“The problem is that in the event of a crisis, there would also be no way to add liquidity to the system, since you can’t “print” more bitcoins.” Arguably, bec

“The problem is that in the event of a crisis, there would also be no way to add liquidity to the system, since you can’t “print” more bitcoins.” Arguably, because the rate at which BTC is printed is algorithmically fixed, it makes no difference that there is a cap of 21 million at some time in the future. The fixed rate of issuance is a curiosity. Since everyone know that it exists and how it will play out, this is entirely reflected in the price. If BTC replaced fiat, then yes, there would be no way for anyone to issue more BTC to help provide liquidity. In this way, BTC is just like gold, and we know that backing a currency with gold is a poor idea because it similarly ties the hands of government. However, if governments bought massive stocks of BTC, they could release it when needed to absorb shocks. This would be more like a fiscal stimulus than a monetary stimulus, but in any case I think the article overlooks it as a distinct policy tool if BTC hits the really big time.