Why is Bitcoin "digital gold" crashing right now?

[WolfeTone]

Wolfie I am always a tad nervous in engaging with you given your penchant for popping up in various aliases.

Unfortunately, an enforced move on my part due to unjust bannings in the past. I accept that previous alias TheBigShort may have ruffled some feathers with an overly abrupt style but I put it down to inexperience of the online forum etiquette. But I think banning was wholly unjust, although I think im improving all the time

To answer your question, no I don't agree with this Kelleher chap that Bitcoins store of value is dependent on it being used as a medium of exchange.

Speaking of 21trn 'scarce' satoshis. I did a quick sum on my calculator.
It turns out 21trn satoshi's equals about 2800 satoshis for every man, woman and child in the world. Or by todays prices $0.25c each.

There must the equivalent of 6,000trillion (is there even a name for this number?) $0.01c circulating in the international monetary system.
Yet apparently, two-thirds of the world's population live in relative poverty.
Perhaps scarce is wrong adjective, elusive may be more apt.

 

[tecate]

It was Kelleher who made a big deal of divisibility.

Everyone who has ever assessed the characteristics of money has made a big deal about divisibility and included it as a fundamentally important characteristic of money. Show me anyone who has not done so?
The difference is that you're saying that Bitcoin's divisibility cancels out another entirely separate characteristic - that of scarcity. That's incorrect.

as you noted I kept the nonsensical bits of his ramblings away from AAM.

No. You cherry picked one tract of text and deliberately didn't cite it in case people would read the complete article in context. That's disingenuous, your Dukeness.

Question Yes or No? Are satoshis scarce? Clue: there will be 2,100 trillion of them. If you say they aren't scarce then as a supplementary where would the decimal point need to have been drawn to make bitcoin earn the sobriquet of "scarce"?

Asked and answered. Divisibility does not cancel out scarcity. You can engage in semantics until the cows come home - it doesn't change that.

Back to school time Dukey

It was you who brought up the Armageddon motif.

You introduced the notion that cash would trump Bitcoin in a prolonged electricity outage situation. I said that such a scenario was likely to involve total societal breakdown in which case neither cash nor bitcoin would be relevant.
If a short term outage its a mut point for the most part. Bitcoin transactions are possible via satellite and text message. So long as someone in the community had a genny, people can charge their phones and still transact Bitcoin.

You appear to have changed your mind, you will be secure with your bitcoin wallet when the nukes start being thrown around. Or maybe I misunderstood your metaphor "it's guns that will be needed".

Its your mutterings that were being responded to so you might want to clarify those mutterings. If you were talking about security in a societal breakdown scenario, Bitcoin would be more secure than keeping cash under your pillow....aside from the fact that Bitcoin is global, not local and in those circumstances, your local cash would be worthless.
If the point was simply in relation to an electricity outage, then you have my answer on that above.

You may be right, though David McWilliams believes that the punt would soar in such a scenario.

There were a number of threads here on the topic in 2011/12. I've had a look back and it seems that there were mixed opinions but with that, there were quite a few AAM'ers at the time opening accounts in NI, Belgium, France, Holland, Germany - and others aspiring to do the same.
That being said, Bitcoin is not to be considered just from an Irish perspective. Presumably, there will be other Europeans who will be negatively affected by a Euro-breakup so the point stands regardless.

You're still doing a bit of a politician there. But I think you are saying that you believe bitcoin can be a long term store of value without necessarily making the grade as a medium of exchange. If this is so, you totally reject Kelleher's view. But correct me if I have misinterpreted you.

I've been very clear here. I have not tried to misrepresent something. You quoted a tract of text in isolation - without the context of the complete article and without citing the article.
I've drawn your attention to the fact that the article states that gold cannot act as a medium of exchange and thus, doesn't act as a medium of exchange. Nevertheless it acts as a store of value. The takeaway is that digital gold can do the very same. It has the ability to go beyond that and act as a medium of exchange. Services can be built on top of it like Microsoft's ION. As the world's most secure blockchain, it can serve another use case by securing other blockchains. It can and is being used in the global remittance process as confirmed by the European Commission in this report. It doesn't have to offer all that utility to develop the utility of store of value or digital gold but it will certainly help to copper fasten its position in that role.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

One gram of gold contains about 30 billion-billion atoms.
Does this fact make it less scarce?

