I've always wanted to slowly study *The Bitcoin Standard*—read it from cover to cover—to see how it influences my thinking. It frequently appears in the context of many Bitcoin discussions and is hailed as a foundational work. People will say, "As Saifuddin explained…," and then you realize that everything they've quoted is just based on a meme or a cover screenshot.

So, I will read this book in three parts. This is the first part.
We are currently in the early chapters and haven't yet entered the later, more comprehensive critique of "fiat currency ruins everything, from architecture to waistlines."
We are still in the early chapters and haven't yet entered the later, more comprehensive critique of "fiat currency ruins everything, from architecture to waistlines."
... Currently, Saifuddin Amus is laying the groundwork, trying to convince you that money is a technology, that some forms of money are "harder" than others, and that history is essentially a process of continuous selection, with the harder options ultimately prevailing. If he can get you to understand this, Bitcoin will emerge as "the hardest currency to date," and you'll feel it's inevitable. I'm not entirely convinced yet, but I must admit it's a tricky framework. The book begins by stripping money of its romantic veneer, revealing its core essence. It's not a "social contract," nor a "state product," but simply a tool for transferring value across time and space, something people don't need to think about excessively every day. Amus repeatedly emphasizes the concept of "salability." A good monetary asset should be easily sold anytime, anywhere, without incurring significant losses. To be marketable, it must meet three conditions: spatial—so you can carry it with you and use it to exchange for what you need; temporal—so it won't decay or lose value; and scale—so it can be used for anything, from a cup of tea to a house, without a calculator or a large bag of change. Next, the truly decisive word in this book appears: hardness. Hard money is money whose supply is difficult to increase. Soft money is easy to print. That's the essence. The core logic is simple: why would you invest your life's work in something someone else can easily create? You can feel the influence of the Austrian School of Economics in every sentence, but once you strip away the ideology, this book leaves you with a very useful question: If I invest my savings in X, how difficult is it for someone else to earn more X? Once you examine your life through this lens—whether it's rupees, dollars, stablecoins, Bitcoin, or any other currency combination—it's hard to ignore. Having set this framework, the book will take you on a tour of a small "Museum of Broken Currencies." The first exhibit is Yap Island and its Rai Stones. These enormous, circular limestone discs, some weighing up to four tons, were quarried from other islands and transported to Yap with tremendous effort. Amos writes that this method worked remarkably well for centuries. The stones were so large that they were difficult to move or steal. Everyone in the village knew which stone belonged to whom. Payment was made by announcing the change of ownership to the community. These stones were “easy to sell anywhere on the island” because they were known everywhere; they also stood the test of time because the cost of acquiring new stones was so high that existing stock “always far exceeded the amount of new supply that could be produced at any given time…the ratio of stock to circulation of Yap stones was very high.” Then, technology appeared. In 1871, an Irish-American captain named David O'Keefe was shipwrecked off Yap Island. After recovering, he left and returned with a large ship and explosives, realizing he could mine large quantities of Leie stone using modern tools. The villagers disagreed. The chief thought the stones he was mining were "too easy," forbade mining, and insisted that only traditional stones counted. Others disagreed and began mining the newly discovered stones. Conflict ensued. The stones gradually lost their use as currency. Today, they are mostly used in sacrificial ceremonies. This is a simple, perhaps overly simplistic, parable. But it illustrates a key point: once a monetary commodity loses its hardness (once someone can mass-produce it cheaply), those who once possessed it will eventually subsidize those who come after. Beads and shells follow the same pattern. West African aggry beads are prized for their scarcity and time-consuming production. Later, European merchants began importing these beads in large quantities from glass factories. Amos describes how this importation "slowly but steadily" transformed them from "hard currency" into "cheap currency," "destroying their marketability and causing the purchasing power of these beads in the hands of African owners to decline over time, ultimately impoverishing them as their wealth shifted to Europeans, who could now easily acquire these beads." Seashells and wampums followed a similar trajectory. They were initially scarce hard currencies, difficult to obtain, with a high stock-to-circulation ratio. Later, with the arrival of industrial ships, "their supply ballooned dramatically, causing their value to decline and, over time, to lose their liquidity," and by 1661, they had lost their status as legal tender. You'll find countless stories in prisoner-of-war camps about cattle, salt, counting rods, and cigarettes. Each story does the same thing: trains your intuition to believe that if the supply of new units could suddenly increase dramatically at extremely low cost, then the depositors' holdings are essentially a donation. You can criticize these historical narratives for being too neat. These anecdotes hardly touch on violence, politics, or culture. Everyone is portrayed as a rational economic agent with a superhuman memory. But as a means of making you skeptical of easily printed money, it is indeed effective. After you've developed a utter fear of shells and beads, metals emerge as a mature solution. Metals solve many of the problems of salability. They are not as perishable as grains. They were more portable than