On May 18, 2010, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote in the initiating post of Bitcointalk topic=137: "I'll pay 10,000 bitcoins for a couple of pizzas," explicitly allowing the other party to order Papa John's pizza. The entire initiating post does not mention any dollar (USD) amount—he did not say "pizzas worth how much in dollars," he said "10,000 bitcoins for two pizzas." When this transaction was reported as completed on May 22 at 19:17:26 UTC, something functional occurred: the two pizzas were priced at "10,000 BTC."

This was the first verifiable moment when BTC was functionally fulfilled as a unit of account. "Functionally assuming this role" and "fully meeting this function in monetary definition" are two different matters. The latter requires this unit to be continuously used as a pricing reference among multiple trader groups, a condition that was only partially met after the appearance of continuous quotes from Mt.Gox. May 22 was the first appearance of this function in a practical transaction.

It is worth noting that the figure "about 25 dollars" did not appear in the initiating post on May 18. Hanyecz first provided this fiat anchoring in a follow-up reply on June 12, 2010, at 20:14:44 UTC in the same thread. BTC first assumed the function of pricing the pizzas in a transaction, and 21 days later, the semantic action of "reverse indication between BTC and USD" appeared. This timeline has methodological significance: the functional fulfillment of BTC as a unit of account occurred before the bilateral indication between BTC and USD was completed.

Chapter 2. Mechanism Timeline

This chapter restores the three layers of mechanism evolution from October 2009 to July 2010 in chronological order. Each section provides a firsthand timestamp, firsthand post ID, and a description of the mechanism itself.

2.1 First Layer: Production Cost Anchoring (From October 2009)

NewLibertyStandard (hereinafter NLS) published a BTC to USD exchange rate formula on its own site newlibertystandard.wetpaint.com in October 2009. The website has been taken offline, and as of May 14, 2026, the earliest archive.org record shows the Wayback snapshot at 2009-12-29 13:26:10 UTC. The original text of the formula on the snapshot states:

During 2009 my exchange rate was calculated by dividing $1.00 by the average amount of electricity required to run a computer with high CPU for a year, 1,331.5 kWh, multiplied by the average residential cost of electricity in the United States for the previous year, $0.1136, divided by 12 months divided by the number of bitcoins generated by my computer over the past 30 days.

This formula’s methodology ties BTC's value to "the marginal production cost of running a mining machine"—the electricity cost divided by BTC output over time. It is essentially a classical labor-energy value theory applied to digital assets: BTC has no market; it is priced by the power meter. This is a "unilateral published exchange rate," not a market-matched price.

The first published exchange rate number from NLS was 1 USD ≈ 1,309.03 BTC, widely reused in secondhand narratives, but there is no original post from NLS publishing this number on the Bitcointalk forum. This study adopts the archival snapshot data and honestly points out: this specific number was only available from the firsthand source in the archive snapshot as of May 14, 2026.

Besides NLS, the earliest recorded BTC to USD transaction was executed by early Bitcoin core contributor Martti Malmi—on October 12, 2009, Malmi transferred 5,050 BTC to NLS and received $5.02 via PayPal, confirming this via tweet on January 15, 2014.

2.2 Second Layer: P2P Matching Discovery (From March 2010)

The second-layer mechanism was initiated by dwdollar (real identity Dustin Dollar). On January 15, 2010, at 09:42:18 UTC, dwdollar started a proposal in Bitcointalk topic=20 msg=100: "I'm in the process of building an exchange. … It will be a real market where people will be able to buy and sell Bitcoins with each other."

The platform Bitcoin Market began operation on March 17, 2010. dwdollar's update post on that day said: "Looks like we had our first real trade around noon!"—this was the first BTC to USD transaction matched through a quasi-public order book.

The matching mechanism of Bitcoin Market needs to be accurately described: it is not a complete form of order book matching. dwdollar stated in msg=265 on February 6, 2010, at 22:37:44 UTC: "ONLY the limit orders work. Market orders will come later."—the platform only supported limit orders, and market orders were not implemented; settlement relied on PayPal intermediaries, not pure on-chain settlement. Nevertheless, Bitcoin Market was the first platform to publicly display BTC quotes in the form of an order book, and this form itself has structural significance.

