To date, much of the academic research on Bitcoin has lacked high-quality data and rigorous review. It’s time to fix it.
This is an editorial opinion by Rupert Matthews, lecturer at Nottingham Business School.
Although the Bitcoin network is open source and accessible to anyone with an internet connection, the Bitcoin community can sometimes be seen as closed to new ideas, with many stories of people being excluded as a result of promoting and supporting “non-Bitcoin activities.”
At the same time, the benefits of Bitcoin are immediately visible to people in society, who should also support the sharing of information on Bitcoin for “no-coiners” to support wider adoption. Unfortunately, the wider perception of Bitcoin in the media and the “old guard of Wall Street” means that the education process can be an uphill battle that must eliminate mistruths before the real education can begin.
Remember, even one of the most ardent supporters was once penniless:
It is also worth remembering, no-coiners can not be all Michael Saylors, and not all are lucky enough to have a close personal friend (thanks Eric Weiss) willing to take the time to clearly explain the concept to us, or personal motivation to spend. thousands of hours of self-education. We need some touch points, combined with some basic understanding to create mental curiosity to ask: What is money? And where does the money come from?
Saifedean Ammous’s work is the best and most referenced source to answer these questions, but people still have to be willing to read 274 pages of “The Bitcoin Standard” to access it.
The problem is, not only do we have a voice to improve education, but also whether we have enough voice to compete with those who sell “assets of choice” from Wall Street, but also with ignorant journalists (who often cannot have assets reported ), and more or have a larger audience.
Unfortunately, the source of Bitcoin’s conflicting views does not end with Wall Street speculators and journalists. Nic Carter, in a critical review of the new White House report on the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, highlighted the risks associated with “academic sources” that have a veneer of credibility but are ultimately uninformed. As a result, like the “Office of Science and Technology of the White House” (OSTP) will recommend the best academic and scientific rigor, as Carter said, “This is where you will be wrong.”
‘Academic Rigor’ Questions
This gap in verifiable academic voices led me to embark on my own academic journey into Bitcoin by not only using the material but also using my experience to try to do research and write about Bitcoin from my own perspective.
A glance at the works highlighted by Carter provides some easy wins for understanding how pseudo-academics can publish work under the guise of academia (in particular, the work of Alex de Vries). What’s even more surprising is that, during further research, they find real academic sources that are peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals that draw from these sources and allow them to influence their findings. This influence can also be seen in the references that make the best predictions (such as this John Truby), causing the impact of Bitcoin mining on the environment, which is also published in academic journals, drawn from identified sources. by Carter.
This creates a situation where, while the original source may be a non-peer review, a comment piece or a personal blog, their opinion can directly influence the findings and models presented in scientific journals that are considered higher and reviewed (see this example) .
This casts an uncomfortable lens on the academic process of peer review, where those reviewing academic research on Bitcoin appear to be ignorant of Bitcoin. More about academics more generally, this also shows that academics who review research on Bitcoin do not question or check the sources they draw from. If they do even the cursory task of checking the credibility of website citations or even admit that a particular work is actually “commentary” that they haven’t reviewed, clarification will be required by the author before the work is accepted. for publication.
The concern is even greater when considering time-pressured academics who read such “reviewed” sources. They can, themselves, develop views influenced by the work, without realizing the quality/bias of the source built in, and potentially pursue an anti-Bitcoin research agenda.
Bitcoin is becoming famous for its cross-discipline, with those who study the topic being able to understand it in various fields, from the Austrian economy to the environment, from personal time preferences to the food supply chain. Unfortunately, academic journals are widely recognized as focusing on strictly defined domains in which research is accepted. This means that, unfortunately, the accepted topic-specific research and analysis models may not be able to capture the complex nature of Bitcoin research.
To illustrate this, a cited economic article from 2015, which followed the accepted strict approach, published in a high-quality journal, found that “the long-term fundamental value (of bitcoin) is not different from zero.” Because Bitcoin started 2015 at around $318 and ended the year at $430 and has risen dramatically since this time, one can only imagine the potential “saltiness” of the academics who presented this finding and how this has also affected the long-term view. and a research journey on Bitcoin.
How Academics Can Improve Bitcoin Research
While the idea of creating a new research journal focused on Bitcoin is a viable approach, academic journals take time to develop a reputation and academics in the field tend not to deviate from their preferred sources. Academics are also incentivized to publish in established journals by linking research results to career advancement, meaning that new journals may not be the path to development in the short term.
I’m a big fan of the Bitcoin Policy Institute, which does invaluable work promoting research and advocacy to increase understanding in Bitcoin, but it can only have so many members with the current level of funding (without considering the problem of having to really increase members. ). This means that increasing the membership of these institutions is also not the best way for development.
To illustrate these potential problems, my three suggestions for those working in academia are: First, to identify how to conduct academic and rigorous research from the point of view of the area of knowledge that will be published in journals related to the discipline itself. Second, allocate resources specifically to respond to published research that is inaccurate, incomplete and biased, through communication with the journal’s editorial board. Third, include Bitcoin in the topic you want to review, thus helping to prevent inaccurate articles presenting Bitcoin views from being published. Through this process, as more academics enter the field, they will be able to benefit from a robust academic debate, with the high standards they can expect, hopefully writing works that contribute to the scientific understanding of Bitcoin.
These suggestions cannot overcome the biases presented by journalists or politicians, but I believe that they are a way to improve the academic base of Bitcoin understanding. Academics pursue research with the aim of seeking new knowledge and understanding, on a journey to establish new truths or refine existing ones, which are based on the scientific method that supports the modern world. Unless this foundation is established, and those aiming for a quick academic victory are prevented from publishing their work, journalists and politicians will continue to find sources that suit their views on the undermining influence of Bitcoin. If journalists and politicians cannot draw from low-grade “research” that does not stand the test of critical criticism, they will not be able to disseminate their views to the general public. While this may not solve the problem, it may move the debate in the right direction, and allow academics to be critical voices backed by scientific rigor. If the public view of Bitcoin is not misinformed, there is one less obstacle to overcome in the process of orange pilling a future Bitcoiner.
Academics are sometimes thought to be conducting research from their ivory towers that have only limited impact on their practice or daily life, but the OSTP report and the wider academic literature show that the increased interest in Bitcoin is increasing Bitcoin’s influence. – related research. Unless action is taken to ensure that high academic standards are met in Bitcoin-related research, not only will Bitcoin’s progress be slowed, but the reputation and standing of academic research more broadly will be damaged.
This puts me in a position where I want to give a message to academics who use poor quality or biased data in their work and reviewers who do not check the sources they take. As an academic myself, my message is: Shame on you. As a Bitcoiner, my message cannot be published, but believe me, it is from the heart and does not pull punches.
This is a guest post by Rupert Matthews. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.