| Let's consider this in the context of another currency, say, the Euro. "At any point in time - past, present, or future - the people who have ever bought Euros [with real currency, aka every other fiat], considered as a whole, have put into the game more money than they have got back." Now the Euro is heavily traded in forex markets, and surely the price fluctuates. Is this statement true? I'd suspect yes, though there are many other factors at play. Has the value of Euro increased relative to the other currencies it trades against? If so, this is probably due to large amounts of money pouring into it as a more lucrative asset than the quote currency. I think this question really only makes sense using another currency as a reference. So let's consider the Zimbabwe dollar during its period of hyperinflation (2007-2009). In this case, citizens of Zimbabwe who bought Euros very likely got back more of whatever currency they eventually converted it to than they would have if they had kept their money in Zimbabwe dollars. But what does this even mean. There is no 'stable' currency to use as a true reference, the value of each in the global market is constantly fluctuating. 'Getting less or more money back' becomes hard to evaluate. So let's talk about purchasing power instead. I suspect the people who have ever bought into bitcoins as a whole, have increased their purchasing power (the number of coca-cola's they can theoretically buy on any given day). |
It is not true, because currencies aren't assets. Currencies are a medium of exchange. Their job is to hold value for only as long as it takes you use them to buy necessities or invest them in assets. That's it. Any longer is a non-goal. Goals include low transaction costs, high transaction speed, fungibility, stability and predictability.
As for the FOREX market, that's a highly leveraged speculative trade on the relative purchasing power of a pair of currencies. That's not an investment and it's certainly not an asset.
With that in mind FOREX is widely regarded as a zero-sum market in the same way options and futures are. Money from the winners goes to pay off the losers.
> In this case, citizens of Zimbabwe who bought Euros very likely got back more of whatever currency they eventually converted it to than they would have if they had kept their money in Zimbabwe dollars.
This would have been a zero sum trade, not negative sum. Zero sum doesn't mean reversible or that there aren't winners and losers, just that considered as a whole, between all participants, no money left the system and no money entered - what was there was simply redistributed.