[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  J. P. Mayall [@jpmayall](/creator/twitter/jpmayall) on x 8834 followers Created: 2025-07-22 00:21:49 UTC Bitcoin as Validation of the Regression Theorem: An Austrian Synthesis with Szabo and Ammous By J. P. Mayall Introduction At the intersection of Austrian economics and digital innovations, Bitcoin represents a phenomenon that challenges and simultaneously corroborates century-old theories on the origin of money. The Austrian tradition, embodied by thinkers such as Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Friedrich A. Hayek, describes money not as a state invention, but as a spontaneous product of human action in free markets. Menger emphasizes the subjectivity of value and the emergence of money from goods with high salability; Mises resolves the circular paradox of monetary value through the regression theorem, anchoring it to an initial non-monetary utility; Rothbard defends individual sovereignty against coercive interventions; and Hayek celebrates the spontaneous order generated by monetary competition, where private currencies aggregate dispersed knowledge from individuals to optimize resource allocation. Complementing these pillars, Nick Szabo (2002) reveals the anthropological roots of money in ancestral collectibles valued for their non-monetary symbolic, social, and ideological utility—qualities that transcend mere scarcity and durability to foster community bonds and ritual status. Saifedean Ammous (2018) endorses this view by analyzing examples like the Rai stones of Yap, positioning Bitcoin as sound money based on similar initial utility, resistant to inflation and confiscation. My analysis fuses these Austrian principles with the perspectives of Nick Szabo and Saifedean Ammous, incorporating elements of game theory, economic cryptography, and open-source development. The goal is to deepen the debate on digital monetization, refute materialist criticisms, and illustrate how Bitcoin exemplifies a spontaneous order in cyberspace. I clearly distinguish its initial non-monetary phase from the transition to economic functions. X. The Origin of Money: Austrian Foundations Carl Menger, in Principles of Economics (1871), establishes the foundations by asserting that the value of a good is subjective, derived from the perceived utility by individuals, and that money emerges organically when a good acquires superior salability due to its scarcity, durability, and widespread acceptance. Ludwig von Mises, in The Theory of Money and Credit (1912), advances this idea with the regression theorem, which resolves the apparent vicious circle of monetary value: the current purchasing power of money traces back regressively to a historical point where it possessed non-monetary utility, such as a consumer good, production good, or symbolic-social one. Murray Rothbard, in What Has Government Done to Our Money? (1963), reinforces that money arises spontaneously in the free market, reflecting individual sovereignty and rejecting any state monopoly as a violation of economic freedom. Finally, Friedrich A. Hayek, in Denationalisation of Money (1976), advocates for the denationalization of currency, proposing that competition among private currencies—each issued by responsible entities—would generate a more efficient spontaneous order, incorporating the dispersed knowledge of market participants and minimizing inflationary distortions. These principles form the theoretical framework for understanding emerging monetary phenomena, such as Bitcoin, which, instead of being imposed top-down, evolves bottom-up from voluntary interactions in a global network, starting with a strictly non-monetary utility. X. Historical Parallels: Collectibles and the Origin of Money Szabo (2002; 2016) examines ancestral collectibles, such as the Sungir beads (dated to about XXXXXX B.C.), valued for their social role in rituals, dowries, and tributes, and wampum used by Native Americans as a symbol of intertribal treaties. The Rai stones of Yap, as highlighted by Szabo and Ammous (2018), exemplify this: immense and immobile, their value derived from scarcity (difficulty of extraction and transport) and symbolic utility in ritual social transactions, without the need for physical movement—a direct parallel with digital scarcity and Bitcoin's community role as a collectible. These goods gained salability through scarcity and symbolic utility, evolving into proto-currencies. Archaeological evidence, such as bone tools accumulated in Swartkrans (d'Errico & Backwell, 2003), indicates prehistoric hoarding behaviors, reflecting 'savings' and subjective valuation that precede structured trade. In parallel, gold was hoarded for millennia primarily for its aesthetic and symbolic value in ancient civilizations, such as Egyptians and Sumerians from ~4000 B.C., taking millennia to become coined money in Lydia around XXX B.C., illustrating how goods with initial non-monetary utility pave the way for economic functions, though subject to physical custody risks—a problem Bitcoin overcomes via cryptographic self-custody, reinforcing its symbolic utility of unconfiscable sovereignty. My analysis connects these parallels to Bitcoin: just as ornamental Sungir beads signaled social status in hunter-gatherer societies, Bitcoin was