Bitcoin solved the problem of corrupt issuance. It did not solve the problem of concentrated ownership. If one identifiable corporate-political actor controls 4–5% of the eventual monetary base, that becomes a legitimacy problem for global adoption. People may tolerate early adopters becoming wealthy if the ownership is distributed, inert, or anonymous. They will be far less willing to adopt a new global money if doing so appears to enthrone one visible man or corporation with disproportionate claim on human economic potential.
Replies (6)
apply your hypothesis to the other monies on the table. wouldn't people avoid using Dollars if what you're saying is universally true?
This is a question of adoption, which is sticky. Dollars started out as 0.752-ounce of silver. That commodity money was converted to debt backed money during the wars. Bitcoin is starting out as a new commodity-based money, one without intrinsic use other than as money itself. That is a new thing and someone living that controls 5% of the supply is a liability on the asset itself.
look at rich european dynasties, kings and their kingdoms.
you can easily loose all your wealth. and it's been historically often the case.
one generation gets it the other will erode it, the third will loose it (not literally)
Again, I'm not proposing that Saylors power will be eternal. I'm saying adopting bitcoin will effectively mean giving Saylor power over you, where the alternative to bitcoin (the dollar) will not.
all I say is I don't see it as a problem.
I can appreciate that point of view. I'm only pointing it out because some people will sniff it out and not like it.