boulders. They could be minted into uniform coins, making pricing and accounting much easier. Over time, gold and silver ultimately prevailed because they were the least susceptible to inflation. Each year's mining only increased existing stocks by a small fraction, so no single miner could devalue everyone's savings. This led to the long era of metallic currencies, and later, the gold standard. This book doesn't go into too much detail about these aspects. Its purpose is to give you the sense that once humanity discovered gold, it found a near-perfect currency: portable, durable, divisible, and, most importantly, expensive to manufacture. You'll later understand how this laid the foundation for the birth of Bitcoin. If you fully accept the notion that "gold was the best substance we could produce under the physical and metallurgical conditions of the time," then "Bitcoin is digital gold with even greater hardness" sounds perfectly logical. What interests me is that in this section, gold is less a mystical object and more a workaround for circumventing physical limitations. If you imagine ancient societies as constantly trying to answer the question, "How do we preserve the fruits of our harvests or voyages in a form that can be passed down to posterity?", then gold is a relatively ingenious, though imperfect, but plausible answer. This framework also benefits Bitcoin. It is no longer "the magic stone of the internet," but "yet another attempt to solve the same problem with a new tool." The book hasn't reached that point yet, but you can feel the runway being built. Then, government currencies emerged, becoming the culprit. So far, currency collapses have all stemmed from external factors. New technologies emerge, breaking the rigidity of the monetary system and leaving depositors with nothing. Now, the culprit lies within: governments and central banks possess the legal right to print money without needing any scarce commodities to back it up. Under this framework, fiat currency is a product of governments realizing they can completely separate the monetary symbol from actual assets. The monetary unit is retained, but the constraints are removed. Governments tell people their paper money has value because the law mandates it, because taxes must be paid in paper money, not because it is backed by any tangible assets. Under a gold or silver standard, currency could depreciate or be devalued, but a Zimbabwean-style economic collapse wouldn't occur, where wages vanish within months. But under a fiat currency system, this can happen. And some governments have indeed repeated this mistake time and again. Amos devotes considerable space to explaining the social consequences of this phenomenon. To survive, people are forced to sell capital, eroding productive activity. Long-term contracts collapse due to a lack of trust. Political extremism breeds and spreads amidst anger and chaos. Weimar Germany is a prime example. Currency collapse is merely a harbinger of something worse. Most fiat currencies are not inherently wrong in their long-term devaluation against real goods. This is, to some extent, the original design intent of the monetary system. What began to question this book was not the facts themselves, but its framework. Almost all the ills of modern society are attributed to the fiat currency system. Central banks are almost entirely portrayed as a tool for secretly taxing depositors and subsidizing borrowers. Any talk of the benefits of having a flexible lender of last resort is downplayed, reduced to "but they abuse it," which has some merit, but it is not the only question society must answer. Even if you dislike central banks, you might find the statement "the entire twentieth century was a mistake from the moment we abandoned the all-metal standard" a bit of an exaggeration. What impressed me was... So, aside from adding more noteworthy classic quotes to the timeline, what practical significance did Part One hold for me? Strangely, it didn't make me more convinced about Bitcoin. It simply clarified a question I hadn't asked myself carefully enough before. I rarely look at my money like Amos does. I consider risk and reward, volatility, and how much time I'm willing to invest in cryptocurrencies rather than those tedious tasks. I don't systematically sit down and meticulously research who can print how much of each cryptocurrency I handle, and what rules to follow. Then I saw a chart from Bloomberg showing that the S&P 500 is priced in gold, not dollars. That's so unfair. In gold terms, the US stock market has returned to levels seen over a decade ago, after the global financial crisis. All those dollar highs, all that post-pandemic frenzy, have turned into a noisy fluctuation along a sideways trend. Once you understand this, it's hard to ignore the simple truth Amus has always emphasized: performance is always "performance in context." If your underlying unit is slowly depreciating, even if your index hits an all-time high, your performance in a harder unit may still be stagnant. I realized this book missed a lot. It barely explores the significance of credit as a social tool, nor does it mention that states don't just destroy currency; they also create the legal and military environment that allows markets to thrive. The book also doesn't delve into the idea that certain groups might sacrifice some economic strength to gain greater resilience to shocks. All the questions revolve around one core issue: are depositors' interests being diluted? Perhaps that's the crux of the matter. This is a debate, not a textbook. But I don't want to pretend that's the whole truth. For now, I'm happy to use it as a perspective, not a belief. Whenever I see central bank balance sheets, new secondary bond issuance plans, or certain "stable-yield" products promising dollar returns as high as 18%, I hear a Saifuddin-esque voice in my head: How hard is this currency? And how many people like O'Keefe have already gone down the drain with explosives? Now, I just want to remember one thing: money stores our future choices. Choose your currency carefully and be wary of anyone who can print more money than you earn.