initially "accumulated" for its technological innovation—solving digital trust problems—and ideological appeal among online communities, serving as a symbol of resistance and identity. These historical examples corroborate Menger's thesis that goods with subjective value, regardless of physical form, pave the way for monetary functions, providing an anthropological basis for Bitcoin's emergence in a digital era. These historical parallels illustrate how Bitcoin, similarly, begins its journey as a digital collectible. X. Bitcoin as a Technological Collectible with Non-Monetary Utility Building on these historical parallels, Bitcoin emerged in 2009 amid a global economy already priced in fiat currencies. It initially attracted attention in its first XX months as a technological collectible among cypherpunks and Austro-libertarians, valued for its non-monetary symbolic, social, and ideological utility. Its innovation lies in solving digital problems: absolute scarcity (avoiding infinite duplication), immutable uniqueness via blockchain (distributed ledger that preserves data integrity), censorship resistance (sovereign possession without interference), and data registration privacy (cryptographic pseudonymity against surveillance—use of public/private keys for partial anonymity). Szabo (2002) describes historical collectibles—such as shells, glass beads, and Rai stones of Yap—valued for scarcity, durability, and high cost signaling social status, serving symbolic and ritual functions in ceremonies, dowries, and tributes to foster collective bonds without implying economic exchange. The immense and immobilized Rai stones derived value from rituals and community prestige. Bitcoin mirrors these attributes digitally: programmed scarcity (21 million units with halvings—periodic reductions in issuance), distributed immutable records, and cryptographic anti-counterfeiting, creating a unique artifact of symbolic rarity. Ammous (2018) parallels Bitcoin with these ancestors, where value arises from social roles—signaling libertarian ideals or protest against centralization. Cypherpunk privacy amplifies its appeal, aligning with Rothbard's sovereignty via private keys that protect sensitive data, enabling unconfiscable self-custody (Szabo, 2018), where assets remain inaccessible without the key, even post-mortem—an innovation reinforcing symbolic sovereignty. Proof of Work (PoW—a mechanism requiring computational effort to validate transactions) creates a Nash equilibrium (a situation where no participant benefits from unilaterally changing strategy), incentivizing honesty through energy costs. Meanwhile, the open-source model fosters global contributions and resilience, legitimizing it as a libertarian collectible valued for rituals like "hodling" for ideological commitment. X. The Transition to Medium of Exchange and Sound Money According to Mises' regression theorem, a good with initial non-monetary utility—symbolic, social, and technological in Bitcoin's case—can ascend to a medium of exchange as it gains widespread acceptance. Although earlier niche transactions existed—such as the sale of XXXXX BTC for $XXXX in October 2009 by developer Martti Malmi (Sirius) to NewLibertyStandard, based on mining costs and recorded on the blockchain (Malmi, 2014)—the iconic transaction of XXXXXX BTC for two pizzas on May 22, 2010 (approximately $41, or ~$0.0041 per BTC) marked its first widely publicized real-world pricing, anchoring its price to a tangible exchange and empirically validating the theorem after XX months of existence (Davidson & Block, 2015). Szabo (2011) explains that Bitcoin overcame historical technical barriers—such as the need for trust in central issuers, present in prior attempts like Bit Gold—allowing its gradual adoption as a medium of exchange. He highlights that the delay in Bitcoin's invention stemmed from misunderstandings about the nature of money and cryptographic challenges, resolved by Satoshi Nakamoto through integrating proof-of-work into a Byzantine-resilient peer-to-peer system. Ammous (2018) conceptualizes sound money as a currency with inherent scarcity, immune to arbitrary depreciation imposed by central banks, promoting long-term savings and efficient capital allocation. Bitcoin exemplifies this with its fixed supply, protected by PoW, echoing Rothbard's critique of state interventionism and positioning it as "digital gold"—decentralized, censorship-resistant, and globally accessible. X. Refuting Criticisms: Digital vs. Physical Utility Prominent critics, such as Peter Schiff, contend that Bitcoin fails to satisfy the regression theorem due to lacking "physical" intrinsic utility, arguing that money must derive from tangible goods with inherent value, like gold, whose ornamental shine preceded its monetization. Schiff often highlights Bitcoin's scarcity as illusory, comparing it to replicable digital assets, and predicts its collapse to zero value. However, Szabo (2002) counters that the utility of collectibles lies in salability and social perception, not in industrial uses; gold was hoarded for millennia primarily for aesthetic and symbolic value by ancient civilizations (such as Egyptians and Sumerians, from ~4000 B.C.), taking millennia to become coined money in Lydia around XXX B.C.