My post is more about the "mission of BTC" while others like to focus on BTCs tradable value. However I can argue that if Bitcoin mission fails so will its value over time. Walk with me for a moment as I flesh out the problem in a timeline. At the moment in the US public companies and ETFS alone are holding 25% of total supply, another 40% is ownes by American individuals. Thats 65% American not even including Europe. Thats at least 70% of the total bitcoin supply thats legally under the pervue of the US government and Fed, thats one executive order away from freezing coinbase accounts and canceling an easy off ramp to fiat. How can BTC be close to a global reserve currency when over 7 billion people have no need or want for it. The Western bitcoiners are obsessed that BTC has to win but what im challenging everyone to ask themselves is, how relevant is BTC if 90% of the planet is building a new world without it or need for it? My guess is that if we were have a World War the US dollar wont mean much and the systems westerners want to implement may not be as appealing as they think they are to governments around the world as they imagine especially if its all locked up under the control of a few entities in the US.

Replies (2)

Default avatar
Deleted Account 5 months ago
The Bitcoin white paper doesn’t claim Bitcoin’s mission as becoming a global reserve currency—that’s just a possible outcome. Its core mission is to enable peer-to-peer electronic cash transactions without needing a trusted third party. About 15% of bitcoin supply is held under American jurisdiction, and your arguments involve many uncertainties. For an unbanked person in sub-Saharan Africa, the choice will be what is easiest and cheapest for them, which often is bitcoin despite owning fewer sats. They might use digital yuan or USDT temporarily, but if it inflates, they’ll move on. The Chinese yuan’s M2 money supply is around $46 trillion USD, backed by gold, while Bitcoin is worth about one-twentieth of that. Also, a digital yuan system carries similar counterparty risks linked to government control. Not saying that your arguments are wrong entirely, but they sound a bit doom and gloom to me.