auto Sales May Accelerate This Year to Top 20 Million from Bloomberg, China Slowing Auto Sales Still Eclipse U.S.-Japan-Germany: Cars from Bloomberg and China’s vehicle sales remain in doldrums from Financial Times []
  43. One of the issues facing policy makers is traffic congestion.  Each city handles it differently, some auctioning off license plates to residents.  The cost of license plates has increased as cities have become denser and more affluent.  In Shanghai for example, in the recent license plate auction held in January 2013, the average price for a plate was $12,000.  See Shanghai’s Newest Luxury Item: The License Plate from The Wall Street Journal and Shanghai licence plates ‘precious as gold,’ says vice mayor from South China Morning Post []
  44. Used car sales are increasing faster than new car sales on the mainland and may be an opportunity for foreign auto dealers with experience in this segment.  4.8 million used cars were sold in China in 2012 compared with 15.5 million new cars.  Used car sales are expected to double to 10 million in the next three years.  For comparison, in the US the used car market is four times the size of new cars.  See Coming of age: China’s used car market outpaces new sales growth from Reuters []
  45. China to surpass US as top luxury car market: study from Agence France-Presse []
  46. China Vehicle Population Hits 240 Million as Smog Engulfs Cities from Bloomberg []
  47. ‘Imported From Detroit’ Is a Good Idea in China, if Only… from The Wall Street Journal. []
  48. Modern facilities, global reach for Jaguar Land Rover from China Daily []
  49. Many other luxury cars continue to sell well on the mainland.  For example, in 2011 Chinese consumers overtook the US in purchases of Rolls Royce vehicles; although in 2012 US consumers retook the “torch” which may again be handed off in 2013.  See U.S. Overtakes China as World’s No. 1 Buyer of Rolls-Royce from The Wall Street Journal []
  50. According to Flurry, by the end of February 2013, China had 246 million smart devices compared with 230 million in the US.  See iPhone 5 hits China as Apple market share slips from Reuters and China Knocks Off U.S. to Become World’s Top Smart Device Market from Flurry []
  51. See China to pursue renminbi internationalization on market-oriented basis: central bank vice governor from Xinhua, China’s Next Step on Yuan Is Convertibility, Zhou Says from Bloomberg and Full convertibility of the yuan ruled out from China Daily []
  52. In terms of whether the currency is undervalued or overvalued, the only way of knowing for sure what the open market rate “should be” is to float the currency.  By one measure, according to The Economist’s annual Big Mac Index, despite the appreciation over the past several years, the yuan is still “undervalued” by 40%.  See Calories and currencies from The Economist []
  53. Modern China: A tale of luxury villas and displaced villagers from McClatchy []
  54. According to estimates from the World Bank, gross national income per capita in China was $4,940 in 2011. []
  55. Charting China’s Family Value from The Wall Street Journal []
  56. China has 1m multimillionaires: Hurun report from China Daily []
  57. Why Rich Chinese Are Investing Overseas (It’s Not What You Think) from The Wall Street Journal []
  58. Report: China ‘Affluent’ Population to Hit 280 Million by 2020 from The Wall Street Journal []
  59. Red Flags by Matt Garner (forthcoming) []
  60. LinkedIn, others face challenges against China ‘guanxi’ from South China Morning Post []
Send to Kindle