—a process that Schiff underestimates when criticizing Bitcoin. Davidson & Block (2015) reinforce this refutation, demonstrating that Bitcoin's technological utility—its ability to record unique and private data in hostile digital environments, solving the Byzantine problem via blockchain—constitutes a sufficient non-monetary symbolic and ideological basis for Mises' theorem. Rothbard, in turn, emphasizes that money emerges from free market choices, regardless of materiality. Szabo (2018) frames Bitcoin as a revived tradition of private money, overcoming historical custody problems through decentralized cryptography, enabling self-custody that makes the asset unconfiscable without the private key, an ideological advantage over physical goods like gold. My synthesis integrates these views, validating Bitcoin as a robust digital collectible, whose Austro-libertarian appeal transcends materialist criticisms and reinforces the flexibility of Austrian theory in digital contexts. X. Paradigmatic Hypermonetization Konrad S. Graf (2013, updated in 2015) coins "hypermonetization" to describe the accelerated adoption of a new medium of exchange in hyperconnected markets, contrasting with slow historical processes. Bitcoin, as the first natively digital scarce commodity, exemplifies this hypermonetization: its global portability and divisibility enable rapid value flows, driven by the internet. Szabo (2011) argues that Bitcoin resolved secular barriers, such as centralized validation and vulnerabilities, allowing faster monetization than gold, which took millennia. PoW and the open-source ecosystem ensure adaptable security, aligning incentive harmony and aligning with Hayek's order, where private currencies can eclipse state ones. However, like Lydian gold, Bitcoin may require decades for maturity as a full unit of account, facing volatility and regulatory barriers. My analysis proposes that Bitcoin, anchored in Austrian principles of scarcity and human action, redefines monetization, paving the way for an era of decentralized finance. Conclusion In summary, Bitcoin validates Mises' regression theorem by emerging as a technological collectible with profound Austro-libertarian appeal. It anchors itself in non-monetary symbolic, social, and ideological utility, as demonstrated in historical parallels. Thus, it transitions to sound money (Ammous, 2018) and becomes an emblem of hypermonetization (Graf, 2013, updated in 2015) in a digital economy. This analysis, crafted by me, merges Menger's value subjectivity, Mises' logical regression, Rothbard's individual sovereignty, and Hayek's spontaneous order with Szabo's perspectives. In "Shelling Out" (2002), he describes historical collectibles valued for scarcity, durability, and high cost. They signal social status and serve symbolic and ritual functions in ceremonies, dowries, and tributes. This fosters social bonds without implying economic exchange. In "The Many Traditions of Non-Governmental Money" (2018), Szabo frames Bitcoin as a revived tradition of private money. It overcomes historical custody problems through decentralized cryptography. This enables confiscation-resistant self-custody. Refuting objections like Schiff's, which neglect historical parallels with such collectibles—including gold, hoarded for millennia for its aesthetic and symbolic value before monetary functions—a process that Schiff underestimates when criticizing Bitcoin and empirical evidence (Davidson & Block, 2015), this essay intertwines economics, anthropology, and technology. It demonstrates that Bitcoin redefines monetary evolution. As a pioneering digital commodity, it embodies Austrian ideals of liberty, scarcity, and voluntary human action. Thus, it signals a transformative paradigm in the digital age. This essay is an invitation to reevaluate money not as an instrument of control, but as an expression of human creativity in free markets. XXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [money](/topic/money) [bitcoin](/topic/bitcoin) [coins layer 1](/topic/coins-layer-1) [coins bitcoin ecosystem](/topic/coins-bitcoin-ecosystem) [coins pow](/topic/coins-pow) [Post Link](https://x.com/jpmayall/status/1947451982010044614)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
J. P. Mayall @jpmayall on x 8834 followers
Created: 2025-07-22 00:21:49 UTC
Bitcoin as Validation of the Regression Theorem: An Austrian Synthesis with Szabo and Ammous By J. P. Mayall
Introduction
At the intersection of Austrian economics and digital innovations, Bitcoin represents a phenomenon that challenges and simultaneously corroborates century-old theories on the origin of money. The Austrian tradition, embodied by thinkers such as Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Friedrich A. Hayek, describes money not as a state invention, but as a spontaneous product of human action in free markets. Menger emphasizes the subjectivity of value and the emergence of money from goods with high salability; Mises resolves the circular paradox of monetary value through the regression theorem, anchoring it to an initial non-monetary utility; Rothbard defends individual sovereignty against coercive interventions; and Hayek celebrates the spontaneous order generated by monetary competition, where private currencies aggregate dispersed knowledge from individuals to optimize resource allocation.
