Oddbean

Some people are scared that whales like Microstrategy owns too much Bitcoin, but they can’t use their wealth to print more Bitcoin like the wealthy Fiat people are doing today. Therefore it’s no big deal.

Yup. Since the position is illogocal I suspect that it is often a disingenious concern voiced by envious minds who would rather want their altcoin to have Bitcoin's dominant position as a store of value. Yet from basic logic we can expect that the hardest money will be popular as a store of value, both for companies and ETF providers. Those who understand hard money better than others will necessarily accumulate more of it and earlier. There is no alternate timeline where the hardest money does not become desirable. If we could restrict and prevent individuals and companies from buying a certain amount of Bitcoin, it wouldn't be an open and fair protocol. Only under communism is equal outcomes desirable - and it requires totalitarian measures to even aim at approximately achieve such a result.

Yes, they are impossible goals that lead to a central planning tyranny as they are attempted in practice. I'm not sure that there is a practical difference between a goal and a destination thar can't be reached - they both represent a directional vector. If I tell people that equality of outcomes is my goal, you can expect all kinds of restrictions that cages and incapacitates individual liberties in an attempt to prevent different outcomes. We can also predict that there will be groups of people that are given special privileges. In short: a recipe for totalitarianism under the banner of pretended justice.

In a track race, everyone starts when the gun sounds. Everyone has a fair chance. We watch the runners, and we watch for anyone who falls, ready to help them get back up and continue the race. We track the winners and celebrate them, but we also encourage all of the runners to cross the finish line to the best of their ability. I disagree with people that everyone must run at the same rate, that eliminates the very concept of the contest. I also disagree with people who say that all of the rewards should only go to the winner, because that discourages people who know they are not fast runners. Equality of outcome is not the goal. Equality of opportunity and making sure that nobody cheats and that nobody gets hurt, those are goals worth striving for.

Agreed. And we may also divide contests into niches where individuals with similar ability can have a meaningful competition. This makes sense in terms of male vs female boxing as well as different weight classes. The equality aspect is that everyone is playing by the same rules. When someone needs different rules this encourages the creation of new sport categories. I also support equality of opportunity. Nobody should be held down and/or prevented from achieving their potential. The only problem is when "equal opportunity" interpreted as creating an equal starting point for everyone - which is impossible. There is nothing wrong with helping and aiding others to have a better starting point. Yet the variability in passion, creativity, experience, determination, skill, focus, stamina and ability are so great that equalizing the starting point may inspire some people to cut down the high achievers to achieve some kind of equality utopia. Example of when equal opportunity becomes harmful: https://image.nostr.build/25e303f46d204fcf4a42d5543a564a9f0be589ce58f41208e51116fc159377b7.jpg