Dear Joseph,

Thank you for continuing to read my work and for your in-depth analysis of my analogies as well as contributing to the discussion.

First, I do apologize but do not profess in any way to be an expert on the subject of Roman history. What little I do know can be confined to the few texts which I have read (purely out of interest) on ancient Roman history and modern analysis with regards to the American empire.

As such, any errors and omissions with regards to the historical ordering of emperors and coinage remain strictly mine.

However, I do suggest that such details do not detract from the underlying purpose of the analogy which is to point out that the inflationary nature of Roman coinage and the debasement of its currency was certainly a contributory factor to its eventual demise.

As to your assertion of empirical evidence, I would scarcely suggest that Bitcoin’s relatively juvenile 10-year history is sufficient to constitute empirical evidence of any form — there has been and continues to be no empirical analogue to a globally accessible yet decentralized and digitally secured currency.

We are in uncharted waters, to suggest otherwise is to presume a level of clairvoyance that I myself do not profess to be in possession of.

With regards to the velocity of money equation, I would suggest that it is an attempt by economists to quantify money supply into elegant equations which are worked on the basis of many of the same assumptions which cryptocurrency advocates also leverage for their own purpose.

Just because a formula proves a past observation does not ipso facto prove its validity.

If so, the good folks at Long Term Capital Management would not have imploded their hedge fund. For that matter, nor would David Li’s Gaussian Cupola formula have become the precursor to the financial crisis.

The point I am trying to make is that formulas which prove empirical observations are no guarantee of future outcomes.

Being involved on a daily basis with quantitative tools, I have grown a healthy skepticism when it comes to formulas that are not confined to extremely limited timeframes — the velocity of money equation is no exception.

Again, I thank you for expressing your opinions and contributing to the level of discourse.

Any errors and omissions continue to remain mine and for which I apologize.

Yours,

Patrick