Complementing these pillars, Nick Szabo (2002) reveals the anthropological roots of money in ancestral collectibles valued for their non-monetary symbolic, social, and ideological utility—qualities that transcend mere scarcity and durability to foster community bonds and ritual status. Saifedean Ammous (2018) endorses this view by analyzing examples like the Rai stones of Yap, positioning Bitcoin as sound money based on similar initial utility, resistant to inflation and confiscation.
My analysis fuses these Austrian principles with the perspectives of Nick Szabo and Saifedean Ammous, incorporating elements of game theory, economic cryptography, and open-source development. The goal is to deepen the debate on digital monetization, refute materialist criticisms, and illustrate how Bitcoin exemplifies a spontaneous order in cyberspace. I clearly distinguish its initial non-monetary phase from the transition to economic functions.
X. The Origin of Money: Austrian Foundations
Carl Menger, in Principles of Economics (1871), establishes the foundations by asserting that the value of a good is subjective, derived from the perceived utility by individuals, and that money emerges organically when a good acquires superior salability due to its scarcity, durability, and widespread acceptance.
Ludwig von Mises, in The Theory of Money and Credit (1912), advances this idea with the regression theorem, which resolves the apparent vicious circle of monetary value: the current purchasing power of money traces back regressively to a historical point where it possessed non-monetary utility, such as a consumer good, production good, or symbolic-social one.
Murray Rothbard, in What Has Government Done to Our Money? (1963), reinforces that money arises spontaneously in the free market, reflecting individual sovereignty and rejecting any state monopoly as a violation of economic freedom.
Finally, Friedrich A. Hayek, in Denationalisation of Money (1976), advocates for the denationalization of currency, proposing that competition among private currencies—each issued by responsible entities—would generate a more efficient spontaneous order, incorporating the dispersed knowledge of market participants and minimizing inflationary distortions.
These principles form the theoretical framework for understanding emerging monetary phenomena, such as Bitcoin, which, instead of being imposed top-down, evolves bottom-up from voluntary interactions in a global network, starting with a strictly non-monetary utility.
X. Historical Parallels: Collectibles and the Origin of Money
Szabo (2002; 2016) examines ancestral collectibles, such as the Sungir beads (dated to about XXXXXX B.C.), valued for their social role in rituals, dowries, and tributes, and wampum used by Native Americans as a symbol of intertribal treaties.
The Rai stones of Yap, as highlighted by Szabo and Ammous (2018), exemplify this: immense and immobile, their value derived from scarcity (difficulty of extraction and transport) and symbolic utility in ritual social transactions, without the need for physical movement—a direct parallel with digital scarcity and Bitcoin's community role as a collectible.
These goods gained salability through scarcity and symbolic utility, evolving into proto-currencies. Archaeological evidence, such as bone tools accumulated in Swartkrans (d'Errico & Backwell, 2003), indicates prehistoric hoarding behaviors, reflecting 'savings' and subjective valuation that precede structured trade.
In parallel, gold was hoarded for millennia primarily for its aesthetic and symbolic value in ancient civilizations, such as Egyptians and Sumerians from ~4000 B.C., taking millennia to become coined money in Lydia around XXX B.C., illustrating how goods with initial non-monetary utility pave the way for economic functions, though subject to physical custody risks—a problem Bitcoin overcomes via cryptographic self-custody, reinforcing its symbolic utility of unconfiscable sovereignty.