Parallel to Bitcoin Market was P2P physical matching on Bitcointalk. Hanyecz's pizza incident is a representative case of this form. The two paths coexisted between March and July 2010—dwdollar's path proved BTC could be matched with USD for quotes, and Hanyecz's path proved BTC could be matched with physical goods for quotes.

2.3 Middle Section: Pizza Transaction (May 22, 2010)

Hanyecz's pizza transaction is situated in the middle of the second layer on the mechanism timeline. Reconstructed by UTC timestamps:

• 2010-05-18 00:35:20 UTC: Hanyecz initiated an invitation in Bitcointalk topic=137 msg=1141. Hanyecz was located in Jacksonville, Florida, USA (EDT, UTC-4), corresponding to local time 2010-05-17 20:35. This time zone conversion explains why some secondhand narratives date the initiation to May 17.

• 2010-05-22 18:16:31 UTC: txid a1075db55d416d3ca199f55b6084e2115b9345e16c5cf302fc80e9d5fbf5d48d was packed into block #57043.

• 2010-05-22 19:17:26 UTC: Hanyecz reported completion in msg=1195—"I just want to report that I successfully traded 10,000 bitcoins for pizza. Thanks jercos!"

The on-chain block time differs from the Bitcointalk confirmation post time by about 61 minutes, consistent with the narrative of "confirming after the pizza was delivered." This time difference independently verifies that the timestamps displayed to anonymous visitors on the Bitcointalk forum were UTC, not Eastern Time.

The true identity and location of the counterparty jercos are often misstated in secondhand narratives. jercos is Jeremy Sturdivant, who stated in a written interview with Bitcoin Who's Who on January 30, 2016: "I have yet to travel outside of the US, and am living on the west coast, near Santa Cruz, California." According to Sturdivant's account, he is an American, lives near Santa Cruz, California, was 19 years old on May 22, 2010, and has never left the United States. The widely circulated description of a "19-year-old Brit" does not align with firsthand records.

Hanyecz withdrew the open invitation on June 4, 2010, at 17:51:05 UTC, citing "I can’t afford more than this." Eight days later, on June 12, he reopened the invitation in msg=1526 and first provided USD anchoring: two pizzas approximately $25, possibly $30 with tips.

2.4 Third Layer: Centralized Matching with Continuous Quotes (From July 2010)

On July 18, 2010, at 01:57:19 UTC, the username mtgox announced in Bitcointalk topic=444 msg=3866: "Hi Everyone, I just put up a new bitcoin exchange." The operator behind this account is Jed McCaleb—founder of eDonkey, the original holder of the mtgox.com domain (abbreviated from Magic: The Gathering Online eXchange). The earliest Wayback Machine capture of mtgox.com was on August 17, 2007, about 17 months before the BTC genesis block; this domain was reactivated as a BTC exchange in July 2010.

In msg=3873 of the same thread (2010-07-18 02:15:09 UTC), McCaleb described the platform's quote structure: "Last Price ... High ... Low ... Volume ... Current Lowest Buy Price; Current Highest Sell Price ..."—this set of terms for "Last Price," "24-hour High and Low," "Volume," and "Best Bid and Ask" first appeared in the Bitcoin context, marking that BTC had developed a standard format for continuous quoting. The structural difference in mechanism is that matching occurs between users rather than through intermediary settlement, and the order book operates continuously, available 24/7.

From this moment, BTC gained external referentiality in the unit of account dimension—others could say "my thing is worth X BTC," and X BTC now had an uninterrupted USD indication. Mt.Gox was announced to be transferred by McCaleb to MagicalTux (the later Mark Karpeles) on March 6, 2011; after that, its fate followed another independent timeline, which will not be detailed here.

Chapter 3. Structural Similarity—Three Hundred Years of the Same Curve

The proposition of this chapter is: the three layers of mechanism evolution completed between October 2009 and July 2010—production cost anchoring → P2P matching discovery → centralized matching with continuous quotes—have comparable forms with various historical asset classes' evolutionary paths structurally. This chapter lists two cases for structural comparison without constructing a quantifiable cross-asset comparison model.

3.1 Amsterdam: 17th Century VOC Secondary Market

The Dutch East India Company (VOC) was established in 1602, issuing stock to 1,143 subscribers; stock transfers had to be recorded in person by the company’s clerk at East India House. This is generally recognized as one of the earliest identifiable scenes of a shared secondary market for equity.