I was making the point that where you put the decimal point doesn't change anything of substance. But surely the whole psychology and the use of the word "scarce" as a promotional feature would be radically different if, like conventional currencies, bitcoin was 100 times its smallest constituent as then there would be 21 trillion of them. Who knows what the price trajectory might have been. Folk might have thought Satoshi was targeting parity with the then dollar which would imply a market cap of $21tr
I was also reflecting on the breathtaking naïveté of Kelleher who seems to be of the view that bitcoin was a primary physical object and that it was the genius of Satoshi and the marvels of modern technology which was able to divide it into 100 million pieces.

The real point of these musings is that it highlights the fundamental flaw in bitcoin - it is not Cognizable. Meaning there is no clear view to its value.
I think most people would agree that to date its price is purely driven by speculation. Not so much an equilibrium between supply and demand but between buyers and sellers. Let us say the world is divided between bitcoin believers and bitcoin skeptics. I would suggest that the latter far outnumber the former but the vast majority of these latter are not active in the market. In other words the buyers and sellers are both in the main members of the faithful. Now there are many religions on this planet and at most one can be correct and yet they have all been sustained by their believers over many centuries. Maybe bitcoin as a cult can similarly be sustained by the faithful. Though I am very much of Kelleher's view that it has to make the breakthrough as a medium of exchange to achieve that longevity. Where I differ from Kelleher is that I cannot see it making that breakthrough.

 

[Gus1970]

I was making the point that where you put the decimal point doesn't change anything of substance. But surely the whole psychology and the use of the word "scarce" as a promotional feature would be radically different if, like conventional currencies, bitcoin was 100 times its smallest constituent as then there would be 21 trillion of them. Who knows what the price trajectory might have been. Folk might have thought Satoshi was targeting parity with the then dollar which would imply a market cap of $21tr
I was also reflecting on the breathtaking naïveté of Kelleher who seems to be of the view that bitcoin was a primary physical object and that it was the genius of Satoshi and the marvels of modern technology which was able to divide it into 100 million pieces.

The real point of these musings is that it highlights the fundamental flaw in bitcoin - it is not Cognizable. Meaning there is no clear view to its value.
I think most people would agree that to date its price is purely driven by speculation. Not so much an equilibrium between supply and demand but between buyers and sellers. Let us say the world is divided between bitcoin believers and bitcoin skeptics. I would suggest that the latter far outnumber the former but the vast majority of these latter are not active in the market. In other words the buyers and sellers are both in the main members of the faithful. Now there are many religions on this planet and at most one can be correct and yet they have all been sustained by their believers over many centuries. Maybe bitcoin as a cult can similarly be sustained by the faithful. Though I am very much of Kelleher's view that it has to make the breakthrough as a medium of exchange to achieve that longevity. Where I differ from Kelleher is that I cannot see it making that breakthrough.

Is gold scarce?

 

[tecate]

I was making the point that where you put the decimal point doesn't change anything of substance.

That's incorrect - particularly so now that we are eleven years down the road and one Bitcoin has a value of $9,429 as I write this. Hard to believe this has to be pointed out but the decimal point is a function of divisibility.

But surely the whole psychology and the use of the word "scarce" as a promotional feature would be radically different if, like conventional currencies, bitcoin was 100 times its smallest constituent as then there would be 21 trillion of them. Who knows what the price trajectory might have been. Folk might have thought Satoshi was targeting parity with the then dollar which would imply a market cap of $21tr

Scarcity is not a 'promotional' anything - it is a bona fide characteristic of both a good store of value and money. By 2140, 21 million Bitcoin will have been minted - and we know that it stops there.
Satoshi couldn't possibly have been looking to achieve parity with the dollar because you can't tell me how many dollars are in circulation in this very moment, how many there will be tomorrow, next week/month/year, etc. Bitcoin is hard money - FIAT is not.

I was also reflecting on the breathtaking naïveté of Kelleher who seems to be of the view that bitcoin was a primary physical object and that it was the genius of Satoshi and the marvels of modern technology which was able to divide it into 100 million pieces.

Kelleher went from hero to zero in record speed it seems given that it was you that introduced his article (or a specific snippet of his article) to this discussion in an effort to support your argument. Now you are criticising him for acknowledging Bitcoin's divisibility - when divisibility is universally recognised as a key characteristic of both a store of value and money.