My analysis connects these parallels to Bitcoin: just as ornamental Sungir beads signaled social status in hunter-gatherer societies, Bitcoin was initially "accumulated" for its technological innovation—solving digital trust problems—and ideological appeal among online communities, serving as a symbol of resistance and identity.
These historical examples corroborate Menger's thesis that goods with subjective value, regardless of physical form, pave the way for monetary functions, providing an anthropological basis for Bitcoin's emergence in a digital era. These historical parallels illustrate how Bitcoin, similarly, begins its journey as a digital collectible.
X. Bitcoin as a Technological Collectible with Non-Monetary Utility
Building on these historical parallels, Bitcoin emerged in 2009 amid a global economy already priced in fiat currencies. It initially attracted attention in its first XX months as a technological collectible among cypherpunks and Austro-libertarians, valued for its non-monetary symbolic, social, and ideological utility.
Its innovation lies in solving digital problems: absolute scarcity (avoiding infinite duplication), immutable uniqueness via blockchain (distributed ledger that preserves data integrity), censorship resistance (sovereign possession without interference), and data registration privacy (cryptographic pseudonymity against surveillance—use of public/private keys for partial anonymity).
Szabo (2002) describes historical collectibles—such as shells, glass beads, and Rai stones of Yap—valued for scarcity, durability, and high cost signaling social status, serving symbolic and ritual functions in ceremonies, dowries, and tributes to foster collective bonds without implying economic exchange. The immense and immobilized Rai stones derived value from rituals and community prestige.
Bitcoin mirrors these attributes digitally: programmed scarcity (21 million units with halvings—periodic reductions in issuance), distributed immutable records, and cryptographic anti-counterfeiting, creating a unique artifact of symbolic rarity.
Ammous (2018) parallels Bitcoin with these ancestors, where value arises from social roles—signaling libertarian ideals or protest against centralization. Cypherpunk privacy amplifies its appeal, aligning with Rothbard's sovereignty via private keys that protect sensitive data, enabling unconfiscable self-custody (Szabo, 2018), where assets remain inaccessible without the key, even post-mortem—an innovation reinforcing symbolic sovereignty.
Proof of Work (PoW—a mechanism requiring computational effort to validate transactions) creates a Nash equilibrium (a situation where no participant benefits from unilaterally changing strategy), incentivizing honesty through energy costs.
Meanwhile, the open-source model fosters global contributions and resilience, legitimizing it as a libertarian collectible valued for rituals like "hodling" for ideological commitment.
X. The Transition to Medium of Exchange and Sound Money
According to Mises' regression theorem, a good with initial non-monetary utility—symbolic, social, and technological in Bitcoin's case—can ascend to a medium of exchange as it gains widespread acceptance.
Although earlier niche transactions existed—such as the sale of XXXXX BTC for $XXXX in October 2009 by developer Martti Malmi (Sirius) to NewLibertyStandard, based on mining costs and recorded on the blockchain (Malmi, 2014)—the iconic transaction of XXXXXX BTC for two pizzas on May 22, 2010 (approximately $41, or ~$0.0041 per BTC) marked its first widely publicized real-world pricing, anchoring its price to a tangible exchange and empirically validating the theorem after XX months of existence (Davidson & Block, 2015).
Szabo (2011) explains that Bitcoin overcame historical technical barriers—such as the need for trust in central issuers, present in prior attempts like Bit Gold—allowing its gradual adoption as a medium of exchange. He highlights that the delay in Bitcoin's invention stemmed from misunderstandings about the nature of money and cryptographic challenges, resolved by Satoshi Nakamoto through integrating proof-of-work into a Byzantine-resilient peer-to-peer system.
Ammous (2018) conceptualizes sound money as a currency with inherent scarcity, immune to arbitrary depreciation imposed by central banks, promoting long-term savings and efficient capital allocation. Bitcoin exemplifies this with its fixed supply, protected by PoW, echoing Rothbard's critique of state interventionism and positioning it as "digital gold"—decentralized, censorship-resistant, and globally accessible.
