Pints with Aquinas, Russell Brand’s Demonetization, and Bitcoin

It's time for a proper Matt Fradd Bitcoin Show

Hardware store in Marion, Ohio during the Great Depression (public domain)

I think what isn't okay is that YouTube just took away all of his money. - Matt Fradd, Russell Brand’s Accusations and Demonetization

Matt Fradd recently released a video where he decried the demonetization of Russell Brand, and other supposed “far right” agitators, musing over the potential for this sort of thing happening to his own Pints with Aquinas YouTube channel. For those not online, Brand is a comedic actor turned red-pilled commentator, now with a substantial following. By demonetizing his channel, YouTube is putting the kibosh on Brand from sharing ad revenue, demonstrating they are the gatekeepers of their centralized platform. This is a problem widely discussed for years, now more keenly aware to those who make a living on YouTube. 

As a fan of Fradd’s, I would be remiss if I didn’t call out that this is one problem that Bitcoin directly fixes. In fact, it’s the reason it exists at all. As permissionless money, Bitcoin recreates the act of exchanging cash directly, now possible on the internet without a financial intermediary. If Russell Brand creates a bitcoin address, anyone in the world can send him a payment instantly, no questions asked. 

This is all relevant for Fradd because it is going on two years since he sat down with Jacob Imam and discussed Bitcoin on his show. Imam spent an entire segment telling us viewers why he doesn’t much care for it. He received little pushback and I’m not aware of a substantial treatment of the topic since then. While we shouldn’t harangue Fradd to have an opinion on every invention under God’s creation, he seemingly took a stance on the topic. This leaves the casual viewer to assume that Imam’s position is also Fradd’s position, or perhaps even that this is the Catholic position. While honest minds can disagree on Bitcoin as a sound money alternative to fiat money shenanigans, or a fix for the demonetization rug pull, I contend that it is at least a topic worthy of fair exploration.

Why Bitcoin is Good Money

An obvious, but overlooked, point in discussions on money is that it is a useful invention that allows us to trade with our neighbors. While the proper use of money is a hot button issue among faithful Catholics, the proper production of money is not so often considered. To put it another way, if the kings clipping the coins was sinful in the Middle Ages, we might say that money printing is sinful today. 

Bitcoin is peer-to-peer electronic cash with a monetary policy that runs on a set of rules. With only 21 million coins that will be created, it effectively ends the problem of inflation for those who adopt it as their money. So if you believe that money printer go brrr exacerbates certain problems in society, think debt-based consumerism, excessive financial engineering, endless wars, or government-funded abortion mills, this is an issue that should matter to you. If you just think it’s wrong for bureaucrats to debase your savings or turn off your bank account, you are starting to grok Bitcoin. 

Where Imam got it wrong

I was once a bitcoin skeptic (as are most!), and I have sympathy for those reluctant to embrace this technology at first. And there are good critiques of the asset that a newcomer might want to be aware of, such as the potential for mining centralization, the risk of hard forks, long-term security threats, or gut-wrenching price drawdowns. To Imam and Fradd’s credit, you might say their trading advice was correct, at least in the short/medium term. The price of bitcoin, denominated in U.S. dollars, is down over 30% since the video was released. The road is still fraught with peril. 

However, Imam’s critique in the video, mainly concerning the energy use of the network, is not particularly strong. Here, he lays out his main thrust of his argument:

I think my number one problem is that there is a tremendous amount of money that's going into creating the system. Like, it takes a lot of energy to be able to actually make the computers function that will, you know, record the code, and also the supercomputers, the GPUs that are actively mining for new coins. Such so the sources, like projections, have made it out to be about $20 billion a year is being spent on cryptocurrencies and, or just rarifying them, like making them kind of real. Because they're not, there's nothing tangible about it. (Imam, 0:53) 

Without using this piece to rebut these claims in detail, I will simply pose a few follow up questions that could be asked of Imam:

• Is consuming energy inherently a bad thing?

• Who should decide what is “a lot” or "too much” energy?

• Should critics of bitcoin’s energy usage also study the energy usage of everything else we use? 

• Should we condemn other intangible goods like blogs, online forums, and YouTube videos?

• If it were possible to achieve sound money, but it came at a high cost, would it be worth it?

For those interested in a more thorough treatment on bitcoin’s energy usage, I would suggest starting here, here, or here. 

Why should Fradd care about this?

There are plenty of reasons Fradd, Imam, and the locally-minded Steubenvilleans might want to foster curiosity about bitcoin. If the goal of certain Catholics today is to return to more subsidiarity (as it should be), the utility of cash transactions, peer-to-peer monetary exchange for goods, is well understood. While we can be encouraged that physical dollars still exist, it doesn’t take much far right conspiracy theorizing to see why the powers that be might desire to phase cash out. Regardless, the ability for those dollars to get debased, physical or otherwise, remains. 

The rub is that many people today are willingly engaging in commerce that is not local, albeit for the sake of providing for their families and perhaps their community. This is for good reason. The content Fradd produces, for example, is making an impact beyond his physical presence. As long as Pints with Aquinas, New Polity, or Russell Brand continue to use the internet to sell to the world, they are beholden to unjust or disincentivized mediators that can shut down their source of income on a whim, until a tool like bitcoin is embraced.

As a quick aside, there is a paradoxical way that bitcoin reverses the centuries-long process of virtualization of money. Giacomo Zucco has argued that by bringing money back to physical scarcity through Proof of Work, and bearer control through private cryptographic keys, bitcoin actually de-virtualizes money. 

As for all listeners of Pints with Aquinas, who transact on the internet or not, the question still remains where should I put my savings? Instead of the obvious answer, e.g. cash balances, the tax of inflation nudges us all to buy assets we may or may not understand. To take up a side hustle as a housing speculator. To become financial engineers and/or part-time hedge fund manager wannabes. To engage in index investing nihilism (nothing matters, JUST BUY!). Hodling represents a return to a savings mentality for regular families. 

A Pints with Aquinas episode on fiat inflation

Imam got one thing very correct on his appearance on Pints, that is, we need sound money. Perhaps even more so than the demonetization problem that the Russell Brand story brings to light, the hidden disease of fiat money continues to wreak havoc. Bitcoin is part of the conversation here and the biggest reason fiat money has entered our lexicon in 2023. It may even be true that the best conversation Catholics could have on this topic need not even include the word bitcoin. There is no one better in this vein than Dr. Jörg Guido Hülsmann, whose essay The Cultural and Spiritual Legacy of Fiat Inflation is a must read for those who want to understand the state of our monetary system. Hülsmann as the guest and his essay as the topic would be a fascinating and edifying Pints with Aquinas show. 

Once the problem of fiat inflation is well understood, a Bitcoin-specific episode could be had. An OG like the brilliant Pierre Rochard, the always thoughtful Eric Sammons, or a terrific young cleric like Fr. Nick Blaha would all be excellent guests in explaining how Bitcoin could potentially abolish the scourge of our monetary chaos.