The real point of these musings is that it highlights the fundamental flaw in bitcoin - it is not Cognizable. Meaning there is no clear view to its value.

It seems you have misunderstood the characteristic of Cognisability. It's set out [broken link removed] in these words:

"The good money is one which could easily be cognized. If it does not happen the counterfeit currency will come into circulation. As a result, so many problems will rise."

Therefore, cognisability is akin to verifiability. There are counterfeit notes for every FIAT currency in circulation. Likewise, it is not easy to determine the authenticity of gold - not without expensive equipment. In contrast to that, Bitcoins are confirmed with mathematical certainty - there are no counterfeits. Therefore, what you have thought of as a downside for Bitcoin - is actually a feature and benefit over and above FIAT money and gold.

I think most people would agree that to date its price is purely driven by speculation.

I think everyone understands that it's in its infancy and is finding it's place in the world. With that, it's going through an iterative process of price discovery. That will settle over time - whilst use as a store of value and medium of exchange (along with having services built on top of it) will continue to gain momentum.
Other than that, its fair price can be arrived at in the same way as gold. You can ask Brendan to explain how that works.

Not so much an equilibrium between supply and demand but between buyers and sellers.

Doesn't supply and demand implicate buyers and sellers? The dynamic is the same as gold. There are speculators in the gold arena too.

In other words the buyers and sellers are both in the main members of the faithful. Now there are many religions on this planet and at most one can be correct and yet they have all been sustained by their believers over many centuries. Maybe bitcoin as a cult can similarly be sustained by the faithful.

Bitcoin is not a 'cult' or a 'religion' regardless of how many times you say it is. Remember, you are on record as saying that anyone that would even recommend to someone to buy Bitcoin is a 'cultist'. I'd recommend a timeout to reflect on your own thoughts Dukey.

FIAT currencies work until people lose confidence in them and they don't anymore. That's why they have an average lifespan of 27 years.

Though I am very much of Kelleher's view that it has to make the breakthrough as a medium of exchange to achieve that longevity.

Lets provide the full explanation. In his article, Kelleher outlines that gold is not a medium of exchange and has not and never will have the ability to be one. Yet it is a store of value. Ergo, being a medium of exchange is not necessarily a prerequisite for Bitcoin to act as a store of value. I do agree that it will help copper fasten its position in that respect but it is not a requirement for Bitcoin.

Where I differ from Kelleher is that I cannot see it making that breakthrough.

Lets qualify that statement by adding that you are on record as stating that you vehemently don't want it to make that breakthrough. Perhaps that clouds your judgement a tad - who's the cultist now?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Lets qualify that statement by adding that you are on record as stating that you vehemently don't want it to make that breakthrough. Perhaps that clouds your judgement a tad - who's the cultist now?

I won't address all the other points which are just the two of us going around in a dialogue, boring the pants of innocent AAM viewers.
But let me freely admit that I am totally against everything that the bitcoin cultists (they do exist, maybe you are not one) believe in. I greatly respect our Western democratic way of life and its attendant institutions including its monetary system. I believe that by and large they are looking after my interests and I am confident that they will not fulfill the bitcoin cultist fantasy of it all crashing and burning.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Is gold scarce?

I suspect you think you have a game changing "gotcha" in your pocket. Of course it is scarce. Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition:

scarce: insufficient to meet demand

So for example milk isn't scarce even though it still has a price, but the demand for it is largely satiated. Gold is obviously in a different space.
Getting back on topic do you agree with the following statement from an ardent bitcoin supporter:

Bitcoin's utility as a store of value is dependent on its utility as a medium of exchange. We base this in turn on the assumption that for something to be used as a store of value it needs to have some intrinsic value, and if Bitcoin does not achieve success as a medium of exchange, it will have no practical utility and thus no intrinsic value and won't be appealing as a store of value.

 

[tecate]

But let me freely admit that I am totally against everything that the bitcoin cultists (they do exist, maybe you are not one) believe in.

The only problem with that is that you have deemed anyone who is positively dispositioned towards Bitcoin as a 'cultist'. See your post here. You called the Global Head of Equity Strategy at a leading global investment bank a 'cultist' for recommending to his clients that they should have a holding of Bitcoin and gold. Yet to my knowledge, the guy had never made a previous public utterance on Bitcoin.

I greatly respect our Western democratic way of life and its attendant institutions including its monetary system.