The maturity of the price discovery mechanism appeared about half a century later. Lodewijk Petram stated in his 2011 PhD thesis "The World's First Stock Exchange" completed at the University of Amsterdam: the stock market evolved into a "modern securities market" between 1630 and 1650, during which a "continuous price discovery process formed." Petram's judgment is based on 851 pieces of 17th-century stock price observation data. These data did not come from official exchange records—both VOC and the exchange did not systematically record prices; the data is scattered in merchant correspondence, notarized documents, and occasional newspapers. The "dataset" of VOC stock prices in the 17th century itself grew out of private bookkeeping and oral exchange rates.

This is specifically aligned with the structural similarity of BTC's early path. The NLS formula for BTC is similar to the VOC quotes privately circulated among merchants in the 17th century: unilaterally published, privately recorded, lacking matched endorsement. Bitcoin Market for BTC is analogous to informal broker matching in the Amsterdam Beurs: publicly available but lacking standardized settlement. Mt.Gox for BTC is the starting point of institutionalized continuous quoting—not the endpoint.

3.2 Chicago: 19th Century CBOT Standardized Futures Contracts

The second comparison comes from 19th-century American grain trading. The Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) was established in 1848, originally as a spot trading venue for commodities. Around 1851, "to-arrive" forward contracts began circulating in CBOT—traders promised to deliver grain at a certain price on a future date.

The key institutional date for price discovery mechanism standardization is 1865. Both the historical archives of CME Group and the official history of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) record that CBOT introduced standardized futures contracts in May 1865 and established formal trading rules on October 13, 1865. There is some academic controversy about this—one view suggests mature futures trading did not appear until around 1874. This study adopts 1865 as the starting point while acknowledging this periodization debate.

The structural similarity of the CBOT path and the BTC path lies in: from decentralized bilateral forward contracts to standardized, transferable, margin-required, and delivery-rule-ensured futures contracts is the same curve of price discovery mechanism institutionalization. Chicago took 17 years, while Bitcoin took 9 months. The difference in time scale does not negate the structural similarity. All markets' price discovery does not start from exchanges; it grows out of specific bilateral transactions, oral exchange rates, and private bookkeeping.

3.3 The Explanatory Power and Boundaries of Structural Similarity

Placing BTC's early path within the three-hundred-year sequence of Amsterdam—Chicago—Bitcoin yields judgments at the mechanism level, not quantifiable models. Three assets, three institutional environments, three technological conditions, but the price discovery mechanisms follow the same broad path: private bookkeeping → public quoting → continuous matching. In other words, crypto derivative infrastructure is not invented ex nihilo; it exists within a financial institution evolution line spanning centuries.

This structural similarity argument is not a causal argument. It does not claim "BTC must follow the same path as VOC or grain futures," nor does it claim "all future digital assets will follow the same curve." It asserts that when observers face a new asset class, "the prehistory of price discovery mechanisms" is a more enduring research subject than "asset price trends."

Chapter 4. Acknowledging Limitations and Leaving Gaps

This article does not delve into contemporary price discovery mechanism comparative analysis. ETF fund flows, CME open interest, perpetual futures funding rates, on-chain market making—these are the current forms of this 16-year path, but the scope and methodology required to elaborate on them are left to subsequent research.

The counter signals to the core argument of this article are threefold. First, if academic or on-chain archaeological research reveals an earlier effective exchange rate publication entity existed prior to NewLibertyStandard, then the positioning of the "first publicly disclosed exchange rate" needs revision. Second, if the timestamps of the three core threads of Bitcointalk topic=20, topic=137, and topic=444 are disproved in the archival layer, then the event anchor points need to be reset. Third, if the "semantic leap of the unit of account" framework is replaced by a more precise theory of monetary function evolution, then the core argument requires revision.

This article acknowledges the following boundaries. First, "BTC's first functional fulfillment as a unit of account" is an interpretative proposition, not a complete establishment of its function in monetary definition. Second, referring to Bitcoin Market as "P2P matching discovery" is a simplification. Third, the structural similarity argument between Amsterdam and Chicago is only for comparative mechanisms and does not construct a quantifiable cross-asset comparison model. This article does not predict BTC price trends and does not make statements about BTC as a standalone asset's investment attributes.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。