360 Surveillance on Asset Vaults
New Hampshire's "Crypto Gamble": More Hype Than Help?
New Hampshire's Crypto Gamble
So, New Hampshire is making headlines again, this time with a $100 million municipal bond backed by Bitcoin. It’s tempting to jump on the "Bitcoin is going mainstream!" bandwagon, but let's pump the brakes for a minute and look at the actual numbers. The article touts this as "exactly the type of innovation required to make Bitcoin a mainstream financial asset," which, frankly, sounds like marketing copy.
Here's the deal: the Business Finance Authority (BFA) is acting as a conduit, not a guarantor. Private borrowers get access to funding if they provide Bitcoin as collateral. And here's the kicker: the loans are over-collateralized, meaning the Bitcoin backing the loan is worth *more* than the loan itself. Why? Because, as the article notes, "all Bitcoin held as collateral could be liquidated entirely if the price of Bitcoin falls significantly." In other words, bond investors get a safety net, but it's a safety net built on the *assumption* that Bitcoin is volatile. If Bitcoin *was* truly mainstream, wouldn’t the over-collateralization be less extreme?
Let's be clear: this isn't your grandpa's municipal bond. It's a financial experiment with Bitcoin as the linchpin, hoping to attract small businesses and startups to New Hampshire. If it works, great. If Bitcoin tanks (and let's be honest, it's happened before), bond investors are theoretically protected, but those small businesses... well, that's another story.
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. The article mentions "some experts" suggesting "Bit Bonds" – U.S. Treasury bonds where 10% of the proceeds are used to buy Bitcoin. The stated goal? To lower the cost of borrowing for the federal government. Now, the U.S. government is paying $1 trillion per year in interest on its debt. The idea that allocating 10% to Bitcoin—a speculative asset—would *reduce* borrowing costs seems... counterintuitive, to say the least. Where's the data? How would that even work?
Bitcoin as Payment: Acceptance vs. Actual Use
Bitcoin as Payment: A Patchwork of Adoption
The other narrative being pushed is that Bitcoin is increasingly accepted as payment. The article lists companies like PayPal, Microsoft, AT&T, and even Starbucks as examples. Okay, let's dig a little deeper.
PayPal allows users to buy, sell, and *store* Bitcoin, and spend it at millions of merchants. Microsoft allows Bitcoin to top up your account. AT&T was the first major U.S. mobile carrier to provide a cryptocurrency payment option. But the phrase "allows" is doing a lot of work here. How many people are *actually* using Bitcoin for these transactions? What percentage of AT&T bills are paid in crypto? What's the average Bitcoin balance held in PayPal accounts? The article doesn't say.
It's a similar story with the list of "key categories" where Bitcoin is supposedly accepted. You can book flights and lodging through Travala and CheapAir. You can use Flexa-powered apps to pay at Home Depot and Whole Foods. Gucci, Hublot, and Tag Heuer accept Bitcoin at "selected boutiques." Netflix is running a trial. Again, we're missing crucial data points: transaction volume, geographic distribution, and customer demographics. For a more comprehensive list of adopters, see Who Accepts Bitcoin in 2025? List of 20+ Major Companies.
The article also mentions that as of November 2020, Pizza Hut in Venezuela can be purchased and paid for with Bitcoin. And then notes, "This follows the economic sanctions imposed on the country that drove cryptocurrency acceptance to new heights." See, *that's* a data point that tells a story. Bitcoin adoption isn't necessarily about mainstream acceptance; it can also be a response to economic instability.
Reality Check: Bitcoin's Niche
The reality is that Bitcoin adoption is still patchy. It's concentrated in specific sectors (online casinos, for some reason) and specific regions (Latin America, driven by economic factors). The list of companies accepting Bitcoin is impressive, but the *volume* of Bitcoin transactions as a percentage of their overall revenue is likely minuscule.
The article quotes Michael Sonnenshein, former CEO of Grayscale Investments, saying Bitcoin is "becoming a store of value and a medium of exchange." Patrick Byrne, former CEO of Overstock, claims that accepting Bitcoin has "opened us up to a new customer base." These are opinions, not data. I'd like to see the actual sales figures. Show me the correlation between Bitcoin acceptance and revenue growth.
The article concludes with a look at future predictions, including regulatory developments, technological advancements, and increased institutional adoption. All of these are possible, but they're also predicated on Bitcoin's continued viability. And that's the million-dollar question, isn't it?
The Hype Still Outweighs the Substance
Bitcoin's "mainstream moment" is still more aspiration than reality. There are glimmers of progress, but the data suggests it's more of a niche phenomenon—a hedge against instability or a novelty for tech enthusiasts—than a fundamental shift in the global financial system. I'll wait for the numbers to catch up with the narrative.
Avaxsignals Published on2025-12-03 15:16:22 Views7 Comments0