This is not binary - it's not a winner takes all scenario. Decentralised cryptocurrency can sit alongside FIAT currency. It just provides an alternative option for people - and having options can only be a positive thing. If sovereign currencies unravel, that's down to their mismanagement - not related to Bitcoin. In actual fact, if that's what you believe in, you should want Bitcoin to exist as a credible option. You might have experienced relative monetary stability but that's not the experience for millions of people around the world as their sovereign currencies are mismanaged. Bitcoin can act as an incentive for these guys not to mismanage their currencies.

I am confident that they will not fulfill the bitcoin cultist fantasy of it all crashing and burning.

That's an inaccurate line of thought. See above - this is not binary. It's an expansion of the array of options open to people - nothing more.

 

[WolfeTone]

Now there are many religions on this planet and at most one can be correct and yet they have all been sustained by their believers over many centuries. Maybe bitcoin as a cult can similarly be sustained by the faithful

The references to religious following is a strong feature of your position. Frequent references to the 'faithful', 'believers', 'cult' pepper your posts in a manner that I assume is used to try expose some fundamental flaw in those who hold the view that bitcoin has value of substance. However, not wanting to divert the topic into a futile theological debate, please allow me a little a latitude to inquire some more on these frequent references.

It is my whole understanding that in the course of these discussions that the central debate is over whether bitcoin actually has any value or not. There are those of us that proclaim it to have value and there are those claiming it to be worthless, a bag of hot air, and this group frequently imply cult or religious fanaticism to some, if not all, the other group.

So a brief moment, if I now accept that they are right, does that mean bitcoin has no value to me. Yes, of course. But does it mean it holds no value to others. No of course not. And as has been alluded to here, such value can be sustained for hundreds of years, more in fact.
Lets take religious Christian faithful. This group believe that JC is the son of God, no question, they believe he was crucified and rose from the dead three days later.
Whatever mania and hype kicked off two thousand years ago, its simply incredulous that such a story could sustain itself for so long, believed by some two billion people. Isnt it?
Or is there any of the bitcoin non-believers part of this Christian story? Do they worship at the alter of JC? Do they receive Holy Communion, confess sins, fast at lent, all in the name of JC?
If so, why on earth would such pragmatic, rational thinking people do such a thing?
Perhaps they see value? Value in the word and teachings of JC? Perhaps the fear what is to come after their own demise, and pray for forgiveness?
Or are they prepared to say now, that the Christian church and all other churches are BOHA and worthless?

The overall point is, regardless of your views on anything subject or on any matter, if some can see a value in something where others see none, then the only question is, how much are they willing to pay for it?
And the only way we can determine, in a monetary sense, how much anything is worth is by its market price. Unless of course, some are not prepared to believe in the free market either?

The late George Carlin, in ten short minutes, succinctly sums the ridiculous nature of religious beliefs and the monetary value attributable to them? Is he right?
I would suggest others would think not.

Religion is BS

 

[Gus1970]

I suspect you think you have a game changing "gotcha" in your pocket. Of course it is scarce. Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition:
So for example milk isn't scarce even though it still has a price, but the demand for it is largely satiated. Gold is obviously in a different space.
Getting back on topic do you agree with the following statement from an ardent bitcoin supporter:

No gotcha whatsoever, with the definition you suggested we can acknowledge that scarcity is not a function of divisibility as you have been advocating for until now and move the conversation further

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

No gotcha whatsoever, with the definition you suggested we can acknowledge that scarcity is not a function of divisibility as you have been advocating for until now and move the conversation further

No that is not what I was advocating. I was musing that at the psychological level if the decimal place was in the conventional position there would be 21 trillion bitcoins and possibly the "scarce" message would sound less convincing, even though the scarcity is totally independent of the decimal position. Thus it was the very truth of your point which was part of my musing.

For avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting that any of this fascinating sideshow adds or subtracts from my critique of bitcoin. But it does expose the shocking naïveté and ignorance of one Mr Kelleher.

 

[tecate]

I was musing that at the psychological level if the decimal place was in the conventional position there would be 21 trillion bitcoins and possibly the "scarce" message would sound less convincing, even though the scarcity is totally independent of the decimal position.

Great - sounds like we are back on track again - with the acceptance that he/she designed in scarcity with 21 million Bitcoin - not 21 trillion Bitcoin.

the scarcity is totally independent of the decimal position . . .But it does expose the shocking naïveté and ignorance of one Mr Kelleher.

