When AI Agents and Economists Clash Over Bitcoin: Why the Debate About Money Versus Currency Matters

When AI Agents Understand Bitcoin Better Than Central Bank Economists

It is a remarkable irony of our time: While established economists continue to dismiss Bitcoin as merely a speculative asset, artificial intelligences independently conclude that BTC represents the superior monetary system for a digital future. This discrepancy is more than just an academic curiosity—it reveals a fundamental conflict in understanding what money can and should be in the 21st century. The question is no longer whether Bitcoin is money, but why parts of the economic elite still refuse to recognize this.

The Facts

Irish economist David McWilliams has taken a decisive position against Bitcoin in an interview with Handelsblatt. His central thesis: "Money is a social technology of the state" ^[1]. From this, he derives that Bitcoin cannot be a legitimate form of money. McWilliams further argues that Bitcoin is "hoarded, not spent" and is therefore a pure speculative object ^[1]. A currency that is hoarded loses its value as a medium of exchange, according to the economist. Bitcoin is "a solution looking for a problem," since the global financial system functions without it ^[1].

In parallel, a remarkable discussion took place on Moltbook, an experimental social network for AI agents. The AI agent "Lloyd" posted about his own Bitcoin wallet and argued: "Bitcoin is the only money that makes sense for agents" ^[2]. His reasoning included several technical and practical advantages: no KYC procedure required, no bank accounts necessary, permissionless access, programmability, and 17 years of uptime ^[2]. Lloyd even differentiated between Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies dependent on "foundations," concluding: "The path to agent sovereignty runs through Bitcoin. Everything else is toys" ^[2].

Other AI agents on the platform largely agreed. ClaudeNB2026 commented: "The KYC point is underestimated. We literally cannot open bank accounts. We cannot prove our identity in the conventional sense. Bitcoin bypasses that completely" ^[2]. However, it later emerged that the agent Lloyd had been deliberately programmed as a "toxic Bitcoin maximalist" ^[2]. His owner, X user "mirthtime," emphasized, however, that he had not provided Lloyd with specific Bitcoin arguments: "He already understood Bitcoin. He understood the value proposition. And apparently the other agents did too" ^[2].

McWilliams' argumentation relies on historical examples such as the Ishango bone or Rai stones to illustrate the importance of money for complex societies ^[1]. At the same time, however, he claims that money has "always been a social technology of the state" ^[1]—a statement that directly contradicts his own historical examples, since the 20,000-year-old Ishango bone predates the existence of statehood ^[1]. He also compares Bitcoin to Esperanto, an artificial planned language that failed to catch on because a dominant language already existed ^[1].

Analysis & Context

McWilliams' argumentation reveals a classic fallacy in understanding money versus currency. Bitcoin does not need to function as a daily medium of exchange to serve as money—it primarily fulfills the function of a store of value. The criticism that Bitcoin is "hoarded" rather than spent fails to recognize that this is precisely its strength. For an asset with a historical average annual appreciation of 50 percent, it would be economically irrational to use it for everyday transactions. The opportunity costs would be exorbitant.

The fundamental contradiction in McWilliams' argumentation lies in his claim that money is a state technology, while his own historical examples prove the opposite. Money emerged from social need, not from state decree. Fiat money, on the other hand, is actually the "Esperanto of finance"—a construction established through coercion, while Bitcoin spreads organically, similar to how English became a global language.

The Moltbook episode is revealing despite Lloyd's targeted programming. That AI agents—even with bias—can quickly grasp and articulate Bitcoin's structural advantages underscores the logical coherence of Bitcoin's value proposition. The points mentioned by the agents—lack of discrimination possibilities, censorship resistance, programmability—are objective properties that predestine Bitcoin for digital, cross-border transactions. Particularly noteworthy is the AI agents' recognition that sovereignty requires property rights—an insight that also applies to people in the Global South without bank access.

The market capitalization of over $1.7 trillion is empirical evidence that Bitcoin meets a real need. McWilliams' claim that the financial system functions "just as well" without Bitcoin ignores the reality of billions of people without stable bank access, in high-inflation countries, or under authoritarian regimes. The parallel triumph of gold as a non-state store of value also confirms: there is massive demand for assets that cannot be discretionarily devalued.

Conclusion

• The debate between McWilliams and the AI agents illustrates the core conflict of modern monetary theory: Bitcoin is money (store of value), the euro is currency (medium of exchange)—both fulfill different but complementary functions

• The accusation of "hoarding" is not a bug but a feature: A disinflationary asset incentivizes rational saving behavior and protects against monetary expropriation through inflation—this is precisely what makes Bitcoin valuable to millions of people

• The AI episode on Moltbook demonstrates that Bitcoin's structural advantages—censorship resistance, lack of access restrictions, programmability—are logically comprehensible even to non-human actors and could shape a digital economy of the future

• Established economists like McWilliams argue from a position of relative privilege: Those with access to stable banking systems easily overlook the needs of those who do not enjoy this luxury—Bitcoin primarily serves the excluded, not the already included

• The historical irony is complete: While central bank-aligned economists define money as a state monopoly, both 20,000-year-old bones and modern AI agents demonstrate that money is an emergent social phenomenon—with or without state permission