A while ago I also read this article: https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/10/economic-history https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/1

A while ago I also read this article: https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/10/economic-history https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/10/economi... > Earl Thompson, formerly of UCLA, takes a different approach. He reckons that the market for tulips was an efficient response to changing financial regulation—in particular, the anticipated government conversion of futures contracts into options contracts. This ruse was dreamt up by government officials, who themselves were keen to make a quick buck from the tulip trade. > In plain English, investors who had bought the right to buy tulips in the future were no longer obliged to buy them. If the market price was not high enough for investors’ liking, they could pay a small fine and cancel the contract. The balance between risk and reward in the tulip market was skewed massively in investors’ favour. > Thompson argued that popular interpretations of tulipmania have failed to distinguish between options and futures. Tulipmania was only a contractual artifact. There was no “mania” at all.