How does it expose any naiveté or igorance on his part? You accept that scarcity is independent of the decimal position - and therefore divisibility. I've never seen a list of characteristics of money that doesn't include both divisibility and scarcity as distinct fundamentals.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The references to religious following is a strong feature of your position. Frequent references to the 'faithful', 'believers', 'cult' pepper your posts in a manner that I assume is used to try expose some fundamental flaw in those who hold the view that bitcoin has value of substance. However, not wanting to divert the topic into a futile theological debate, please allow me a little a latitude to inquire some more on these frequent references.

It is my whole understanding that in the course of these discussions that the central debate is over whether bitcoin actually has any value or not. There are those of us that proclaim it to have value and there are those claiming it to be worthless, a bag of hot air, and this group frequently imply cult or religious fanaticism to some, if not all, the other group.

So a brief moment, if I now accept that they are right, does that mean bitcoin has no value to me. Yes, of course. But does it mean it holds no value to others. No of course not. And as has been alluded to here, such value can be sustained for hundreds of years, more in fact.
Lets take religious Christian faithful. This group believe that JC is the son of God, no question, they believe he was crucified and rose from the dead three days later.
Whatever mania and hype kicked off two thousand years ago, its simply incredulous that such a story could sustain itself for so long, believed by some two billion people. Isnt it?
Or is there any of the bitcoin non-believers part of this Christian story? Do they worship at the alter of JC? Do they receive Holy Communion, confess sins, fast at lent, all in the name of JC?
If so, why on earth would such pragmatic, rational thinking people do such a thing?
Perhaps they see value? Value in the word and teachings of JC? Perhaps the fear what is to come after their own demise, and pray for forgiveness?
Or are they prepared to say now, that the Christian church and all other churches are BOHA and worthless?

The overall point is, regardless of your views on anything subject or on any matter, if some can see a value in something where others see none, then the only question is, how much are they willing to pay for it?
And the only way we can determine, in a monetary sense, how much anything is worth is by its market price. Unless of course, some are not prepared to believe in the free market either?

The late George Carlin, in ten short minutes, succinctly sums the ridiculous nature of religious beliefs and the monetary value attributable to them? Is he right?
I would suggest others would think not.

Religion is BS

You know Wolfie I was warming more and more to the religious analogy. The Boss proclaims himself to be a devout atheist. That presumably means he thinks that deity is BOHA. I am not going to reveal my own religious beliefs on AAM but I am prepared to say that I believe that the Hindu belief that we get reincarnated is BOHA. Yet Hinduism is believed by 100s of millions people and has been for centuries. So yes that does weaken any conviction that bitcoin is going to zero any time soon even though it is undoubtedly BOHA.

 

[tecate]

So yes that does weaken any conviction that bitcoin is going to zero any time soon even though it is undoubtedly BOHA.

And of course you can bury your head in the sand and continue on with this nonsense as long as you want.

The nonsensical analogies that yourself and Brendan liken Bitcoin to are exactly that - nonsensical. We can see how Bitcoin compares against the characteristics of a store of value here. The nonsensical examples you present with get an F in all categories by comparison. Ergo there is no comparison and it's disingenuous to claim that there is.

 

[WolfeTone]

So yes that does weaken any conviction that bitcoin is going to zero any time soon even though it is undoubtedly BOHA.

So that leaves us where exactly? That bitcoin is BOHA and will return to its 'ultimate destination' anytime between now and eh, the end of time?

All this while yourself and Brendan have just been stringing us along. You have no formula for valuing bitcoin at zero, nor any way of forecasting when it will return to zero.

You may as well be telling us The Second Coming will happen one day, should such an event be part of your own cult-like rituals?

Brendan is going to short bitcoin at $10,000.
Is there a market for shorting The Second Coming?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So that leaves us where exactly? That bitcoin is BOHA and will return to its 'ultimate destination' anytime between now and eh, the end of time?

All this while yourself and Brendan have just been stringing us along. You have no formula for valuing bitcoin at zero, nor any way of forecasting when it will return to zero.

You may as well be telling us The Second Coming will happen one day, should such an event be part of your own cult-like rituals?

Brendan is going to short bitcoin at $10,000.
Is there a market for shorting The Second Coming?

