Cryptocurrencies as market singularities: the strange case of Bitcoin
Open accessAbstract
Since its creation in 2009, the electronic currency Bitcoin has generated volumes of online debate in the business press. While there have been plenty of economic arguments situating it as a financial bubble about to collapse including from Nobel Prize winning economists, its price value has proven to be more durable than many have predicted. To explain this durability, Karpik’s conception of market singularities is used to understand the Bitcoin phenomenon by outlining the beliefs that maintain Bitcoin’s status as a volatile financial asset. Market singularities are markets for particular kinds of goods and services that are of uncertain and incommensurable value. Singularities markets have communities of followers and a distinctive belief system that ascribes value to a particular product, service, or asset. Developing Karpik’s conception, the paper explores the libertarian political belief system that surrounds Bitcoin’s status as a financial asset. I also outline some political tensions within the electronic currency community concerning governance and centralisation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is confirmation of the libertarian political belief system that underlies bitcoin's status, but this is not fully unified and there are political tensions within the community concerning governance and centralisation.
“There is con fi rmation of the libertarian political belief system that underlies bitcoin ' s status but this is not fully uni fi ed and there are some political tensions within the community concerning governance and centralisation.”
From In Digital We Trust: Bitcoin Discourse, Digital Currencies, and Decentralized Network Fetishism (2018) · cites this paper as Dallyn, 2017
Cites
“When perhaps the real problem is money itself!”: the practical materiality of Bitcoin
Maurer, B., Nelms, T. C., & Swartz, L. (2013) · Social Semiotics · doi:10.1080/10350330.2013.777594 · Cited by 465 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
In Digital We Trust: Bitcoin Discourse, Digital Currencies, and Decentralized Network Fetishism
Baldwin, J. (2018) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-018-0065-0 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
The rise and fall of Electra: emergence and transformation of a global cryptocurrency community
Caliskan, K. (2024) · Review of Social Economy · doi:10.1080/00346764.2022.2039404 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dallyn, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dallyn, Sam
- ORCID
- Dallyn, Sam
- Venue
- Journal of Cultural Economy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-04-25
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 462-473
- ISSN
- 1753-0350 (ISSN-L)
- 1753-0369
- OpenAlex
- W2608885835
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7
- FWCI
- 17.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Journal of Cultural Economy (publishedVersion)
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
- Keywords
- Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, asset price bubbles, belief systems, libertarianism, electronic money, governance, centralization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review