I don’t think they *voluntarily* surrender anything.
The game theory makes it so they must hold it, for their own survival (relevant searches: Nash equilibrium in a coordination game, prisoner’s dilemma, first mover advantage). They can still print to the extent that fiat currencies keep their entrenched network effects but it loses its benefit over time and hurts whatever legitimacy they have more and more. So if they’re smart they use at least part of the print to buy BTC.
This ultimately makes NGU which empowers early adopter (or any smart opportunist, really) to invest in / build infrastructure that goes completely around them.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
Okay so following that scenario
It's in everybody's best advantage to hold
and also everybody's best advantage to prevent others from holding no?
so we see an outright war on P2P exchange and efforts to be the first one to monopolize the network, no?
because of the total transparency they can leverage the threat of IRL violence to prevent free use.
having trouble seeing the inevitability of a Bitcoin standard here.