up vote3down voteGiven that economists cannot agree unanimously on the global effects of relatively small events like a change in interest rates or a stimulus package, I would say that a major event like mass adoption of Bitcoin is far beyond anybody's prediction horizon. The global economy is a complex dynamical system and we really don't understand such things as well as some would have you think.jl6849412

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/13/effect-on-ecxonomy-if-bitcoin-was-widely-adopted

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/04/money

t deflation will prevent Bitcoin from becoming a unit of account, and that, in turn, will keep it from displacing traditional currencies. But Bitcoin could survive and indeed thrive without becoming the coin of the realm.One final point: I think it is a mistake to view deflation or zero inflation as the idyllic, uncorrupted state of a monetary system. Money is not a natural thing. It's a technology that society deploys to meet certain needs. Different monetary systems imply different things for the price level in an economy, with vastly different distributional consequences. To say that one set of distributional consequences is right while another is not would be wrong; they are what they are and society chooses which it prefers. There are costly side effects to -2% inflation or 0% inflation just as there are to 2% inflation or 15% inflation. My personal view is that the societal consensus behind low but positive inflation that prevails at the moment makes a lot of sense.More broadly, a hard supply cap or built-in deflation is not an inherent strength for a would-be money. A money's strength is in its ability to meet society's needs. From my perspective, Bitcoin's built-in deflation means that it does a poorer job than it might at meeting society's needs. Maybe I will be proven wrong. We shall see.

The ogvt hsd the duty to protect its citizens, hence

Singapores case

http://www.kyriba.com/blog/bob-stark/bitcoin-serious-business-currency-good-bad-or-who-caresWhile bitcoin may do a great job of protecting against sovereign risk, reputational risk remains an issue in its infancy. Combine that with the lack of liquidity and absence of any sort of market regulation, reputable counterparty involvement, or derivative instruments and it really isn't a good alternative for corporates looking for another form of protection.The negatives far outweigh the benefits of lower transaction costs, which is the only win that a corporate would otherwise receive given their mandate. Virtual currencies are interesting to watch and, as they and their respective markets mature, may someday become interesting for corporates to utilize.As a speculative tool, the bitcoin could be a lot of fun to play with. From a corporate perspective, where the mandate is hedging and protection, the bitcoin is not ready for roll out andtreasuryshould view it with extreme caution.