The power is not orthogonal to the money. Purchasing power is the social function of money. Money is not merely optionality over physical goods. It is command over scarce human time, labor, attention, loyalty, coordination, protection, silence, influence, and violence. Yes, he can only sell 4% of the Bitcoin supply once. But that misses the point. If Bitcoin becomes the dominant world money, 4% is not “a bag he can dump.” It is a standing claim on a meaningful fraction of global economic potential. You do not need to sell all of it to project power. You can borrow against it. You can fund institutions. You can buy media. You can influence politicians. You can acquire companies. You can endow foundations. You can shape incentives. You can hire security. You can create dependency. You can move markets merely by threatening to act. That is not just optionality. That is latent power. Bitcoin solved the problem of corrupt issuance. It did not automatically solve the problem of concentrated ownership. A new global money has a legitimacy burden. People may tolerate early adopters becoming wealthy if ownership is distributed, inert, anonymous, or earned through broad contribution. But one visible corporate-political node controlling 4% of the eventual monetary base creates a power-load on the asset itself. The issue is not whether Bitcoin still works technically. It does. The issue is whether ordinary people will willingly adopt a money that appears to enthrone one identifiable actor with disproportionate claim over future human productivity. That is an adoption risk, a legitimacy risk, and eventually a political risk.