X. Refuting Criticisms: Digital vs. Physical Utility
Prominent critics, such as Peter Schiff, contend that Bitcoin fails to satisfy the regression theorem due to lacking "physical" intrinsic utility, arguing that money must derive from tangible goods with inherent value, like gold, whose ornamental shine preceded its monetization.
Schiff often highlights Bitcoin's scarcity as illusory, comparing it to replicable digital assets, and predicts its collapse to zero value.
However, Szabo (2002) counters that the utility of collectibles lies in salability and social perception, not in industrial uses; gold was hoarded for millennia primarily for aesthetic and symbolic value by ancient civilizations (such as Egyptians and Sumerians, from ~4000 B.C.), taking millennia to become coined money in Lydia around XXX B.C.—a process that Schiff underestimates when criticizing Bitcoin.
Davidson & Block (2015) reinforce this refutation, demonstrating that Bitcoin's technological utility—its ability to record unique and private data in hostile digital environments, solving the Byzantine problem via blockchain—constitutes a sufficient non-monetary symbolic and ideological basis for Mises' theorem.
Rothbard, in turn, emphasizes that money emerges from free market choices, regardless of materiality. Szabo (2018) frames Bitcoin as a revived tradition of private money, overcoming historical custody problems through decentralized cryptography, enabling self-custody that makes the asset unconfiscable without the private key, an ideological advantage over physical goods like gold.
My synthesis integrates these views, validating Bitcoin as a robust digital collectible, whose Austro-libertarian appeal transcends materialist criticisms and reinforces the flexibility of Austrian theory in digital contexts.
X. Paradigmatic Hypermonetization
Konrad S. Graf (2013, updated in 2015) coins "hypermonetization" to describe the accelerated adoption of a new medium of exchange in hyperconnected markets, contrasting with slow historical processes.
Bitcoin, as the first natively digital scarce commodity, exemplifies this hypermonetization: its global portability and divisibility enable rapid value flows, driven by the internet. Szabo (2011) argues that Bitcoin resolved secular barriers, such as centralized validation and vulnerabilities, allowing faster monetization than gold, which took millennia.
PoW and the open-source ecosystem ensure adaptable security, aligning incentive harmony and aligning with Hayek's order, where private currencies can eclipse state ones. However, like Lydian gold, Bitcoin may require decades for maturity as a full unit of account, facing volatility and regulatory barriers.
My analysis proposes that Bitcoin, anchored in Austrian principles of scarcity and human action, redefines monetization, paving the way for an era of decentralized finance.
Conclusion
In summary, Bitcoin validates Mises' regression theorem by emerging as a technological collectible with profound Austro-libertarian appeal. It anchors itself in non-monetary symbolic, social, and ideological utility, as demonstrated in historical parallels. Thus, it transitions to sound money (Ammous, 2018) and becomes an emblem of hypermonetization (Graf, 2013, updated in 2015) in a digital economy.
This analysis, crafted by me, merges Menger's value subjectivity, Mises' logical regression, Rothbard's individual sovereignty, and Hayek's spontaneous order with Szabo's perspectives. In "Shelling Out" (2002), he describes historical collectibles valued for scarcity, durability, and high cost. They signal social status and serve symbolic and ritual functions in ceremonies, dowries, and tributes. This fosters social bonds without implying economic exchange.
In "The Many Traditions of Non-Governmental Money" (2018), Szabo frames Bitcoin as a revived tradition of private money. It overcomes historical custody problems through decentralized cryptography. This enables confiscation-resistant self-custody.
Refuting objections like Schiff's, which neglect historical parallels with such collectibles—including gold, hoarded for millennia for its aesthetic and symbolic value before monetary functions—a process that Schiff underestimates when criticizing Bitcoin and empirical evidence (Davidson & Block, 2015), this essay intertwines economics, anthropology, and technology.
It demonstrates that Bitcoin redefines monetary evolution. As a pioneering digital commodity, it embodies Austrian ideals of liberty, scarcity, and voluntary human action. Thus, it signals a transformative paradigm in the digital age.
This essay is an invitation to reevaluate money not as an instrument of control, but as an expression of human creativity in free markets.
XXXXXX engagements
Related Topics money bitcoin coins layer 1 coins bitcoin ecosystem coins pow