One of Bitcoin's biggest obstacles to widespread adoption is the utility problem -- how can Bitcoin transition to being a transactional currency. The problem i

One of Bitcoin's biggest obstacles to widespread adoption is the utility problem -- how can Bitcoin transition to being a transactional currency. The problem is a dual one; on the one hand, if you can denominate your supply chain in Bitcoin, then that removes much volatility, because you no longer care about the cost of Bitcoin. But that requires that all of the components of your supply chain are also denominated in Bitcoin. And on the other hand, what is the "appropriate" value for Bitcoin? Is it too expensive right now, or alarmingly cheap? This relates to volatility as well; the uncertainty in how to price the asset is real. The power/Bitcoin correspondence is a way to take a crack at both of these problems. The price of Bitcoin and the price of energy are fundamentally related, once capital costs of Bitcoin mining equipment is removed from the equation. An energy provider can safely denominate their provided energy in Bitcoin because they know that they can use any unpurchased capacity to mine Bitcoin directly. Once we start to see Bitcoin appearing on commodity exchanges, which should be soonish, I think it's likely that power companies (which are already notoriously active in the securities market) will find that they can hedge against price fluctuations with Bitcoin futures; basically leveraging that correspondence. We might be a long way off from them directly billing in Bitcoin, but it would not surprise me to see correlations between energy futures and Bitcoin futures once there's a more liquid market for the latter.