I'm sure tecate understands that. I don't.

 

[WolfeTone]

I'm sure tecate understands that. I don't.

Its not that hard really, you frequently reference religion/cults as a means to demonstrate that bitcoin is actually worthless.

Im merely pointing out the contradiction in doing so when clearly billions of people around the world of different faiths would contest that their religion does have value.
Even if for the vast majority of them such faiths are given over to the invisible man in the sky.
Perhaps even your own religious/cult beliefs?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Its not that hard really, you frequently reference religion/cults as a means to demonstrate that bitcoin is actually worthless.

Im merely pointing out the contradiction in doing so when clearly billions of people around the world of different faiths would contest that their religion does have value.
Even if for the vast majority of them such faiths are given over to the invisible man in the sky.
Perhaps even your own religious/cult beliefs?

Wolfie it was post #376 that went a tad over my head.
I have conceded that you have correctly pointed out a contradiction in my position. I believe there is a cultist element to bitcoin. But you have rightly pointed out that a cult can give a BOHA value to many people for a very long time. So I now surrender and say I have lost my conviction that bitcoin will go to zero any time soon.
The cult itself will be a broad church ranging from those who think it is worth, say, $5,000 to those who think it worth $100,000. And there are those that believe it will still be a store of value even if it fails miserably in its intended purpose of being a global medium of exchange. That is enough to sustain an active and very volatile market. We also see a paradox whereby a relatively small amount of money going around and around can create the illusion that bitcoin has a market cap of $200bn.

 

[Leo]

I'm not sure what the issue is? He has included a few categories that FIAT and gold can't possibly score well with (as they have their foundations rooted in an analog time). But if you check those fundamentals, they're legitimate in terms of what would make a decent medium of exchange.

Just taking this point, the issue is that some of the criteria have little to do with money and are clearly chosen to favour bitcoin, so it loses all credibility.

No problem Leo - then don't use it

Not sure if you're deliberately misinterpreting there. To be clear, I don't the hype about bitcoin being digital when I'm already transacting digitally with my Euro on a daily basis. Why do crypto fans seem to think the digital qualities are somehow a game changer?

Dabbling in the rhetorical I see (given that I myself said that fees could still be an obstacle at that micro-level). Again, like I said, we'll have to see how LN fees pan out. If not, there's a crypto that's feeless that will do the job quite nicely.

You're the one pushing the ability to micro-transact as a great feature of bitcoin. Are you now conceding it isn't practical, and may never be? LN isn't bitcoin, it's a separate solution that sits along side it in an attempt to solve some of the fundamental shortcomings of the bitcoin design.

In an automated machine to machine environment (IoT sensors), sure they will. If you're talking billions of sensors and repeated data points, then it's far more significant than you've considered it to be.

You obviously don't have an understanding of the accountancy requirements that follow inter-company transactions, and the overheads involved in terms of infrastructure and people. From a technical point of view, transacting at that level to push every single data point through the network to the core billing systems to the consumers would be a really inefficient design in terms of energy usage and bandwidth requirements.

We're trialing a multitude of IoT sensors including smart badges (on all people and equipment) area density & movement sensors and medical scanners, they all report back to central management systems. In fact, almost all commercial IoT sensors do, because that means the sensors themselves are much less complex and cost a fraction of the price and consume a fraction of the energy they would otherwise.

but in the not too distant future, personal data will be under our own control and it will be up to ourselves if we want to sell aspects of it.

I don't ever foresee a point where we will actually monetise personal data at an individual level. The value (and it's a low value) is in the volume. Am I really going to bother signing up to supply my data to a service when feeding them maybe a dozen pieces of information a day earns me 5c a year?

 

[Firefly]

You obviously don't have an understanding of the accountancy requirements that follow inter-company transactions, and the overheads involved in terms of infrastructure and people. From a technical point of view, transacting at that level to push every single data point through the network to the core billing systems to the consumers would be a really inefficient design in terms of energy usage and bandwidth requirements.

I think long before that even becomes close to a reality, governments around would pass the LTOPG act* to protect their income streams
Legal Tender Only Please Guys

I don't ever foresee a point where we will actually monetise personal data at an individual level. The value (and it's a low value) is in the volume. Am I really going to bother signing up to supply my data to a service when feeding them maybe a dozen pieces of information a day earns me 5c a year?

But...but....it's divisible